UK porn filter to also block "extremist narrative"?(publications.parliament.uk)
publications.parliament.uk
UK porn filter to also block "extremist narrative"?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm
15 comments
Important note for readers from the US: while the UK has a legal right to free speech (via the Human Rights Act, which in turn is based on the EU Convention on Human Rights), it is diluted by opt-out provisions for public health and safety, and undermined by other laws: notably the Obscene Publications Act (1958) -- although enforcement of the OPA against works of written fiction has collapsed in the past two decades -- and other anti-terrorism statutes which make it an offense to be "in possession of material likely to be of use in the commission of acts of terrorism" (or, more nebulously, inciting acts of terrorism).
Suppressing political discourse (even extremist political discourse) and using an anti-porn filter to do so is of course a horrible precedent to allow, but it's important to bear in mind that the UK has no equivalent of the solid US first amendment right to free speech.
Suppressing political discourse (even extremist political discourse) and using an anti-porn filter to do so is of course a horrible precedent to allow, but it's important to bear in mind that the UK has no equivalent of the solid US first amendment right to free speech.
I wonder, how powerful is the 1st amendment in the US exactly? How does it deal with situations like libel, bullying, calls to murder etc... ?
> libel
As sp332 said, you can say most anything as long as it is true.
> bullying
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but...
> calls to murder
That would be considered "fighting words", which do not have first amendment protections.
As sp332 said, you can say most anything as long as it is true.
> bullying
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but...
> calls to murder
That would be considered "fighting words", which do not have first amendment protections.
> That would be considered "fighting words", which do not have first amendment protections.
That's not true. Calls to murder are protected under the first amendment (not always by unanimous decision) and typically they are nothing near fighting words.
That's not true. Calls to murder are protected under the first amendment (not always by unanimous decision) and typically they are nothing near fighting words.
I know for slander, in the USA you're allowed to say pretty much anything as long as it's true. The UK has much stricter laws against defamation. (In the US, the victim might sue for damages, but that's not the same as criminal charges.)
Even in the UK the truth is a valid defense against a libel case. The main difference is that the burden of proof is put on the alleged libeller, who has to prove s/he hasn't committed libel, rather than on the person who has supposedly been libelled.
IIRC the US requires that you prove the libeller knew it was false as well.
Basically if you act on good faith you are clear, even it isn't true. (Note that there are requirements that you took some measures to verify the legitimacy depending on your position).
Basically if you act on good faith you are clear, even it isn't true. (Note that there are requirements that you took some measures to verify the legitimacy depending on your position).
plus in the UK, normally the loser pays for all costs including damages making it incredibly expensive to lose.
The crime of defamatory libel (which I think is what you mean by criminal charges) was abolished in 2010[1]. AFAIK, UK libel is entirely civil law.
You're right that the UK has much stricter libel laws in general, though.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamatory_libel
You're right that the UK has much stricter libel laws in general, though.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamatory_libel
It's one of the things the US does correctly, at least more so than most countries.
How many countries in the world would tolerate the WBC, for example?
How many countries in the world would tolerate the WBC, for example?
What's the WBC?
The Westboro Baptist Church.
It's a rather infamous church in Kansas (with a small membership - about 15 or so people, all related by marriage or direct heritage) whose members go about to various places across the country to protest "gayness" and other such things. They're most infamous for picketing at a homosexual soldier's funeral, among other things, carrying signs that say things like "GOD HATES FAGS" and telling people they're going to hell.
They've also apparently been barred by Canada and the UK from entry into their borders, and the more infamous Ku Klux Klan apparently also have a strong distaste for their behavior.
See also, for example, godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com.
They're tolerated because the First Amendment explicitly permits their behavior, and they don't generally break laws. But they're almost universally reviled for their behavior and statements, and are considered a hate group by most rational people.
It's a rather infamous church in Kansas (with a small membership - about 15 or so people, all related by marriage or direct heritage) whose members go about to various places across the country to protest "gayness" and other such things. They're most infamous for picketing at a homosexual soldier's funeral, among other things, carrying signs that say things like "GOD HATES FAGS" and telling people they're going to hell.
