Slashdot Mirror
Cameron Says People Radicalized By Free Speech; UK ISPs Agree To Censor Button
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Techdirt: A few years ago, we mocked then Senator Joe Lieberman's request that internet companies put "report this content as terrorist content" buttons on various types of online content. The plan went nowhere, because it's a really bad idea, prone to massive abuse. Yet, over in the UK, some apparently think it's such a grand idea that they're actually moving forward with it. This isn't a huge surprise — the current UK government has been going on for quite some time about banning "extremist" content, and just recently ramped up such efforts. And now it appears that a bunch of big UK broadband access providers have agreed to play along: The UK's major Internet service providers – BT, Virgin, Sky and Talk Talk – have this week committed to host a public reporting button for terrorist material online, similar to the reporting button which allows the public to report child sexual exploitation. They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.
go wrong?
A lot of people are going to complain about the freedom of speech or expression, but that's a pretty American thing. Most countries have limited freedoms of speech, the UK included. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... I wish more countries had absolutely protected speech, but somehow things that are "offensive" to any ONE person are vilified. I'm sure a lot of people would have wanted to censor MLK Jr. and others, it's not just terrorists and nazi's that use freedom from opression to get their points heard. It seems a lot of people forget that.
Make this such an onerous burden that the ISPs are forced to either withdraw their support, or just censor everything that is flagged without checking it. To do this, report everything that is remotely political as "extremist" and "radicalizing". When the politicians themselves are the targets of their bad law, they just might take a hint.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Has there ever been a censorship campaign without some allegedly noble objective? I certainly can't remember anyone standing up and saying "Yeah, it's forbidden because we are basically evil like that." There is always a threat to the children, social order, national security, etc.
Nice work, Airstrip One.
You're a terrorist, and you're a terrorist, EVERYBODY IS A TERRORIST!!!! AAAA
Can we get a button for lying, scumbag, politicians (sorry to be redundant)?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
https://www.gov.uk/
Here we are on a site where strangers can rate what we say, potentially burying it where others won't get the chance to read it, and we're complaining that governments are vaguely coming around to the same idea? Aww, come on now, haven't we gotten this pattern yet? Legislators are always going to be years behind everybody else in leveraging tech, and will always try to apply it on a broader scale. Do I need to start listing all the sites that have user moderation, post or content scoring, or "report" buttons?
Obviously, because there are so many websites that make it work, there are ways to make it work. Whether it will be abused by consumers (including trolls, shills, marketers, etc etc) to the point of uselessness depends entirely upon the implementation. Whether it will be abused by politicians to control the ideas we're exposed to ultimately depends upon the same thing it always has: whether we keep talking to each other.
The concept we have all gotten used to by now is that we have the right to speak, but not a right to be heard. Again, the fact that you're here means that you've already accepted that. People just don't trust governments to do the same, and site owners may not want the government doing it for them. Obviously there are other options, so it's just a matter of making the right tools.
Have you ever used a "webrep" browser plugin? Personally, I think it would be refreshing and useful to have one that works.
Lets see... who's the most responsible for bombing the largest number of innocent civilians in Britain?
Parliament of course.
So get clicking folks. We need to stop the government from spreading it's propaganda and continuing it's 300 year terror campaign.
The real problem to solve is why children and young people feel the need to become radicalized. Censoring websites will not prevent children and young people from becoming radicalized, indeed, it may even have unintentional consequences.
Uh...how radical does it have to be, before it's acceptable to hit the button? How radicalized is it acceptable to be? How radicalizable are the proles?
The great Australian firewall already does this, although I imagine the firewall does it badly. There are still radicalized Australians trying to travel to Syria. Well, trying because the police have cancelled their passports; another idea Mr Cameron wants to copy.
This is actually quite a good idea. Though without a troll army, you won't be doing much.
Still, I guess a browser add-on could be made that would automatically report any page you visit that contains certain keywords (politicians' names, hint hint) as extremist and radicalizing. Reporting shouldn't be a hassle, after all.
Ignore this signature. By order.
if the ISPs can ensure the material is filtered?
