Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov't Plans To Censor "Extremist" Websites Via Orders To ISPs
Not content with blacklisting certain kinds of pornography, writes an anonymous reader, according to this news from The Guardian, "The UK government is to order broadband companies to block extremist websites and empower a specialist unit to identify and report content deemed too dangerous for online publication. The crime and security minister, James Brokenshire, said on Wednesday that measures for censoring extremist content would be announced shortly. The initiative is likely to be controversial, with broadband companies already warning that freedom of speech could be compromised."
n/t
When Terrorism is 'Any action that is intended to influence the government', what is extremism? Any idea that the current sitting government doesn't like?
There was once another group of people that went out of their way to censor information their people received, to hide atrocities committed in their name and smash an idea that didn't fit the party line.
As I recall, at one stage, the UK did quite a bit to stop them.
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
Theres a lot of them in the States, but I don't suppose they count.
On both ends of the political spectrum
Already recommended Slashdot to them. They said there wasn't enough CP or threats of violence on here yet, but they'll be working hard to fix that problem.
Its almost like they WANT an uprising on their hands...
..if this kind of shit continues.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Historically, far and away the most dangerous information a web site can host is the idea it's good, necessary, and proper for a government to have the power to censor.
That's just based on a silly metric called megadeaths, though.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"The government is to order broadband companies to block extremist websites and empower a specialist unit to identify and report content deemed too dangerous for online publication."
That would be anything that either embarrasses the government or any of the F500 corporations or otherwise interferes with them
shitting all over you and your family and stomping you flat if you object.
Maybe they should block the government's web site.
Extremism is anything which the government doesn't like.
You saw the Prime Minister steal a candy bar? Don't tell anyone about it, extremist.
The Internet has truly become the Volksempfanger - a method of distributing government propaganda while limiting "pirate" content.
God is perfectly just. False witness is a high crime. I judge you, not you judge me. God says... C:\TAD\Text\DARWIN.TXT boulders, crossing the Portillo valley, which, there can hardly be a doubt, once formed a huge moraine; and Mr. D. Forbes informs me that he found in various parts of the Cordillera, from latitude 13 to 30 degrees south, at about the height of 12,000 feet, deeply-furrowed rocks, resembling those with which he was familiar in Norway, and likewise great masses of detritus, including grooved pebbles. Along this whole space of the Cordillera true glaciers do not now exist even at much more considerabl
i can still access my bitcoin acct.so just more scripted pr firm deceptive blather is expected
Compare and contrast the comments herein with the comments of this other thread. Note the framing words used in each headline -- One says "Extremist" the other one "Radical". This allows us to compare the interchangeable terms in big O notation: Whereby O( 1 ) is clear and unbiased news, and higher big Orwellian factors indicate additional obfuscation and framing complexity to add connotative bias where none is required.
and EVERYBODY knows what will be the next steps. Go on, the frog is still comfortable in the warm water.
Sites that disagree with the government line? But facebook beheadings are presumably not extremist enough..
"The initiative is likely to be controversial, with broadband companies already warning that freedom of speech could be compromised."
freedom of speech is a total fiction anyway...there is a plethora of restrictions on free speech, not the least being having to be careful of what you say in social settings as to not alienate yourself from whatever group your are trying to gain favor in.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Always the trend setters they are, except when it comes to rock 'n roll...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We all knew it was only the beginning when they started with the censorship.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the web. Britons never, never, never shall be smart!
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
I guess the British government morons who thought this idiocy up ...
have never heard of servers which are located in areas
which do not fall under their jurisdiction
One man's extremism is another man's passion for truth and the rights of the people.
Great, UK, one of great U.S. allies is following the Australia and Chinese models of censoring what the government doesn't like. We should send the IRS and Obama handles, err, Democratic operatives, over there to teach them how to violate the citizens freedom of speech rights in a more subtle manner.
"The more you tighten your grip... the more bits will simply slip through your fingers."
Seriously though, censorship? "1984" was a warning, NOT A BLOODY GUIDEBOOK!
The UK Gov't has its head up its ass.
I remember that there was great controversy about the Taliban, then in control of the country of Afghanistan. I would go to www.taliban.com and read what they had to say. It was in English. Then in July it was hacked and the front page was replaced by a picture of the American flag. A month or so later the United States invaded Afghanistan. A month after that www.taliban.com disappeared from the Internet.
