Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Free Speech, International, Media, Politics, Society

Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet

440px-Official_portrait_of_Amber_Rudd_crop_2England flagFor years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state.  Now the government is pursuing a law that would make the repeated viewing of extremist Internet sites a crime punishable to up to 15 years in prison.  It appears that the government is not satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet.  As always, officials are basically telling the public to “trust us, we’re the government.”  UK home secretary Amber Rudd is pushing the criminalization of reading as part of her anti-radicalization campaign . . . which turns out to be an anti-civil liberties campaign.

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here).  Even the Home Secretary has been accused of hate speech for criticizing immigrant workers.

Prime Minister Theresa May has previously called for greater government control of the Internet.  Now, the government not only would make reading material on the Internet a crime, but would not necessarily tell you what sites will be deemed the ultimate click bait.  Rudd told a Conservative Party conference that she wants to crackdown on people “who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions.”   So sites deemed “far-right propaganda” (but not far-left propaganda) could lead to your arrest — leaving the government with a sweeping and ambiguous mandate.

The law would move from criminalizing the downloading of information to simply reading it.  The move confirms the long criticism of civil libertarians that the earlier criminalization would just be the start of an ever-expanding government regulation of sites and speech.  Rudd admits that she wants to arrest those who just read material but do not actually download the material.

In the past, the government assumed near total discretion in determining who had a “reasonable excuse” for downloading information.

Britain has long relied on the presumed benevolence of the government in giving its sweeping authority in the surveillance and regulation of speech, including the media.  This move however is a quantum shift in government controls over speech and information.  Indeed, this comes the closest to criminalization not just speech but thought. It is a dangerous concept and should be viewed as disqualifying for anyone who want to hold (or retain) high office.
What is particularly striking is that this new law seeks to create a new normal in a society already desensitized to government controls and speech crimes.  There is no pretense left in this campaign —  just a smiling face rallying people to the cause of thought control.
Sound familiar?
1984-Big-Brother“We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
George Orwell, 1984

140 thoughts on “Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet”

  1. I remember when I took a class on Terrorism being paranoid at all the sites we were required to check out – expecting a knock at the door and that was four years ago! =) This is all about government control – scaring the citizens. Thing is, anyone who wants access to jihadist material to join up or plan an attack will find a way to circumvent the system.

    Orwell and probably Huxley as well must be spinning in their graves.

      1. To date the William and Mary administration has done nothing but issue a canned PR statement. Did you catch the remarks of W & M students who attended as reported in the campus newspaper? (“They had every right to…”). Bunch of poltroons.

        1. I’m actually more disturbed by the behavior of the ACLU speaker. As the protesters approach the stage, she’s saying “I like this, this is good.” She likes having her own speech disrupted?! She’s bought into the absurd notion that shutting down speakers is itself an exercise of free speech? She just stands there pathetically for over 40 minutes while the protest goes on. How is the ACLU going to defend the free speech rights of all Americans if it won’t defend its own?

          In all this outrageous nonsense on college campuses, I don’t blame the students. Children will be children. It’s the adults who are to blame, the faculties and administrations. There should be zero tolerance for this behavior, Protests should be held in such a way that invited speakers are allowed to speak and be heard without the slightest disruption. The fact that the ACLU speaker doesn’t understand this is extremely disheartening.

          1. I wouldn’t be terribly confident of your interpretation of her remarks. It’s difficult to see what she was responding to.

          2. “I don’t blame the students. Children will be children.”

            I disagree. It used to be that at age 18 you weren’t considered a child. I remember my teachers in college saying that they were not there to baby sit us and if we want to waste our time and money, go ahead. Yes, the campus should react to these idiots, but the fellow students need to start standing up to them as well.

          3. The young typically do not manifest adult independence and function (all the more so of college students). That having been said, it’s not that difficult even for youths of 20 to not make an obnoxious prick of yourself and to stick your ass in other people’s way. The vast majority of people that age manage it. These youths are deviant and should be punished. Go ahead and blame them.

  3. I just bought a cheap computer at Goodwill. I flew to London two days ago. I just opened the computer up. You should see the stuff on that old computer. I am driving it over to the House of Lards and dropping it off. My name is in no way connected to it.
    I am glad that Amercia seceded from England. Bunch of dorks.

  4. And yet another occidental ‘conservative’ party proves its worthlessness. It seems like ‘conservative’ parties are like magnets for the iron filings of this world’s poltroons and careerists. Theresa May, Addison Mitchell McConnell, same type.

    1. Yep. They were spanked in June (Glaswegians I asked on election day said May’s stint as Home Secretary factored largely in their votes) and now five former Cabinet members are joining forces with a larger group to force May out by Xmas. They think they’ll increase their appeal by censorship and arresting their own people? What exactly are they conserving? Not intelligence, civil rights, due process, or the virginity of underage suburban white English girls.

  5. I guess my first thought is, how would you police this? If my home computer is viewing “Illegal” web sites, who goes to jail, me, my wife, the dinner guest? Could now then frame your neighbor by getting on their computer?