Actually fixing the problem would hurt too many vested interests.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
I literally get sick to my stomach every time I see these kinds of proposals. I know us turning into a police state is not the goal of radical Islam, but having us live in fear is and which this will promulgate as a constant reminder.
We use to want to defeat authoritarian regimes by being a beacon of freedom that their citizens aspired to – thus defeating them without having to have boots on the ground. It worked well against the Soviet Union and given enough time will work against radical Islam, that is if we don’t turn into something their people don’t admire and aspire to be.
Just quit playing their game, seriously, leave things alone to sort themselves out. I’m not completely isolationist, groups like ISIS certainly deserve a thumping. I’m not blind that some intervention is called for in extreme cases.
How about we get to UN to quit backsliding on basic freedoms, instead of worrying about the sensitivities of religions? How about to be full fledged member of the UN your people have to have freedom of speech and religion? Political systems and economic systems are up to whoever is in charge, but quit letting theocracies to get a pass on human rights. Do this and within a generation religious radicalism will be a thing of the past.
Letter To Iran
You know - things like objecting to government regulation, complaining about government spying, making a request for public information, suing the government, that kind of thing.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Shouldn't there also be `Racist' and `Sexist' "public reporting buttons" as well?
Did I actually just type that?
Holy shit.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Yep! We don't want our kids watching porn! It'll warp them into sex fiends!
We're puttin' in a filter!
No porn for you little Bobby!
Hey little Bobby! How the hell'd you get your hands on porn?
Yep! We don't want our kids watching or reading anything to do with terrorism! It'll turn them into head-chopping raghead terrorists!
We're puttin' in a filter.
No terrorism for you little Bobby!
Hey little Bobby! How the hell'd you get your hands on that terrorist manifesto? And why do you have three wives?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
the last few major "acts of terrorism" in britain have been by a gent named Pavlo, a Ukranian man with a distinctive axe to grind against Muslims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... the 2007 glasgow attack was stretched as a "terror ramming attack" of all things, and in 2008 an individual with a history of mental problems who had 'recently converted to islam' attempted to bomb a cafe.
When governments pass antiterrorism laws, its amusing to see their concern for children or the welfare of the youth as Terrorism in the strategic sense does not serve to undermine the citizenry but their government. Events like disclosing sensitive government information related to, in the case of the states, the wholesale slaughter of a crew of journalists by a helicopter team and an ensuing coverup for example are acts of terrorism as they directly challenge and discredit the government as an agent acting genuinely in the best interests of its citizenry. Lastly, it remains to be said that Terrorists arent a toggle switch. In most cases these individuals have been pushed to desparation over many years until theyre left determined with nothing to lose. For example, the secret drone strike that killed a man or womans family may be met with a seemingly random and disproportionate retaliation 12 years later as theyve joined a support group of terrorists equally affected by these strikes and ignored by their respective governments.
Britain and most western governments hate terrorism because it is an effective means of wearing down psychologically and emotionally one or more governments political policies in a means that cannot be bargained away or ignored. it inspires political churn in the state, distrust and apathy in the citizenry, and ultimately a further push from policies such as dominionism. It can also be argued that miring large nations in protracted, endless war is both an effective catharsis for an exploited people as well as deterrent against future distatesful foreign policy in the resultant return of wounded troops whom while perfectly alive, serve as a tangible reminder of the govenments complete lack of prudence and judgement again and again.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Can we have those?
We are talking about a monarchy here. You were expecting rights?
Are you a terrorist?
I'm sure that's what the Chinese Government said when they created the "Great Firewall of China" many moons ago.....
Any by who's opinion of what's extremist should the bar be set? I'm not saying there isn't stuff on the net which is in bad taste (by my own definition that is). How I handle it is I don't spend time with it. Like anything else I find distasteful, I avoid it :-)
would introduce laws that stifle free speech and privacy. The goal of the terrorists is to disrupt our way of life so any that politicians that enact laws where free speech and privacy is removed in the name of fighting terrorism is in fact helping the terrorists spread terror and dictatorship.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Has there ever been a censorship campaign without some allegedly noble objective? I certainly can't remember anyone standing up and saying "Yeah, it's forbidden because we are basically evil like that." There is always a threat to the children, social order, national security, etc.
