Slashdot Mirror
UK Pressures the US To Takedown Extremist Videos
chrb writes "BBC News and the Telegraph are reporting that the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos, particularly on YouTube. The request follows the conviction of a 21-year-old woman who attempted to murder MP Stephen Timms after watching YouTube videos of radical American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. YouTube hosts more than 5,000 videos featuring al-Awlaki, but has begun to remove them following the British government's complaints. The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK. They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good. If they were hosted in the UK then we would take them down but this is a global problem. Many of these websites are hosted in America and we look forward to working even more closely with you to take down this hateful material.'"
...they hate us for our freedom.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
We have freedom of speech. The UK is just going to have to deal with it.
Doesn't have the same dramatic kick as it did in the late 1700s.
...and set up the Great Firewall of Britain. Err. The United Firewall Kingdom. The Duchy of Cornfirewall? The sun never sets on the British Firewall? Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday firewall? Robin Hood, setting the walls of the castle on firewall?
Anybody got any better names for it?
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
We'll consider doing it when you get around to exempting Americans from libel tourism in your courts.
Hey, UK, maybe if you stop trying to control what people are allowed to say they'll be less likely to want you to be blown up.
I seem to recall that the British had a problem with the US's freedom before anyone else did.
How are those gun rights working out for you chaps across the pond?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I suppose being stabbed instead of shot is a huge improvement. Hooray for the UK, home to the EU's highest rate of violent crime!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Ok, but this isn't the UK so shut your face. Here even if we don't like what is being said, its your right to say it, without being harassed by the government.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Let's examine this list shall we? "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". So the US government has no authority to limit what we say or publish. States may or may not be able to limit speech, depending on their constitutions, but we're mainly focused on the National government for this topic.
>>> Obscenity
You are free to say any obscenity you wish. The only exception is on broadcast TV or radio, but you're free to say it online, on cable, in books, in person, and so on.
>>> Fighting words
>>> Incitement to imminent lawless action
>>> True threats
>>> Blackmail
The Supreme Court made several rulings in the volatile 60s and 70s that fighting words ARE protected speech, because "sometimes in the volatile arena of protest, people say things in anger [such as death threats] but without intent to act." They then concluded only the ACT is prosecutable, or if a clear-and-present threat exists (such as a gun), but otherwise the words are protected. i.e. If you are unarmed you can say anything you want.
>>> Defamation (includes libel, slander)
That's not illegal at the US level... only the state level... therefore not relevant to the UK-US topic.
>>> Child pornography
Child porn is not illegal; the Sex Act is illegal, because it's statutory rape, and the image is connected to that. Also child nudity is protected speech, which is why nudist websites are allowed to exist online. Many assume a photo of a nude child is a crime but it's perfectly legal.
>>> Perjury
That's because you swore an oath not to lie. If you do not swear the oath, you are free to perjure all you wish.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>And, for the record, the Supreme Court CAN interpret the constitution as they like.
False. "There is not a word in the Constitution which has given power to decide on the constitutionality of a law to the Supreme Court, more than to the Executive or Legislative branches..... The ultimate arbiter is the people and states of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. " --Thomas Jefferson
And: ""To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so... Their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
This clause gives the Supreme Court power to *judge cases*.
The End. It does NOT give them power to nullify laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Or to nullify State laws duly passed in according with their local constitution. Such a power, if it exists, only lies with the States (10th amendment) or the Congress (repeal a law they previously passed).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Slight correction:. The *US* government may not imprison protesters, but the State governments certainly can, per whatever their local constitutions say.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
No offense England but .... you lost the Revolutionary War, you don't define the rights of people on this continent.