They've also apparently been barred by Canada and the UK from entry into their borders, and the more infamous Ku Klux Klan apparently also have a strong distaste for their behavior.
See also, for example, godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com.
They're tolerated because the First Amendment explicitly permits their behavior, and they don't generally break laws. But they're almost universally reviled for their behavior and statements, and are considered a hate group by most rational people.
Pretty much the same as in the UK. There are plenty of exceptions to first amendment protections in the US too.
UK libel law is ridiculous, though it has been reigned in somewhat, but other than that the protections are pretty similar.
UK libel law is ridiculous, though it has been reigned in somewhat, but other than that the protections are pretty similar.
Except that in the U.S. the burden of proof is on the one bringing the case of libel - they have to show that the libel was in fact a lie. Whereas in the U.K. it is the responsibility of the accused to show that they were speaking the truth. Not a minor difference, in practical reality.
I have a feeling we're going to find out in the next few years. Let's hope the Supreme Court shows wisdom the voters don't seem to have and that the Justices don't wimp out with very narrow decisions.
Barring a jarring alteration of the existing trajectory, the US will soon have just as watered down free speech rights.
Not sure that this is true. The Supreme Court in recent years has smacked down several regulations on free speech grounds in surprising ways. Campaign finance reform (aka "Citizens United") isn't a popular one on the left, but it's an example of deferring to the first amendment even when regulation has good intentions. Another case was the FDA regulation of off label marketing of prescription drugs. The crux was that you can't tell certain people (sales reps) that they aren't allowed to talk to other people (doctors) about objective facts.
The two cases you cite have big differences from the "extremest narrative" that prompted this submission and alone are not a good thermometer for how the court will rule regarding speech in general.
Both cases regarded speech that is already highly publicly tolerable. Sure people may moan regarding the level of rhetoric some in political ads, but it's ultimately just because they're lying. The FDA case is similar, objective facts known about drugs communicated between professionals in fields related to those drugs isn't distasteful to the public.
Both cases were about otherwise-legal speech that was restricted in a narrow business context. Citizens United overturned a finance rule, not Pacifica. Those ads could have been shown before Citizens United if they were funded differently. Doctors could already learn about off label use outside of a sales call.
The circumstances around the speech are important to the court. While I see no chance that regulations on religious hate speech would go over at all (especially not once the Christians realize it would apply to them too), the legal reasoning would probably not draw from either of those as precedent.
If the court actually were to issue surprising rulings on free speech, they would have found in FCC v Fox that Pacifica's "uniquely pervasive" rationale no longer held.
One wouldn't be too hard pressed to make the argument (although I won't) that those cases are examples of the court being business-friendly rather than broadly speech-friendly.
Both cases regarded speech that is already highly publicly tolerable. Sure people may moan regarding the level of rhetoric some in political ads, but it's ultimately just because they're lying. The FDA case is similar, objective facts known about drugs communicated between professionals in fields related to those drugs isn't distasteful to the public.
Both cases were about otherwise-legal speech that was restricted in a narrow business context. Citizens United overturned a finance rule, not Pacifica. Those ads could have been shown before Citizens United if they were funded differently. Doctors could already learn about off label use outside of a sales call.
The circumstances around the speech are important to the court. While I see no chance that regulations on religious hate speech would go over at all (especially not once the Christians realize it would apply to them too), the legal reasoning would probably not draw from either of those as precedent.
If the court actually were to issue surprising rulings on free speech, they would have found in FCC v Fox that Pacifica's "uniquely pervasive" rationale no longer held.
One wouldn't be too hard pressed to make the argument (although I won't) that those cases are examples of the court being business-friendly rather than broadly speech-friendly.
It's worth noting that in the United Kingdom, you can already be fined or jailed for tweeting. Neither of these would be criminally actionable offenses in the US, and the first one especially would be clearly protected political speech:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fab...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fab...