This canard, sadly, never gets old:
Free speech may lead to more consequences since the times of Reagan, but free speech itself is still alive and well.
Really? The US makes a lot of noise about free speech but this law only restricts the US government. If you exercise your "right" you can end up fired, refused services and/or prosecuted for minor crimes to silence you. There is no concept that someone providing a public service has a duty not to discriminate based on your political views. Hence there is no real freedom of speech: if you say something loudly enough which the big corporations disagree with then expect to end up jobless, homeless and penniless...but hey at least your aren't in prison so it's all good, right?
While we seem to be advancing technologically at an exponential rate, it seems culturally we're advancing at a snail's pace. I wonder how long it'll be before this divide is so vast it swallows us whole. It's like little kids with a gun; they know what it is and what it does, yet invariably someone ends up getting shot. What I can't figure out is if our misuse of technology is out of ignorance or malice.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
Is it time to have a Cameron meme with 1984 on it?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I would like to hear what Jenson Button has to say - is he going to retire after this season?
Wow, who decides this? A good way to get rid of opposition. Just call their material terrorist material and zot! They are gone.
The reason why there are so many radical islamists in the middle east is that their governments gave them way too much freedom of speech... or something like that.
If you really needed any more proof that British beef might have some effect on your sanity...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That was the last straw for UK on my part.
I'm a peaceful citizen, the closest thing I'll ever get to battle with someone is when my neighbors dog takes a dump on my lawn.
But I am seriously tired of the ongoing acceptance of total censorship everywhere, and since I'm pretty much independent and a free spirit, I can move basically anywhere in the world I want to go. UK has long been on my list since it's not that easy to get a Green Card in the U.S. But it's fairly populated, speaks English natively...and I thought the business would be good over there. BUT at what cost, my freedom? No way, sir!
Who determines what terrorism really is? Having the wrong opinion? Disagreeing with the governments decisions? Having the wrong sexual preference? Watching illegal cartoons? Using Linux and reading the Linux Journal (according to the latest from the NSA...those people are potential terrorists).
I refuse to live in a country that suppresses its citizens, and with citizens so stupid they'll take anything they can get, laying down - butt up!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
So all terrorists say bad things that would manipulate people into doing ... what? Think, perhaps. That does qualify as a threat to government.
What else? U.S. trained afghan leaders that turned into AlQaeda and so did U.K. harbour ISIS fanboys. Knowing that makes us enemies of the state.
So by all means guys, censor it all, but keep the commercials. We all need to be entertained, sometimes!
If I have a competitor that I want knocked out during a heavy buying season, I simply report their site as "terrorist," and they get filtered out.
1) Create Web Promotion that Mimics Competitor.
2) Black Hat SEO, Combined With Reporting Competitor's Site as Terrorist Content, and Thus Blacklisting Them From Users' ISP Browsing.
3) Profit!
I am greatly offended by anything associated to Islam, so should Hajab's be outlawed? How about the Koran? Any mention of Muhammed is greatly offensive.
Because people are too stupid to paste a URL into an email?
Remember when BT got lambasted as they intercepted all their user's web page requests using Phorm to be able to track users and insert their own ads into web pages? There was a big backlash with everybody saying a web page should be allowed to travel from a web server to a web browser unmolested. It's no surprise they will jump at an excuse to be able to intercept all their users web pages and manipulate the content before it arrives at the web browser. Sets a great precedent for them.
It would be interesting to see transcripts of Cameron's speech as it's hard to believe he is as idiotic as he has been made out to be. His quote that we must "deal with the Internet" doesn't mean anything as radical as a report button on web pages. Though his quote "We must not allow the internet to be an ungoverned space" is bound to make him a hate figure globally online. I've no idea how his PR man let that slip past. "Just because you are online does not mean you are immune from the law" would have been much better.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Lets make it easy, here in the US. Do you want the same people who setup Obamacare and all the issues it had and has, running your internet?
How radical does it have to be?
Totally radical!
Keep in mind that their religious wackjobs are much worse than our conservative Christian nuts. The Christianists just whine, elect idiots, hoard guns, and fantasize about killing educated people. The Islamists are actually acting out their homicidal impulses. Expect us to do the same thing if the Christianists actually act out their fantasies and try to set up a theocracy.
