Slashdot Mirror
'Extreme' Web Sites Under Fire From UK Police
An anonymous reader writes "A conference on electronic crime, taking place in London this week, has thrown up some interesting news. Britain's top hi-tech police officer has demanded a crackdown on Web sites devoted to 'abhorrent' subjects such as cannibalism and necrophilia. What happened to freedom of expression online?"
IF (and only IF) it's illegal and/or incites to commit illegal acts, then good riddance.
Freedom of expression is not freedom from responsibility.
And sadly, it's clearly not freedom from stupidity either.
So did the guy who strangled the person decide to do it after visiting the necrophilia website or did he visit the website because he was already into necrophilia? I am not a big expert of necrophilia but somehow I don't think it is something you see a picture of and go - oh I liked to do that, let me go murder somebody.
Here in the USA, we have a big fuss over seeing one female breast exposed on national TV. Meanwhile, in London there's a newspaper that makes a point of publishing a photo of a topless model on one of the first few pages.
In parts of Europe, pro-Nazi material that we're willing to tolerate in the USA is absolutely forbiden, particularly in the places that were invaded during World War II. We can write off Nazis as political loonies, but those places feel terror when the topic is brought up since they saw it first hand.
So, what's taboo here might be fine there, and what's taboo there might be fine here. It's one of the problems that the Internet runs into as the first truely global medium.
So, because something is illegal to do, you believe it should be illegal to discuss? There's a difference in describing how to cook a human for eating, and in encouraging someone to go kill someone to eat.
I cringed when I read that. Everyday the internet is becoming more of a corperate-controlled broadcast medium.
From what I could gather from a quick Google, both necrophilia and cannibalism are illegal in the U.K. (someone correct me if I'm wrong), in which case posting web sites advertising that you're doing it would be pretty dumb. The parallel for Americans would be something like hosting child pornography on your server for public consumption -- not only would you be doing something illegal, but you'd be publicizing about it at the same time.
If the contents on a website are illegal, then it must be shut down. If the contents on a web site are considered extremely objectional, but if they are not illegal, then the police should simply leave it alone.
This guy may be applauded for trying to make "the Internet a more law-abiding place" as long he remembers it's not for him to define "law-abiding".
There is a big difference between committing an illegal act and talking about it. A site with pedophilia is committing an illegal act. A site that talks about Pedophilia is not. Same goes for necrophilia. If there are pictures of people having sex with indisputably dead people (and not made up actors) then it is illegal. If they only talk about it it is not illegal.
What happened to freedom of expression online
Freedom of anything is going the way of the 8-track tape.
The terrorists seem to have won.
I'm not trying to flame, but what if online freedom includes child porn? Or people being murdered while being taped and then the movies played out online? If we outlaw these isn't that a "freedom of experssion" also?
I know, it's an extreme. But where do we draw that line? The line may be in different places for different people. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who's the one saying who's right and wrong? Why do tornados always hit moble homes? Why does the phone always ring when you're in the shower? I digress..
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
"*I was in in Pittsburgh one year when the KKK was given the right to march and hold a rally espousing their racist views. Is this what Freedom of Speech was meant for?"
Yes, that is PRECISELY what freedom of speech, as set out in the U.S. Constitution's first amendment was meant for.
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." --Voltaire
I was in in Pittsburgh one year when the KKK was given the right to march and hold a rally espousing their racist views. Is this what Freedom of Speech was meant for?
Just wanted to answer this from a US/Libertarianish point of view.
Freedom of Expression/Speech only works if people can really say what they want to say. We do have some practical limits on speech, primarily of the sort that says "Say what you want to say, but don't actually harm anyone by saying it." Common examples of what's not ok include yelling "Fire!" in a movie house (people get hurt), libel/slander (actually damage someone with a lie), and physical threats. Some would argue that even those things shouldn't be illegal, but I think the line is drawn at a pretty appropriate place.
With those limits defined, if we start allowing any censorship based on a political/religious/philosophical/scientific basis, then no speech is truly protected. We start down a slippery slope where someone can ban or suppress speech because it doesn't agree with whatever the current political/religious climate is. Pretty soon, you're not allowed to publish an article criticizing the government because it's tantamount to terrorism! You're not allowed to criticize the clergy because you're trying to corrupt morals! You're not allowed to criticize the police because you're inciting a riot!