    I have the same issue with automatic red light or speeding tickets, how do they know I was the one driving?

    1. Jim, this is how I think it would work:The authorities come to your house and confiscate your electronic devices. Then they charge you with a crime and then the burden is on you to prove your innocence, meanwhile costing you thousands of dollars and hours of your time. Then they give you your stuff back, warn you and hope you go tell all of your friends to be careful.
      There’s really nothing they can do but intimidate and monitor anyone they want to make them look like they are responsible and the public is secure the next time, someone they have no control over
      goes off.
      Purely to aleviate them from any blame.

      2. Roscoe re: “Then they give you your stuff back, warn you and hope you go tell all of your friends to be careful.” OR they don’t give you your stuff back – civil asset forfeiture =)

  6. As if the Big Brother INGSOC of Oceania analogy weren’t scary enough–which it is, of course–the entrapment angle is downright diabolical. If it’s against the law to visit and read a given web-site, then the government had damned well better tell its citizens with considerable specificity which web-sites are illegal to visit and read. Or else they should just block them entirely like The PRC does.

    No. Wait. I’m not actually advocating that last part. Don’t outlaw political dissent, at all.

  7. I wonder how libertarian Prof Turley is. Does he oppose criminal penalties for sending or reading pedophilia on the internet? Are there no limits on what cannot be restricted by government?

    1. RDKAY – maybe he will work on Weiner’s appeal. Of course, by the time the appeal is done, Weiner will be out of prison. Still, he will be listed as a sex-offender so he has to be careful where he lives. There are laws on how close he can live to a grade school, etc. He will show up on all the sex-offender maps.

      1. Paul, ” Work on Weiner’s appeal”.
        One of the best double entendres I’ve read in years.
        Brilliant!
        spoken like Groucho:” I think everyone should work on their weiner’s appeal.”

        1. Roscoe Coltrane – you read far more into it than I wrote. If I was brilliant, it was accidental. 😉

    2. Have you heard of the Islamic grooming gangs in England’s suburbs? Pakistani immigrants (and other Muslim immigrants) have been drugging and raping underage white English girls for decades and the police did nothing. The British government is not concerned about online porn or pedophilia, they just want to control people’s online access to information sources, rather than being brainwashed by the BBC.

      Here’s one of multiple sources on this completely egregious, deliberate ignoring of responsibility on the part of British authorities, all because they didn’t want to appear racist if they arrested any suspected Muslims.

      https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5386/british-girls-raped-oxford

    2. Easily.

      As George Orwell warned, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.”

  10. Wasn’t Orwell’s 1984 banned in Great Britain, at least for several years?

    1. David Benson – 1984 has been on the list of banned books many places. However, England has a long history of censorship going back before Shakespeare so they may have banned 1984. The US Postal Service banned Lady Chatterley’s Lover, which led to a SC case. A couple of Steinbeck’s books were burned in the town square of his hometown, then they named the library after him and dedicated a statue to him. Last I heard, and that was a while ago, they closed the library. I hope for their sake they have reopened it.

    1. You are not thinking this through.
      In less than 50 years Islam will be the major population in the ‘Western World’.
      These laws and mandates will fit in well with their democratly elected Muslims officials.
      It’s whomever holds the power will determine what is outlawed viewing
      Material.
      Isn’t that right Facebook and Google?

      1. In less than 50 years Islam will be the major population in the ‘Western World’.

        Muslims make up about 5% of Europe’s population. So, no.

        1. This article was written in 2009.
          Way before the immigration stampede.
          Now with the birth rate 2X-4X
          Greater, do the math.

          1. The source countries (e.g. Turkey, Morocco, and Algeria) have total fertility rates just barely above replacement level, bar Pakistan, which has a tfr similar to that of the U.S. ca. 1960.

      2. Hopefully the West will have woken up to the Trojan horse in their midst and steps will have been taken to implement measures to stop the Islamification of Europe (don’t think it is such a big threat in the USA). However, many Europeans are completely apathetic so time will tell. Douglas Murray is the best proponent of totally rejecting Islam on European soil but recognises this is a problem:

        Douglas Murray – Europe is Tired

    2. Ivankinsman

      “Anything that helps…”

      Winner of the naive statement of the day.

    3. Anything short of common sense policing of borders and vigorous law enforcement that is. Right?

  12. So, someone who wants knowledge, but is not going to act on it, is a danger. Hmmmm. Nope, don’t buy it. They get to decide so they can jail who they want? The Nazis are back.

    1. The Nazis aren’t back. The mentality is that of a tedious school administrator.

  13. I don’t see a problem with this. The demographics of England have changed dramatically, with a huge section of the populace having origins in the Middle East and Africa. A country is the sum total of its people. When you swap out Englishmen for third world Muslims, your culture and laws have to change to reflect the new reality. This isn’t the England of Shakespeare or Churchill anymore; it’s largely just another third-world craphole trying to hang onto its ever more distant past like an old Disney movie, but enacting draconian laws in a futile effort to contain sullen young Muslims who go around slashing strangers on the street.

