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.
The world is a giant Stanford Prison Experiment, outside the lab, and the results have been confirmed many times over. Unfettered authority will be abused. But people throw the report into the round file every time they vote... Further confirming the results how everyone turns a blind eye because of some tribal bond to the party.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
There is this story online which claims that efforts to introduce wheel clamps were defeated by a mass movement of the French people who injected superglue into the lock of every single wheel clamp they came across. Eventually the whole wheel clamp introduction became more trouble than it was worth.
What the IRS did was to punish people for speaking. The TEA Party rallies weren't shut down. The postal service didn't take their fliers to the dump instead of delivering them. Speakers weren't assassinated. Radio stations weren't shut down. Parts of the Internet didn't become unreachable. Free speech itself was still in effect.
You could argue that what the IRS did made it more difficult for conservatives to get their message out, and that's an issue, but that's not a clear-cut direct assault on free speech. I think we have to distinguish between the two. And believe me, I'm not apologizing or trying to minimize what the IRS did, people should be in prison for that. The fact remains that you're free to say whatever you want, but it might have consequences. That has always been true.
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?
Hey, it could work in the people's favor though. What if thousands went on a campaign to click the "terr'ist" button on all the articles having to do with Cameron himself?
I think the difference is that the DNC convention was a private affair, while Dubya's successful use of the concept federally to keep protesters out of sight of the duly elected (lol?) executive of the United States, was, well, not.
If you are going to post a link to support your argument, you might want to be sure it actually supports it. Go read that Wikipedia article again. The zones were set up by the Atlanta police. Right or wrong, that decision was squarely within the domain of the city of Atlanta and its mayor.
These types of zones go back the the early 20th century in the United States, when communities and upper class people tried to limit workers and unions from exercising their right to congregate and speak freely in public via local ordinances and police harassment. Some cities actually argued that the right to free speech only existed to those that owned property, whereas you had a right to stand on your own land and speak freely.
The civil rights movement's in America, such as for women and blacks, also saw these types of restricted speech zones.
America, land of the free for rich, white, and land owning men.
And when they're caught, the punishment is?...
Freedom of speech can be forcefully suppressed, but it turns out it's a lot more efficient to simply get the public so used to corruption no one cares anymore. Assasination, torture, kidnapping, spying; those are just another day in Home of the Free. Watergate destroyed Nixon; neither Snowden nor Manning leaks caused any effect, at least in America.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You did not save any lives, you killed 20 people. You can attempt to claim "We saved 100 lives by killing 20" but that is horse shit. Complete and utter horse shit.
Example: WW II and the 2 Atomic Bombs. You really want to claim that Japan, who was already considering surrender, would not have surrendered if those bombs were dropped near a population instead of _on_ a population? How about dropping them on a military installation instead of a city full of women, elderly, and children? It was a senseless killing at least 1/4 million civilians outright, and not even military aged men who were in military installations or dead already.
Any claim that this "saved lives" is complete fabrication. It was the murder of 250,000 people that people try and justify with a false claim. We happened to win the war which means our side did not face a tribunal for war crimes. Numerous Germans were put to death for killing far fewer people.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.