The United States of America does not have to block web sites. If they don't like you, you just cease to exist. They control the top level domain names, right?
Oddly enough, I see that there is a site there now. I'll have to check it out.
It is true that exposure to truth tends to radicalize people. I say again that no government wants the population to have freedom in communications. People who think a lot can be difficult to control. Secrecy is a form of conspiracy in and of itself. Hiding truth tends to maintain social customs. And people can be manipulated simply by hiding the truth. Right now we have a lot of issues with terrorists from the Arab nations. Apparently they have some dream of bring back the caliphate. But how many of these Arabs are even aware that the caliphate was Ottoman and that Arabs were not particularly respected nor valued by the Turks who controlled the caliphate. For an Arab to dream of the joy of living under the caliphate is roughly equivalent to a German Jew dreaming of the good old days when the Reich was in total control of Germany.
A comparison in six words:
"It's OK when we do it."
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Piggybacking on your post for visibility.
Time for a new limey song... (Score:-1)
==
by JockTroll (996521) on Thursday November 28, 2013 @12:25PM (#45549631)
Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the web. Britons never, never, never shall be smart!
==
So will they have to censor their own websites?
Or do we raise our right hand und sieg heil?
The Internet began as a freedom of speech thing the same way me standing in a park did. But that was in the '80s. Now, the Internet acts as a full publication and broadcast system, like me putting up a six-storey banner on the side of a skyscraper.
There have always been laws governing what you can say in a public arena.
Today, it's the norm for 3-year olds to use online systems, as well as educational institutions, and a whole host of real-world legitimate and vital purposes. It's no longer an optional activity at all in most circles.
So the question to ask yourself: is there anything that you wouldn't accept painted onto the side of a downtown building? You can always walk a different way to work and not see it. I'll bet there's something that you would call inappropriate as a public display. It may be something as simple as your grandparents kissing.
Whatever it is, that's what we've come to. And it's no surprise. For all the reasons that broadcasts have ever been appropriately restricted, so should the internet be.
Now, you can certainly complain with the way that it's done. You can be upset at the sheer number of false positives. You can be correct in saying that it may actually be impossible or unfeasible to enforce. But then that becomes the debate, not the need for the restriction in the first place.
Satan's D1ck And Website. Mr. de
When Tony Blair rose to power, he took a tighter grip of all the significant institutions that run the UK than any previous person in British history. You can compare Blair to Putin, although Blair's control of Britain is far more complete, comprehensive, and more importantly sustainable, than anything Putin could hope to achieve in Russia.
When Labour was in 'power' Blair was able to smash through a raft of sickening depraved changes, but was limited by what the public thought acceptable from a Labour flavoured government. The second half of Blair's agenda had to wait until he placed a seemingly 'right wing' government in power, although everything the current Liberal-Conservative coalition is currently inflicting on the country was designed and detailed by Blairites when Blair was formally the 'Prime Minister'.
The new age of CENSORSHIP in the UK has nothing really to do with controlling British sheeple- they are already as domesticated as a monster like Blair could need. What is happening in the UK is for a vastly more evil purpose. Britain is still influential across the planet. There is still the widespread concept that if the Brits think a given idea is 'good', then that idea is really worth implementing in other nations.
In nations most friendly with Blair, you can see the most appalling attacks against every kind of Human freedom. And these nations justify, at the highest level, their crackdowns by referring to current policies in the UK. Protest, without prior State approval, is technically illegal in the UK. The mere act of protesting is a CRIME is any person claims any aspect of the protest is 'offensive' - and EVERY crime in the UK is an arrestable offence, where the police have an automatic right (if they wish) to raid your home and confiscate all your electronic devices and other records.
In Britain, the 'proportionality' is simply that most protesters are NOT arrested, and their homes not raided, BUT the legal framework is there to do precisely this. In an nation like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Egypt, simple protesters are arrested, and their homes are raided, with the governments of these nations explaining that their laws and legal powers are the SAME as in the UK, and this is totally true. Blair has created the most atrocious police state powers in Britain, precisely so other nations can implement the same, and unlike the UK, use the laws in the most widespread fashion.