I'm fucking tired of all these asshole cocksuckers that have to post that profane shit all over the internet.
Censorship is exactly what leads to radicalization. Worried about islamic radicalism? Stop letting radicals into your country, and stop blaming the civil liberties for your own shitty policy.
...when the old Soviet era jokes start fitting the western world. Want some samples? These are original jokes that were told in or about the Soviet Union. All I really did was to switch names and places (and translate those that had no English translation yet).
Don't think.
If you think, don't speak.
If you think and speak, don't write.
If you think, speak and write, don't sign.
If you think, speak, write and sign, don't be surprised.
(this one is actually more funny in Russian because it's far more terse and laconic)
Every morning a man would come up to the newspaper stand, and buy a copy of USA Today, look at the front page and then toss it angrily into the nearby bin. The newspaper-seller was intrigued. "Excuse me," he said to the man, "Every morning you buy a copy of USA Today from me and chuck it in the bin without even unfolding it. What do you buy it for?" "I'm only interested in the front page,' replied the man. "I'm looking out for an obituary." - "But you don't get obituaries on the front page!" - "I assure you, this one will be on the front page.
A man was arrested for an assassination attempt on the president. "You didn't really want to kill the president, right?", asks the judge, "You're an ex-marine sniper with hundreds of confirmed victories, and missed from just 300 yards?" "Well, to be honest, it was my intention to kill him, but the people around me distracted me". "Oh, they tried to dissuade you and protect the president with their life?" "Not quite, they kept nudging me, yelling 'shoot, dammit, shoot!'"
We are the most progressive country in the world. Yesterday we already had it better than we'll have it tomorrow!
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it possible to make ends meet on salary alone?”
We’re answering: “We don't know, we never tried.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the economic upturn is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?”
We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What to do if a man you don't know takes a seat at your table in a pub and starts to sigh?”
We’re answering: “Immediately demand to stop the defeatist propaganda.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it possible to export our system to Switzerland?”
We’re answering: “It's possible, but why? Did Switzerland really do something wrong to you?”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Why some people say that Afghans love the Americans and hate the Russians?”
We’re answering: “Because Americans helped Afghanistan to get rid of the Russians, but the Russians didn't."
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is the easiest way to explain the meaning of the word ‘democracy’?”
We’re answering: “Judging from our foreign policy, by means of weapons."
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is the duration of the workday in America?”
We’re answering: “Of course, it's an eight-hour workday: from eight am to eight pm.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is an exchange of opinions?”
We’re answering: “When you walk into your boss's office with your opinion and walk out with his.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Can a son of a middle manager become a CEO?”
We’re answering: “No, because every CEO also has a son.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it true that there are two kinds of people serving as senators, as congressmen and as members of the Supreme Court?”
We’re answering: “Yes, it is a true. One kind is those not capable of anything at all, and
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The way you clicked on that report button seemed kinda rape-y to me. Reported.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
When you name your movement after a bunch of guys who didn't want to pay taxes, don't be surprised to receive some extra scrutiny from the taxman. Sheeesh.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
He almost lost the Scotland gamble. And of course there will be a second Referendum in a couple of years which will end in a divorce. He leads the UK out of the EU sinking the British finance sector. He also wants to cancel the European human rights treaty. And he censors the internet and spies on everyone.
He mostly acts like a child. He is angry or has tears in his eyes. And then he lies to the British and then the EU is the cause of all problems according to Cameron. He is an upper class classisist with a big ego and no intellect. And I am very sorry for the UK, but he will ruin it for most of them.
We could start pushing the button on Tory comments as terrorist.
I'm glad I live in America. The land of the free!!!
Oh wait...
The old "think of the children" argument.
*Ahem* Fuck you, David Cameron! We kicked your ass off this continent once over this issue and we'll do it again! And also Avatar was nothing both soft core furry porn! So there!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So it's inevitable that lots of content will be mis-identified as extremist by use of the convenient reporting button. Who gets to decide? Inevitably this will end up being about the biases of whoever is in charge.