    1. This isn’t the England of Shakespeare or Churchill anymore; it’s largely just another third-world craphole trying to hang onto its ever more distant past like an old Disney movie,

      The per capita product in Britain is 4x the global mean. The homicide rate is 1/4 that of the United States. About 87% of the population is white British and many of the remainder are East Europeans or Caribbeans. Quit pretending you know what you’re talking about.

      1. So you believe that 13% of a country’s population cannot produce a fundamental change in that country’s culture, rates of criminality, social welfare expenditures and the like? Hmmmm, just imagine what America would be like without its 13% black population…..

        1. So you believe that 13% of a country’s population cannot produce a fundamental change in that country’s culture, rates of criminality,

          They cannot, unless the political class want that change. And it isn’t ‘13%’. Jamaicans and Poles living in Britain are not the problem. Pakistanis are.

          1. Homicide rates don’t tell the whole picture. Relatively recent data indicate that although homicides remain low, other crimes are increasing, including knife crimes and rapes (above and beyond the grooming gang monstrosities). We’ll see if this recent increase persists over time. And of course, we shouldn’t ignore other violent crime such as rape and kidnapping, as well as forcing kids to become addicted to drugs, threatening families with death if the kids talk to the police, and police harassing any locals who complain about the grooming gangs.

            Much of this crime was ignored by the police and the government for years. It seems apparent that the “political class” clearly “did want that change.”

            And then there are strange statistical anomalies such as this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11662764/Million-violent-crimes-a-year-cut-out-of-official-figures.html

            1. His assertion was not that street crime is more of a problem. His assertion was that Britain was a ‘third world craphole’.

              1. Indeed, and aren’t many of the immigrants from third-world countries? I don’t know that I would use the same phrasing, but we should at least be as honest as possible about where the immigrants originate.

                1. He wasn’t referring to where ‘immigrants originate’. He was referring to Britain.

                  1. We all know what he was calling a third-world craphole, and we all know why. You’re the only one who hasn’t figured it out.

                    3. Their stock markets are referred to as emerging markets, too. Much of the world is moving past the outdated stereotypes and there is money to be made in investing in many of these economies which you consider to be “third world”.

                2. England is far from being a “third world country”. Visited recently and found it to be still quite lovely. Harrod’s has not closed and the tourism business is thriving. The diversity has definitely improved the food scene.

            2. Based upon what I have been hearing from you, you might be interested in the book Comming Apart by Charles Murray. In it, he spends a small bit of his time comparing the British and American lower class and their similarities despite the fact that the lower class in Britain is mostly white. I hope I got the right title for I read this book quite awhile ago.

              1. I am aware of it, and it’s no doubt somewhere in my list of books to read in my phone’s Notes section.
                Thanks for the rec!

      2. You’re forgetting (or ignoring) Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and what by now must be over a million Black Africans, all of which outnumber the Black Caribbean immigrants. Most online sources quote outdated 2011 census numbers. The issue is reproduction rate in those minorities compared to “white British”. If the UK follows through on its commitment to taking in 20K Syrian refugees, then the demographic predictions will change accordingly.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620957/Ethnic-minorities-make-one-population-2050-Britains-melting-pot-continues-grow.html

        1. Indians aren’t much of a problem. All of these problems can be contained if you have a political class which isn’t infected with leapfrogging loyalties and does not have contempt for the domestic working class. The problem, as always is the craptastic elites.

          1. “the craptastic elites”…….like JK Rowling and others of her ilk who do not have to deal with the terrorist attacks on the streets, the difficulty in getting housing, or competing for entry-level jobs and are protected behind their gated walls.

          2. SST: re: ” the craptastic elites” – love that description! Will have to “appropriate” it =)

  15. Just like here in the States with the “Patriot Act”, just frauds on the people to take away any free thoughts a person might be having. Soon maybe there will be government action against a person for having thoughts that weren’t sanctioned by the Department of Homeland Security. After all, the government knows better what you need to be thinking anyway, don’t they?

  16. I feel we have all these problems because the world is overpopulated, there is lack of education and too much senseless long wars that raze towns and force a large number of people to emigrate.

    People in government are afraid of the people in general and try to censor what the read, what they watch, where they go and whom they frequent.

    I cannot imagine what will happen next.

    1. The world isn’t overpopulated and this hasn’t much to do with ‘senseless wars’.

  17. To cover all of the bases, there is a need for a good old fashion book burning.😒
    The internet isn’t the only source of extremist writings, so the U.K. may need to clear out portions of libraries and bookstores and throw them on bonfires.
    They can copy 1930s Germany’s model for conducting the purge of offensive books.

  19. If the usual practice is maintained, we can expect a slew of regular, law-abiding, English citizens in their 60’s to be among the most likely to be prosecuted. Punish the average person under draconian laws, but take a blind eye to actual insurgent potential terrorists because we don’t want to look racist. Its easier to just put away a few ordinary people to set the example.

    I agree this is a new low even among British politicians.

Comments are closed.