Let me make this easier to understand. Imagine that Blair legalised SLAVERY in the UK, but the actual ownership of slaves in Britain was near zero. Now imagine Blair ensured his people justified the slavery laws daily in Britain's mainstream media. The result of this would be other nations adopting full blown slavery, justified by the British example. Obviously, today slavery is largely pointless for industrialised economic reasons, but a 19th Century Blair, ensuring that Britain fully supported the principle of Human slavery regardless of the number of actual slaves in the UK itself, would have change the course of Human History.
Britain is a full blown police state. The vile shills that say this is not so, simply because Britain is NOT enforcing Blair's police state laws on a large scale deliberately miss the point. Blair is a monster infinitely more sophisticated than a Stalin, Hitler or Mao. He gutted the British will to fight back when Britain saw its biggest mass protest ever, with the march against Blair's invasion of Iraq. Blair created an official so-called anti war movement (the British perfected concept of 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' used so powerfully across the History of the British Empire) and put at its head his lieutenant, George Galloway, so that the co-opted movement could be safely run into the ground.
The failure of the people to stop their war criminal leader deflated the will of the people, and Blair steamed ahead, eventually introducing his Blair Brainwashing factories called 'Academy Schools' (slightly based on US Charter Schools), to ensure that future generations of Brits
So many have battled external enemies for our freedom. Fought and died for freedom. Yet, despite the fact that the majority of people agree that the average polititian is pretty much pond scum, we still allow them to take our freedom without even a whimper. What all outside fources have failed to do we do to ourselves. God help us all...
This is a slippery slope, and I've been assured here on many occasions that slippery slopes are a logical fallacy.
Go to Report online terrorist and extremist material and do your civic duty to report extremists websites that UK citizens should be protected from!
I myself have reported the site, http://www.jamesbrokenshire.com/ as example of a radical extremist who wants prevent British citizens from being exposed to alternative opinions and information and making up their own minds as to their validity which runs counter to government sanctioned media outlets. I encourage other people to utilize this website pronto and start identifying those freedom hating websites out there. And if you are worried about the UK government getting all in your business by reporting an extremist website? Well, don't be because the site has this disclaimer on it:
Report illegal terrorist or violent extremist information, pictures or videos on the internet. Your report will be treated anonymously.
You may not recall, but there have been repeated promises that the UK censorship would never be used, cross our black little politicians' hearts honest, for anything except the most grave and depraved child abuse pictures.
That already went out the window with the general ban on porn and the resulting requirement to phone in and admit you're a pervert, to (in the law's honest-like-spammers-are-honest terminology) "opt out" of filtering. If anyone still believed it would stay limited and the ban on wikipedia was "just" an accident.
So this is no surprise. It's entirely logical. And yet another proof that promises from politicians are exactly that: Devoid of value, consistency, sense, or any purpose beyond "votes", no matter the cost to the country or its citizens.
In 1985 Margaret Thatcher gave a speech to the American Bar Association in which she said "we must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend". This led to a ban on broadcast of utterances by republican politicians supportive of the Provisional IRA, which in turn led to the absurd situation of news programmes showing video of politicians such as Gerry Adams speaking but with the audio replaced by an actor's voice.
It only drew attention to the extremist's cause, as will be the case here.
pi = 2*|arg(God)|
...the name of the Minister, Mr. Brokenshire.
:-)
Since "shire" is a county in the UK (i.e., a political subdivision) that translates directly to Mr. "Broken" "Government."
Couldn't have named him much better, myself
Anyone who opposes the actions of the government.
please name names, without a reference, nobody can search for Australian and Chinese models.... i heard Obama`s starting a new swimsuit edition, "Bad-Sports, Illustrated by their constitutionalviolations
Whether or not this becomes a freedom of speech issue depends upon many factors, one of which is the definition of free speech. Personally I draw the line at encouraging people to commit material crimes (e.g. murder) and at intentionally fabricating false information with the intent to harm others (e.g. accusing a person of rape when they did not commit that crime). Yet even if we all agreed upon that definition, there is the question of exactly what constitutes extremism and how that translates into law enforcement in practice.