I can think of various things that should be itemised as nasty. I am all for letting crazies speak but I would like them and everyone else to know how many people think they are dodgy,
"What type of things" you might ask "would I want to identify as hateful?"
You could start with our most hate filled politics. We have little as far right as you guys but there ae simple acronyms for some of the worst - ECDL, BNP, UKIP and the like. Their right to say things should not be restricted but everyone going to their sites should receive a reminder whenever they go to their web sites that these people are to be examined very carefully as some of them are completely nuts and even the mildest of them may well be the bunch of "fruitcases" that they were described as!
If there was a "Really Crazy" button that we could report groups from those to Home Secretaries who want to mess us up, that would be really useful...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
it was making sure that a bunch of entitled babies that think they don't have to pay their fair share were not using tax exempts statuses to avoid paying their fair share.
before it could happen a next time. Don't let the facts stop your attempts at making up a reason to be angry however. We find it funny.
Men should marry young female children.
Feminist banned this.
We live in woman's cuntries.
Old Testament allows "Child Sexual Abuse" of girls (child marraige)
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew. (rape of female child == keep her, pay father money)
Feminist need to be killed
So there's that.
Also not 100% of bad things can be prevented, no matter how many measures are put in place.
But we all know it's not about protecting people, just controlling them. But shhh, it's a secret.
...in the fact that the UK is classified as an enemy of the Internet by RSF.
It's not even controversial that the FBI coordinated a crackdown on Occupy. http://www.theguardian.com/com...
The FBI even knew of possible assassination plots via rooftop sniper fire, and not only would they not act on these obvious acts of terrorism--the FBI has tried only to hide public knowledge of these plans. http://www.democracynow.org/20...
The entire HBGary scandal came about due to the Chamber of Commerce (which shouldn't be a part of government to begin with) cooperating with Bank of America through a middleman to target activists and occupy figureheads.
Furthermore, the government has been paying trolls to trash both OWS and the tea party on various sites. But it's too early for you to hear about that in mainstream news (even though the Intercept broke the story of government-paid trolls earlier this year: https://firstlook.org/theinter...)
So the idea that the government hasn't tried to suppress occupy is BULLSHIT.
Sheltering people from radical ideas is not the solution, for the same reason that sheltering children doesn't work in the long run. Instead, educate them. Give them the tools of rational and critical thinking, and then let them choose for themselves.
"Sorry Bill, too much terrorist, aristocrat-killing propaganda in your plays. Lock him in the tower, mates."
"Rad" is the new "bad"?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
They could win.
Might as well piss on their graves.
Just some nice scripts that crawl the Internet finding and pressing the buttons. Good luck sifting through that shit.
It cannot be done. Let's say NTL which is virgin media has over 10 million users and its technical staff are from Pakistan mainly women who have no technical know-how. Even the children now know of VPNs. I with the aid of software could not control 100 users. Internet providers all over the world cannot even control the flow of malware. Automatic blocking software of spam cannot even block spam. When you browse the Internet your Internet provider spy software keeps a log file of Internet sites you have visited, you and everybody else. It is absolutely massive gibberish. They try to report known websites automatically. And they may report the others in 5 or 10 years time. Twitter, Google, Yahoo, and the so-called social network is not the whole Internet it is only a very tiny bit of the Internet. You have snuff porn, U.K. politician child porn. You have websites selling drugs selling credit card details. You have government-sponsored hooligans harassing and threatening to kill people. You have GCHQ collecting pornographic pictures from Yahoo WebCams. You have the NSA carrying out industrial espionage on the Internet every day. You have the Chinese and the Russians doing the same thing. Virginmedia/NTL/blueyonder and talk talk have all been used as spam bots and open relays.. And they have all been on the spam blacklist. So much so virginmedia no longer supplies its customers with email they use Google Gmail. This ridiculous idea that somebody sitting at a monitor could flag individual users out of 10 million as a terrorist is ridiculous. They cannot even get to grips with the U.K. politicians lusting for child porn and child abuse and the latest one child homicide. They don't understand the Internet they don't know what they are doing. Frets frets and propaganda frets it's meant to scare you. Oh for fuck's sake ZzZzZzZ. Example: I'm a terrorist I'm a terrorist I'm going to kill David Cameron right now. If you type that in to a search engine you will turn up thousands of results saying the same thing. It's the Internet it's in people's homes and people do not like being told what to do in their homes. Margaret Thatcher caused a riot trying to do just that and she was kicked out of government.
