For 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.
“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.”
England was always paternalist, but free. Englishmen were generally proud of their country’s heritage, and with good reason. They were moreover highly individualistic. It is therefore difficult to understand why they have been content to let successive governments tread on them. The country is now a socialist cesspit, and a haven for savages. In common with the continental European countries, it has also become a police state.
The English beheaded a king. It should not be difficult to overthrow the present tyranny.
Carl-Edward – England has had a series of civil wars, including the War of the Roses which ended with the Tudors on the throne.
Hail Britania. Briania rules the waves.
They have a Queeny and a bunch of dumb dolts who worshop Queeny. It is a swamp. It cannot be drained.
The current Government is at best under life support–so I would not put much stock into what this Government says or does…..
So if I as a minority read stormfront just to know what some crazy troglodytes that frequent the site may be plotting, in this future society I too would be jailed. We should be scared to even browse to do our own investigation now?? I’m all for taking these hateful extremist sites off the web that fan the flames of hatred, whether from religious extremists, supremacist extremists or anarchist extremists, but as with narcotics you should prosecute the dealers, not the users (or in this case the browsers). Her speeches on social media, following the Manchester-tragedy, have made me question how well she understands how the internet works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China
offers a model.
Allan fell for it.
Looks like you have lost your senses David. Having trouble finding where to post?
So. How does one go about enforcing THIS???
Indeed.
Great Britain, like most of the rest of the world, is befuddled.
Very true.
“Congress (i.e. government) shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,…”
The American Founders revealed that natural and god-given rights and freedoms existed before government was established and that government was limited, not the rights of citizens. Nature and God are universal and infinite. Every sentient animate biological entity enjoys the freedom of speech as referenced by the American Founders.
1st Amendment –
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Brits need to rebel. First, remove or kill off the Royals. Then the House of Lards. House of Crisco would be better. Adopt a Constitution and include a Second Amendment about the right to arm bears.
Well, bear arms. But arm bears too. Lions and tigers as well.
That is the inevitable conclusion when the people grant their government the right to police their speech. It’s typically started in the name of good, only the trouble is, the government gets to define what’s “good.”
Who would Liberals ban? Who would Conservatives ban? Do you really want to give someone else the power to tell you what you can say or read or write? Our founders felt that freedom was superior to tyranny. I agree with them. Let’s not spoil it, shall we?
The general public is commonly cud chewingly indifferent to this. One vector of his seems to be the objects of internal security types who should know better. The other is the usual schoolmarms.
Why stop at criminalizing the reading of “extremist” material–to be defined by the Leftists, of course? Why not just criminalize any “extremist thoughts?” There is no end to Leftist agenda. It goes beyond total control and total domination.
No, that is the Totalitarians.
There’s a reason we split from these guys 240 years ago.
The same types are abroad here. They haven’t quite captured our non-prog party or the legal profession. Give them time.
Is JT surprised that socialism leads to the loss of civil liberties? The end product of socialism is that the state controls almost all aspects of one’s life. I think civil libertarianism is in direct conflict with socialism. I believe Turley is center left, but in recnt years has been having problems as the extreme left collides with civil liberties.
Ain’t the socialists running the UK. You are confused.
You are confusing party names with actual ideology. Socialism is an insidious disease. You apparently were affected by it a long time ago.
You are even more confused.
Typical totalitarian.
David, do you even understand what a totalitarian is? You are very confused.
I used the dictionary.
Do you mean you misused the dictionary?
No. I meant what I wrote.
Enough of this blather. The fool may have the last word.
The fool had his last word, but he will arise to once again play the part of the fool.
Please don’t. If you must, just wake up and die right. Taxpayers bailing out the global financial sector is Capitalism? What a dumb schmuck you are. If you think socialism is so bad, why do you allow the 1% the privilege? Socialism of the risk while they privatize the profit. Clearly, the “insidious disease” is nothing more than your rank ignorance and stupidity.
Bluto, I note your brutish inability to respond intelligently regarding the various economic systems. Instead your starved brain permits a trite emotional outburst. Get an education and then let’s talk.
You’re attributing this problem to council housing estates and the National Health Service?
Even more confused…
In part.
Kinda dumb, Allan. A succession of British ministries since 1979 has made it a point to liquidate inventories of state industry and public housing. Why if ‘socialism’ were the problem, would you have controls on public debate increasing? (While we’re at it, you might just show your work).
DSS trends move in more than one direction over time so one has to look at an entire time line not at your specific whim which seems to be all you have to offer.
I wonder if Prof. Turley is aware of this:
Open Letter to George Washington University opposing the platforming of Jair Bolsonaro
Brits are much more compliant than we Americans. But, even if they wanted to revolt, they are unarmed.
Voting works for them.
OT – you can’t make this stuff up! Corporations enmeshed with our government.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-04/isnt-joke-irs-just-hired-equifax-safeguard-taxpayer-data
Life in the T rump swamp.
Ken Doll – Lois Lerner ring any bells in your empty head? This is a non partisan issue.
Chump’s SEC should be prosecuting Equifax and not rewarding them. Effin morons
This is a non partisan issue.
You’re proceeding in your remarks as if partisan Democrats have neutral procedural standards about the conduct of public agencies. They have no such thing, and are emotionally incapable of composing them. There are merely improvisations which provide excuses for them to demand what they want.