For example: I am perfectly fine with a bunch of people with extreme views discussing how terrible the government is and how it should be changed, and I am fine with them spreading their message. It doesn't matter whether I agree with them or disagree with them. I am even fine with them discussing legal means of changing the government in order to reflect their perspective, even though I would be sure to oppose such changes if their views are actually that extreme. Yet I do have an issue with the promotion of violence and inciting terror in order to impose their views upon others. There are ample reasons for that, ranging from the intimidation tactics that people use in their everyday life to impose their will upon others to more extreme political movements that have resorted in anything from wholesale oppression to genocide.
Sorry if this sounds a little mean, but the populace have done fuck all to stop censorship, the erosion of freedom of thought, speech, expression.
They just continually bend over and let the government do whatever they want.
Fuck 'em!
There was a story at The Guardian some months ago about internal government documents that had labeled mainstream environmentalists as extremists.
Why not let them conduct this "experiment"?
The results will be useful as a negative example.
And just make sure the people responsible are not forgotten.
Some ministry of the UK government tried contacting us in regard to content filtering. But we had already blacklisted them as a member of an extremist totalitarian regime. So their communication was blocked.
Have gnu, will travel.
Good on them for having some cojones.
And who knows, maybe the crazy nut job Arabs will find their way home for their freedom. Well, maybe if they like to live in mob-ruled chaos vs. a civilized country. l Why try to live in 21st century Britain when they could be with their brothers in 7th century paradise?
The same idiots on Slashdot who mod down any comments about how the banks, media, government, etc. are owned and run by JEWS, are the ones who will now whine about this.
The JEWS are terrified because their 'holocaust' lie is being exposed all over the internet, just like Sandy Hook, the Boston 'bombings', the Aurora cinema 'shootings', 9/11, etc.etc.
In my view, spying on innocent citizens, sharing information with foreign nations and dictating what supposedly free people can read is extremism.
I am not free to marry a little girl. The old testament is fine with me doing that, your modern religion/government is not. I am not more free.
So, Energy from Thorium (promoted, in part, by an international group, which just concluded its 2013 Conference, at CERN, in Geneva) could be deemed as a -commercially- extreme concept, eg, since - if/when Thorium-/LFTR-based nuclear power (cf the recently released eBook "Nuclear 2.0") begins to replace fossil-fueled & even Uranium-based powe plants - a number of well-endowed commercial interests may feel unduly threatened by EfT.
Could the info & organisations who would like to bring EfT -sooner- into pur energy markets be deemed "extremists" & see their web sites, etc. get blocked 8n the UK, etc.?
I'm astounded this got modded up. We ALREADY have enslavement. We will need one or more miracles to get ourselves out of the present rush toward disaster.
Russia and China welcome a new ally in a wight for greater good.
Love the ride down that slope.. ( it accelerates towards the end, so bring seat belts )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Censorship is a policy of extremists, so lets get those Totalitarian Tory pages down.
"This from the country that banned Michael Savage"
I don't understand this. You realise most countries deny entry every single day for various reasons including the US for the reason we banned Michael Savage?
The only reason it was news when the UK did it is precisely because it was a big deal and precisely because the UK has historically had one of the most liberal border crossings in the world.
Even supposedly liberal Canada I was very nearly refused entry into once simply because the customs officer did not believe I was not there to work for the simple fact I took a laptop with me when I really was just there for a holiday. Apparently he couldn't comprehend why someone would take a laptop on holiday. It was only when I asked for British consular advice that they said okay and stopped harassing me and let me get on with my holiday.
There is no inherent right to cross a nation's borders, and people get refused every single day for far less than hate speech. Just because the UK has started doing it too in a very small fringe amount of cases doesn't make it exceptional, though it did make it newsworthy precisely because we did used to let the likes of Abu Hamza et. al. in - in this respect we've always been much more tolerant of controversial speakers than even the US.
Michael Savage is a talk show host. Lumping him in with terrorist is ridiculous and only served the liberal wing who doesn't want to hear opposing views. So tell my why a Conservative speaker should be banned for any reason other than liberal censorship. That was when you crossed a line that you can't go back from. Israel is pretty much the best ally the U.S. has at this point although Obama and the Democrats have instituted more Socialism now than Canada and the U.K..
They're not lumping him in with terrorists any more than Canada was lumping me in with terrorists because one customs officer couldn't believe I'd take a laptop on a private holiday.
"and only served the liberal wing who doesn't want to hear opposing views"
By definition, if they don't want to hear opposing views, then they're not liberal.
"liberal censorship."