Is there going to be a separate website where you have to copy and paste the URL of the page you want to report (what could possibly go wrong?), or will your ISP somehow insert the button into every webpage you load (what could possibly go wrong?), or will the button be a separate pop-up on every page (what could possibly go wrong?)?
And if you're trying to report a single comment on a page full of comments, how will you go about being sure it's that comment and only that comment that gets reported? (what could possibly go wrong?)
And how much extra will your ISP tack onto your monthly bill to cover their "expenses" in providing this "service"? (what could possibly go wrong?)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Speech which besmirches Islam. There are already anti free speech laws in the UK to cover speech directed at Islam (and only Islam).
Earlier this year? That's been public knowledge since at least 2003. People were posting on Blogspot as early as 2004 about how they had been paid to disrupt online forums, we had several on the Alternet and Utne forums. For that matter there were FBI trolls disrupting BBS and IRC discussions back in the '90s.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
This scares the hell out of me. Reporting obviously dangerous content is one thing. Child molesters, or those advocating violence are obvious threats to society and should be identified.
But, and it is a critical but, if the intention here is to protect the public from speech which may cause them to become radical in their views one must assume then that such sites would be banned and that take the issue to a whole different level of concern.
Banning speech is an obvious form of censorship and someone somewhere would have to decide what is censored and what is not. Such a thing is never easy to simple and always holds the potential for abuse.
Who would be appointed as the public guardian and gets to decide who should be banned? Such a person or people would need to possess unique wisdom so as to not error in their judgement.
Some things are easy enough to spot as being radical and dangerous. Advocating direct and violent action is pretty clear. But there are so may instances where even benign material can be misconstrued as something it is not.
People or groups positing a radical ideology on-line they automatically identify themselves as a potential threat. Such public declarations of a political or ideological agenda offers a clear indication that an individual or group may pose a threat. In that regard, allow them free speech helps us to see them for who and what they are.
Free speech offers everyone the opportunity to publicly declare themselves as supporting a specific potentially dangerous ideology and perhaps even their intentions. Tagging a group for observation is one thing, banning them from the internet may simply push them into other more secretive ways of communicating. From my point of view, the more secretive a group is, the more dangerous they are.
Any time such controls on free speech are enacted they must be done so following some kind of rules, or guides. What might such rules be? Could using a specific phrase or words in an article cause a site to be banned. Could I be described as a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer for exploring both sides of an issue as a legitimate form of journalism? What rules or guides would be laid out to decide which side of the line I might fall on for simply exploring, as is my my human right, ideas, thoughts or information which is deemed radical?
The very nature of free speech is that it is free. More blood has been shed over this idea than perhaps any other in the history of human kind. The ability to speak freely without fear is fundamental to the concept of a democracy. So to is the freedom to exchange information and ideas without controls or impositions about what is correct and what is not.
Let me be clear about my point. I do not support violence as a means of resolving issues. Neither do I support groups who use violent means to achieve their objectives. Very few normal rational people would advocate for the use of violence. Yet we seem to turn a blind eye when violence is used and do so every day almost without thinking.
If I advocated that, in the service of freedom and democracy we should all take up arms and go somewhere to fight someone, while wrapping ourselves in the cloak of freedom loving people, would that make me a terrorist supporter, or a patriot. Who would get to decide which tag fits me better?
If I advocate that the western countries align to use military force to suppress others, would my words been subjected to some internet filtering which ended with my arrest because I supported the use of violence in the pursuit of a specific violence based agenda?
The UK is one of the bastions of modern democracy. In that regard they should in my opinion be the first to do all they can to promote free speech rather than suppress it. I say that we are better off for knowing who is promoting violence and radical views than not. As a security issue, I would rather know who hates me than to have them do so silently and secretly.