People are denied entry to the US because they've made a stupid tweet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312
People are arrested for stupid youtube videos
http://www.dailydot.com/news/cameron-dambrosio-boston-bomb-t...
etc etc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312
People are arrested for stupid youtube videos
http://www.dailydot.com/news/cameron-dambrosio-boston-bomb-t...
etc etc
There is a huge degree of difference between being denied entry to a foreign country and having punitive action taken against you by the government.
Your second case is about a guy who was thought to be making immediate threats, rather than simply tweeting something offensive, and he was released after the grand jury refused to indict him on free speech grounds:
http://www.ibtimes.com/cameron-dambrosio-set-free-massachuse...
This is not even a false equivalency, etc. etc.
Your second case is about a guy who was thought to be making immediate threats, rather than simply tweeting something offensive, and he was released after the grand jury refused to indict him on free speech grounds:
http://www.ibtimes.com/cameron-dambrosio-set-free-massachuse...
This is not even a false equivalency, etc. etc.
Our constitution obviously only protects citizens... Not sure what your point is.
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.
I don't see the word citizen in there at all. While the courts generally agree that it only applies to citizens, it is definitely not obvious.
I don't see the word citizen in there at all. While the courts generally agree that it only applies to citizens, it is definitely not obvious.
The YouTube video was a citizen.
Can you point to the bit of the constitution that talks about citizens?
If you want some more examples there are all the people tased, shot, beaten, or arrested for filming police during traffic stops etc.
Can you point to the bit of the constitution that talks about citizens?
If you want some more examples there are all the people tased, shot, beaten, or arrested for filming police during traffic stops etc.
If that's true, does the Constitution permit non-citizens to be owned as slaves?
I would say the US already has the same sorts of provisions in place. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States .
There is the Tarek Mehanna case. Apparently you don't have to leave your bedroom, or even send a check, to be a terrorist.
That's another great win for Carmen Ortiz, by the way.
That's another great win for Carmen Ortiz, by the way.
I instinctively reached for the 'share' button. Glad I read TFA just before I shared this, because there is no way the source says that Cameron's Net Nanny is being used to block extremist sites. All it says is that extremist sites have been taken down. That's not good, nor is it necessarily better, but let's at least be accurate, rather than try to spin this.
Cameron specifically says "blocking online sites." While he doesn't mention the technical specifics of how that will be done, the traditional way of achieving this in the UK is through the filters originally put in place for blocking websites associated with child abuse.
> While he doesn't mention the technical specifics of how that was done
He has not claimed any sites have been blocked. Nor is he exactly famed for his technical accuracy. See the discussions about the porn filter, where the entire opt-in/opt-out thing was a massive farce from one end to the other, as they decided to blatantly misrepresent the whole thing as worse than what they'd actually agreed with the ISPs.
In this case he answered a question in prime ministers questions in an non-specific ways that leaves him free to do nothing. Or he could do as the title claims. But as it stands, the title is completely made up.
He has not claimed any sites have been blocked. Nor is he exactly famed for his technical accuracy. See the discussions about the porn filter, where the entire opt-in/opt-out thing was a massive farce from one end to the other, as they decided to blatantly misrepresent the whole thing as worse than what they'd actually agreed with the ISPs.
In this case he answered a question in prime ministers questions in an non-specific ways that leaves him free to do nothing. Or he could do as the title claims. But as it stands, the title is completely made up.
Cameron was answering in response to the following question
> Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Two weeks ago, the head of the Security Service warned about the extent of Islamist extremism. This week, two individuals have been charged with serious terrorist offences. What is the Prime Minister going to do in January when, as a result of his Government’s legislation, some of those whom the Home Secretary has judged to pose the greatest threat to our security are released from the provisions of their terrorism prevention and investigation measures?
> The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.
Because of the nature of Prime Minister's Questions, it can't be concluded that this is going to become legislation. It shouldn't be a surprise that the government wants to do, or is talking about doing this.
> Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Two weeks ago, the head of the Security Service warned about the extent of Islamist extremism. This week, two individuals have been charged with serious terrorist offences. What is the Prime Minister going to do in January when, as a result of his Government’s legislation, some of those whom the Home Secretary has judged to pose the greatest threat to our security are released from the provisions of their terrorism prevention and investigation measures?
> The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.
Because of the nature of Prime Minister's Questions, it can't be concluded that this is going to become legislation. It shouldn't be a surprise that the government wants to do, or is talking about doing this.
This. PMQs are basically a political dick-waving contest/circle jerk (depending on who is asking the question).
If you want a particularly nauseating example of the latter phenomenon, look at the question Cameron was asked immediately after the "Islamic extremism" question...
Just another great example of the fact that if you let them build a machine that can limit speech, it will inevitably be used to limit your speech given enough time.
...and the definition of "extremist" is defined by...? (And of course, it will eventually include "anyone opposed to the Great Firewall of Chi^H^H^H^H Britain, as its own continued existence becomes the main purpose of such tools)
This may provide some context: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering... (apologies for linking to dailymail, I couldn't find a better article about it).
With events like this you can understand where the ideas of blocking extremism come from.
With events like this you can understand where the ideas of blocking extremism come from.
Seems like more of an argument for rethinking the immigration policy rather than stifle the internet throughout your entire country.
[deleted]
Killing the free internet will not stop extremists, it will just obstruct tech innovation and cost the UK economy, in terms of job opportunities and wealth creation.
And so it has begin, the great firewall of the UK
Except it hasn't. The title is making stuff up based on bluster during prime ministers questions that have as much to do with actual, real policy as claims made on the campaign trail.
Ever saw the interview that the minister made for censoring the web in UK?
You should watch it, it shows haw unknowledged some people are, to bad i didn't found it...
(ps. Searched for minister UK censorship)
You should watch it, it shows haw unknowledged some people are, to bad i didn't found it...
(ps. Searched for minister UK censorship)
Are there any technical details as to how this is going to be achieved yet? Things like pirate bay are supposed to be blocked by ISPs but you can access it just fine if you're using Google DNS.
Not with BT!
MBP:~ matt$ nslookup piratebay.sx
Server: 8.8.8.8
Address: 8.8.8.8#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: piratebay.sx
Address: 194.71.107.27
MBP:~ matt$ curl -H "Host: piratebay.sx" 194.71.107.27
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<html><head>
<title>Message</title>
</head><body>
<p> Error – Site blocked</p>
</body></html>I'm on BT too - pirateproxy didn't work until I changed to Google DNS:
nslookup pirateproxy.net Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com Address: 8.8.8.8
Non-authoritative answer: Name: pirateproxy.net Addresses: 78.138.99.186 91.236.116.37 78.138.99.189
Having said that, piratebay.sx says blocked regardless what I use.
nslookup pirateproxy.net Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com Address: 8.8.8.8
Non-authoritative answer: Name: pirateproxy.net Addresses: 78.138.99.186 91.236.116.37 78.138.99.189
Having said that, piratebay.sx says blocked regardless what I use.
First they come for the porn, etc.
Speaking out against this initiative shows that you are an extremist who should be blocked.
The government should just provide software for filtering. Not shit registry that keeps track of who has the filter on or off with the ISP.
This is the first step.
This is the first step.
so is this thing really happening to the UK? What is the happening to the UK and US?
If both countries don't take a more liberal stance towards technology/society, I believe that by 2050 the Angloxosaxon empire will be history.
If both countries don't take a more liberal stance towards technology/society, I believe that by 2050 the Angloxosaxon empire will be history.
Caution: Slippery slope
So it begins...
I detest Cameron, but nobody is served by making up stuff like this - there's more than enough objectionable stuff in actual quotes from him.
The only mention of "extremist narrative" says this:
> The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.
It does not anywhere indicates that the much heralded (and vastly overdramatised) porn filter has any role in this.
It is possible Cameron is up to something. It is also possible he is talking about going to court and getting a court order to take down specific sites. And quite likely, that, much like his "porn filter", it is a bunch of hot air.