Again, I don't think you know what liberalism is. "Liberal censorship"- I'll try and help you understand why that statement is stupid. It's a bit like saying "male women", or talking about the colour "black white". These things are diametrically opposed. The worst part of your whole argument is that your conservative speaker was banned by a home secretary with conservative views and the ban later upheld by the Conservative party. Where are these mystical liberals you talk of that were involved? Calling Jacqui Smith liberal is pretty comical given that she was the one who tried to push through some of the most illiberal laws the UK has seen in decades.
"That was when you crossed a line that you can't go back from."
A line that pretty much every other nation on earth already crossed years before us including the US? Oh no, we're damned!
"Israel is pretty much the best ally the U.S. has at this point"
Erm, you know Israel has denied entry to far more people for their political views than Britain ever has right? I mean, we're talking about Israel here, the country that built a wall to hold an entire fucking race of people from entering just for being that race. So what you're saying is it's okay for Israel to do that sort of thing - it makes them awesome, but if Britain does it once or twice with a handful of specific individuals it's a problem? Please explain how you justify your hypocrisy, I'm intrigued to know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to perform in your head for this to make any kind of sense.
"although Obama and the Democrats have instituted more Socialism now than Canada and the U.K.."
It doesn't look like you understand what socialism is either.
Tell me, why do you use terms you don't understand? You know it makes you look really really stupid right?
Wow, love the insults. Nice job. I can always tell a liberal then the insults have more substance than the content or when their lips are moving, you take your pick. Unfortunately, your definition of liberal no longer applies to the real world but please keep holding on to that. Liberals are about free speech, unless it disagrees with them. And your definition of Conservative in Great Britain died with Maggie Thatcher. Unfortunately, she was the last one with any gonads who have led your country. Your view on Israel is simply a denial of the maniacal radical fundamentalist terrorists that exist only to kill the Jewish race. Israel has every right to contain this disease and exterminate as necessary. Since Iran is funding these psychos, Israel has every right to do whatever they need to since nobody else will, including President Idiot Obama. What part of my explanation are you not going to twist with lies. I know exactly what a Socialist is and the failures of every single one of them. If you think insulting me makes you look better, I really don't care. You clearly have no moral or ethical foundation to stand on based on your positions. I know the Democratic party in the United States would gladly accept you if you decide to come here.
Really nice of the government to issue a required reading list for rebels!
Thank you for answering my question about what mental gymnastics you need to perform to come up with the hypocritical nonsense you do - long story short it sounds like you just pretend reality isn't and referring terms incorrectly to sit you nonsense world view?
You're everything that makes America bad, you're the reason America is in decline. Congratulations on your failure to be a net benefit to the world, you must be proud.
I know you can't mean the American South.
Of course he does. This guy is yet another one of those Fucking Retards(TM) who lives somewhere in this country not designed as "Flyover States", who sits atop his golden throne in some rotten shithole like Seattle or D.C., passing judgement on those "retards" in the South whom he has never even met or spoken to and knows nothing about, other than what he's heard from CNN or his fellow modernist libtards. In fact his first real in-person encounter with our people will probably be in the form of catching a hollow point to the dome. That's the inevitable result of his special brand of stupidity. It's not surprising to note that he will never even see it coming.
There are a few seriously dangerous websites out there, such as those that show the USA and UK both made and tested nuclear bombs made from waste nuclear generator material. Just perhaps some of this information shouldn't be so widely available. The fact that it is, sheds light on the USA wanting very close monitoring of Iran's nuclear program. But more importantly, once 'extremist' censorship is in place, Government 'National Security' agenda can and often does include things that governments don't want revealed either because they are embarrassing or not what the Government wants publicly revealed. The UK Government is trying without success to censor some of Snowden's revelations but if such a law was in place, I doubt if any of Snowden's revelations would ever have seen the light of day in the USA and UK. .
What tends to happen though is that once the machinery is in place legislatively, websites get censored without the government revealing who they censor, which is an extremely worrying trend. The UK censors about 30 P2P sites as facilitating preventing piracy of copyright material, but for example, many unsigned bands depend on these sites to get their music heard. Also, the Government doesn't themselves reveal sites blocked. we have only found this out from ISPs. I imagine in the USA they would also prevent ISPs from revealing blocked sites.