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.

34 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by OhPlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BS.

      The US government didn't attempt to suppress the free speech of OWS or the TEA Party. Even the RNC's boneheaded idea of having "free speech zones" back when Dubya was in charge was summarily shot down by both sides.

      Free speech may lead to more consequences since the times of Reagan, but free speech itself is still alive and well. The current administration even wanted to have a government official in each newsroom, and that was quickly shot down too, even in this very polarized administration.

    2. Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by bulled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It isn't forgotten, rather the whole point of the supression. With this new tool, the UK government can classify any speech it doesn't like as terrorist or extremist material.

    3. Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Tea Party groups have a high statistical rate for tax fraud. The IRS investigates people who don't pay their taxes. Image that.... right wingers who don't want to pay taxes.

    4. Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative

      Taking your time in handing out a highly questionable tax break is pretty far from what blatant censorship actually looks like.

    5. Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by DamnOregonian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by TheP4st · · Score: 3, Informative

      but free speech itself is still alive and well

      Not as well as it used to be, and if corporations continue having the influence over lawmakers they have today things are going to get much worse before getting better. For an example look into the so called food libel lawsfood libel laws and for examples of how these laws effectively have made people cautious to the extreme in bringing forward even the most modest of criticisms, watch the documentary Food, Inc.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    7. Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In other words, free speech is considered so sacrosanct in US that when the government want so suppress it, they have to use extralegal (in fact, illegal, should it be discovered) means.

      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.

    8. Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact remains that you're free to say whatever you want, but it might have consequences.

      That has got to be one of the stupidest recurring phrase n use. It's ambiguous enough that any attempt to point out the idiocy of the phrase would be met with "well that's not what I really meant"; however, all interpretations are stupid. Just because you seem to be having trouble, I'll suggest some phrases to help you understand:

      You are free to kill whoever you want, but it might have consequences.

      You are free to steal whatever you want, but it might have consequences.

      You are free to be as stupid as you want, but it might have consequences.

      +5 interesting for this crap. What world am I living in?

    9. Re: The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by s.petry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re: The UK doesn't have freedom of speech by cusco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In actuality the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did save lives in the long run. The two cities were chosen for their geographic and demographic profiles, to test the effects of terrain and building types on bomb effectiveness with a future clash with the Soviet Union in mind. What they found was that the effects of nuclear weapons were so horrible that even the lunatics in the Pentagon and Kremlin hesitate to use them. If the nukes had just been used at some remote location to demonstrate to the Japanese what we could do it's very likely that they would have been launched at some point during the 1950s and the highest life form left on the surface of the planet would be rodents.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  2. Report every press release from the government. by Mal-2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Report every press release from the government. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. Just incidentally... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Just incidentally... by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!”
  4. This already exists by duck_rifted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This already exists by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      Yes, but if we don't like the type of moderation on Slashdot, we're free to go to another site. With the government, we're not free to do that (at least, not if they have their way).

      This system, if implemented, will just drive radicalized speech underground and out of the public eye. It's not going to solve anything, except increase the number of people who want to rebel against the government, and make them better at hiding their trails.

    2. Re:This already exists by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      Usually, buried comments are garbage, but you're always able to change your comment threshold. Not so if a site you want to see is on your ISP's blocked list.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  5. Re:What could possibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who cares? The majority wants this and more. When you consider what those people eat, you'd still think the war was on, and good food was being rationed. Britain leads the way. The US will soon follow. They want the same thing.

  6. Report every press release from the government. by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  7. The problem will not be fixed. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually fixing the problem would hurt too many vested interests.

  8. Terrorism goes for the Win! by DumbSwede · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Bigots by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Bigots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Holy shit.

      Great, now we need blasphemy and profanity buttons too.

  10. Re:Can we get a button? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes it's called a ballot. You tick the box every few years and you get a lying, scumbag politician.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. Re:What could possibly by Mikkeles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, on the good side, this would probably silence religious speech.

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  12. Re:the greater concern is in the definition. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funny, I thought western governments loved terrorism because it's the next big 'thing' to justify the continued existence of the military industrial complex.

  13. Re:What could possibly by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would likely silence the speech you just made too.

    If you think silencing speech you do not like or agree with is proper, you need to consider how long it would take to silence yourself. I'm sure there are people who do not agree with you.

  14. In some ways it has more than the US by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  15. Re:What could possibly by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  16. Re:What could possibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The people only want it because they're only fed misleading propaganda. Once again, this just shows that the ignorant masses are ignorant and gullible and incredibly easy to manipulate.

  17. You know something is running wrong... by Opportunist · · Score: 3

    ...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.
  18. Cameron is ruining Britain by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:What could possibly by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not for Muslims. UK seems to have two separate standards: one for Muslims, one for everybody else.

    Muslim preach hate in the streets all the time. Muslims are allowed to offend anybody. Nobody is allowed to offend Muslims.