So, to preserve the freedom of speech, we have to preserve the freedom of all speech. Even speech which we find personally distasteful, immoral, or downright putrid. My personal opinion is that what the KKK has to say indicates that the whole lot of 'em are prime candidates for natural selection. And yet, to misquote Voltaire, I would fight to the death to defend their right to say it. Because in so doing, I defend my own right to say what I wish.
And if you think that you really have free speach in the US try having a discussion on paedophilia and see how far you get. Not that I advocate it, but the subject is so highly charged that you risk being pilloried just for mentioning it.
People have done so, and probably will again. They're likely to run up against some sort of local "obscenity" law, but if they fight it they will win. Larry Flynt was the perfect example of this when he fought to be allowed to publish his Hustler magazine. The Supreme Court came out with a ruling that even though the speech may be obscene by community standards, it is still protected speech.
Try to publish kiddie porn, though, and they'll haul you away. Because kiddie porn is causing harm to someone. The kids! (See paragraph about practical limits above.)
Cool! It was only a matter of time before someone linked necro/cannibal fantasy websites with paedophilia and Terrorism!
The big bad terrorists are brainwashing folks via necrophilia sites! Doomed! We're all doomed!
This whole argument is ridiculous, telling me I can't express whatever the fuck I want on my own website. This isn't child porn. This is a *fantasy* fulfillment, for people with admittedly deviant tastes.
This issue is moot though...just because some 72 yo gramma in the UK wants someone to "crack down" on a "bad things" to "protect us" from "them", doesn't mean squat. If they want to force a webmaster's ISP to shut him down, he can be back up and running in minutes on a more business savvy and less intrusive host in another country.
Say it with me...there is not, and has never been, any conclusive proof that *viewing* fantasy material forces someone to *act* in mimicry of said material.
I don't see any links here, so how can you say what, exactly, anyone did or did not view? Did Ozzie make that kid kill himself? Do people really have sex with dead people after listening to The Beatles backwards?
Knee-jerk reactionism is not the answer to life's problems, people. Bad things happen, and frequently they happen to good people. This does not mean that you or anyone else has a right to tell me how to live, within a reasonable expectation. I leave you alone, I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
Now excuse me while I go watch an episode of the Sopranos, followed by Sex in the City. I then plan on going out and killing some people, gangland style, followed by some nice hot sex with wealthy, Urban-chic chicks.
If you are transmitting images the production of which violated someone else's human rights, is that acceptable?
Free communication includes the transmission of state secrets, disclosure of state security vulnerabilities etc. All societies need protection against that. By your reasoning, all societies should be destroyed and replaced as soon as possible.
Crying out loud. The British Government does not (and hasn't for the last 200 years) derive its authority from the Crown. The US Consitution *does* lay down what the rights of US citizens are courtesy of the decrees that the contributing States must accord with. I know that and I'm not a Yank (there is a God.) Additionally, the moron who declared that suspects are guilty until proven innocent is clearly one wave short of a shipwreck. D'you think that 'Murrica *really* made up its laws without any reference material? That the Senate is the bastion of the World's original democracy? Get a clue, dood.
## NB: Comment here
OK as a lawyer please let me put an end to all the crap on this thread.
The British and American legal systems are extremely similar to each other. Not surprising since the US legal system was inherited from the British, and the British hasn't changed much in 300 years (that's why we wear the same gowns and wigs we wore back in 1700).
BOTH are common law systems, meaning that while the legislature makes the laws, the judges interpret them and the judge's interpretation of the law is the law (until it's appealed). As a result both have a legislative tradition of writing very detailed laws. By contrast, the continental 'Roman law' system depends upon broad legal principles, with judges filling in the gaps according to circumstance.
BOTH have the presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (Both ignore this presumption if you're a foreign muslim.)
BOTH require, for guilty verdict in criminal law (and with very few exceptions), the accused to have the intention to commit a crime as well as actually performing the action. For example, if I took your new iPod, but in the honest belief that it was my new iPod, it would not be theft. The idea that it's an offence to carry a box of matches is ridiculous. It's an offence to carry a box of matches if it can be proved that you were on the way to burn down a house. A big difference.
The only real difference is that the US has a written constitution, while the UK relies upon evolved constitutional norms. Both these systems have their strengths and their failings. Up until a couple of years ago I'd have said the UK was doing better but now the current British government appears to have decided to flush our constitution down the toilet I'm not so sure. Then again Bush, Ashcroft et al. seem to get away with ignoring large chunks of the US constitution, so maybe it makes no difference anyway.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.