Are my views to radical, to over the top to be published and considered by others? I hope the day will never come when we are so controlled that we simply can't express ourselves without fear of being censored or banned by those who think they have the right to do so.
Remember who pays the UN's bills and who has veto powers and you'll remember how ultimately the UN cannot help but backpedal on anything they are told to.
It is not correct to throw those people, who look like "terrorists" altogether without any proof into one pot with "child-abusers" ... ?! - thats like in middle-age of Edinburgh after 1300 (a.c.) to burn "witches" simply because they are "witches" ?! - freedom of opinion is not coming from "above" somehow - and even not by commandment from "above" on to others at the ground, who have to follow rules or commands ... ?! - freedom of opinion has conditions - like that - people may say what they think ?! (Heinrich Heine) - so child abuse and freedom-of-opinion are two different pair of shoes ! - topic child-abuse is oldest topic like prostitution too ?! - and in oldest towns of beautiful UK are oldest sects too ?! (not only UK) ... there above are such "in-augurations" too in some groups (not entire administration !!! ) for simply "to make career" - ?! - this was always there, as you can look back in criminality records of UK and other nations ... it is not a matter of "terrorists" or of people who are free in their thoughts ... - to throw anybody into one pot as "terrorist" already had many cases of innocent people in prisons ! - and today the danger for innocent people in prisons are higher by the "allowed forensic" psychiatries to abuse the prisoners for experiments !!! - (see forbidden experiments) like you could find them here ... the danger is still there ! - and therefore such things may NOT HAPPEN AGAIN like it could be allowed by government !!! -
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.google.com/search?...
Couldn't some web crawlers just be programed to mark everything as terrorist content?
Taken from Wikipedia:
Censorship in Nazi Germany was implemented by the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. All media—literature, music, newspapers, and public events—were censored. Attempts were also made to censor private communications, such as mail and even private conversation, with mixed results.
The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information. Punishments ranged from banning of presentation and publishing of works to deportation, imprisonment, or even execution in a concentration camp.
Hitler outlined his theory of propaganda and censorship in Mein Kampf: "The chief function of propaganda is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time so they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on their mind."
It's fair to notice there is a little similarity to Germany then and the UK now. The other aspect of propaganda utilised then was ensuring the messages were seen by as much of the population as possible by subsiding TV and Radio costs so that they were made available to even the poorest of homes, and limiting them to only listen to a small number of frequencies used almost exclusively by the state broadcasters. The net result was total and utter control of the systematic state run brainwashing. In David's dystopian ideal world, the populous will have only approved browsers, ISP's and limited internet access, to a white-listed approved sites. The use of TOR/VPN access would result in detention without trial and his secret police would make sure your name was associated with the most horrific of crimes in the eyes of the people.
I cannot see how his actions, his opinions and behaviours, wouldn't lead to a future like this. Only time will tell. I wonder what crook will take over after the next election, to continue this work, after all what person in charge wouldn't want so much power?
Since when was reporting someone for criminal activity censoring them?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Because being an Xtian, you only notice the "restrictions" that affect you, and never the ones affecting muslims.
The problem here IS NOT "radicalisation". It's ***RELIGION***. ISIS et al have EXACTLY AS MUCH justification for their ravings being correct as the Archboshop of Cantebury when he talks about "love and peace". They BOTH use "This is what GOD tells me!" as "proof".
And kids are radicalised *because* they are told from a young age that having *faith* is *important* and somehow that if you have faith, it trumps any old logic or reason, especially if the faith is from an old book interpreted for you by some old codger who claims voices in his head are from this God.
We use "radicalisaion" in order to avoid having to point the finger where it belongs: religion. We don't like this religion, but we DO like *our* religion, therefore there must be *something else* wrong with this one.
Oh, yeah, it's "radicalism". That'll do. Nobody knows what it actually means, so it can mean anything.
I completely agree, however virtually no-one in the public would acknowledge what you and I have already recognized--government-paid trolls--until the Intercept article came about with leaks proving this to be the case. So my "earlier this year" is a conservative estimate, definitely. But yeah, there's a proven trail of paid or intern disinfo trolls going back through the 2000s, however their efforts hadn't hit full-speed until the Obama years (especially the last three years or so).