Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDavid Cameron's "V for Vendetta" Britain
from truthdig:
Less than a week into his second term as prime minister, David Cameron is set to introduce a series of tough new laws redefining what it means to be an extremist in Britain.
For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. Its often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And thats helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach, states a briefing released by Camerons office.
Anyone expressing an ideology that the government views as extreme will be required to apply for permission to print or post to social media, and as part of the strategy, Cameron will fast-track powers to allow British police to vet the online conversations of those considered extremists. According to The Independent, the new package is expected to include:
The introduction of banning orders for extremist organizations that use hate speech in public places, but whose activities fall short of proscription.
New Extremism Disruption Orders to restrict people who seek to radicalize young people ..................(more)
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/david_cameron_unleashes_frightening_attack_on_tolerance_through_new_extremi
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1054 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
David Cameron's "V for Vendetta" Britain (Original Post)
marmar
May 2015
OP
The Conservatives got 11.3 million votes. Daily Mail circulation is 1.7 million (nt)
Nye Bevan
May 2015
#3
mr blur
(7,753 posts)1. Well, there's one for all you Daily Mail readers out there -
Daily Mail readers are pretty much Lord Snooty's base.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)3. The Conservatives got 11.3 million votes. Daily Mail circulation is 1.7 million (nt)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)2. This kind of crap is why it's good to have a First Amendment. (nt)
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)4. This is what happens when laws against "hate" speech
are legal.
I agree, thank the heavens for the first amendment!
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)5. Yeah, citizens who obey the law shouldn't be left alone.
Do I detect an echo from Canada here? I wonder if Mr Cameron wants to criminalize boycotts.
-- Mal
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)6. Holy shit...that is exceedingly chilling.
What we do here is bad enough, with "free speech zones" to limit press coverage and demonstrations.
Britain and the US have shown they go down the same road hand in hand.
starroute
(12,977 posts)7. Add in that business about life sentences for hackers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/05/13/death-penalty-or-life-for-hackers/
With little fanfare or fuss, on 3 May, life sentences for the most egregious digital crimes ones that cause significant damage to peoples lives or national security became a reality in the UK. . . .
Announced last year during the Queens Speech, the update to the UK Computer Misuse Act via the Serious Crime Act 2015 has caused consternation for two reasons. First, its terms are broad. For someone to have deserved a life in prison, they must have committed an unauthorised act and known that it was unauthorised, and will have either intended to have caused serious damage to human welfare or to national security or had been reckless as to whether such harm was caused. As noted by Professor Peter Sommer, who holds posts at de Montfort and the Open Universities and has been expert witness in numerous computer crimes trials, this leaves much open to interpretation by British judges, some of whom may not have even moderate technical understanding of the issues, whilst juries could be convinced fallacious information was factual. The practical problem is that there are no definitions of serious damage or national security. So it will be up to a judge to try and guide the jury who will presumably have already heard from some serious sounding bloke speaking from behind a curtain.
With little fanfare or fuss, on 3 May, life sentences for the most egregious digital crimes ones that cause significant damage to peoples lives or national security became a reality in the UK. . . .
Announced last year during the Queens Speech, the update to the UK Computer Misuse Act via the Serious Crime Act 2015 has caused consternation for two reasons. First, its terms are broad. For someone to have deserved a life in prison, they must have committed an unauthorised act and known that it was unauthorised, and will have either intended to have caused serious damage to human welfare or to national security or had been reckless as to whether such harm was caused. As noted by Professor Peter Sommer, who holds posts at de Montfort and the Open Universities and has been expert witness in numerous computer crimes trials, this leaves much open to interpretation by British judges, some of whom may not have even moderate technical understanding of the issues, whilst juries could be convinced fallacious information was factual. The practical problem is that there are no definitions of serious damage or national security. So it will be up to a judge to try and guide the jury who will presumably have already heard from some serious sounding bloke speaking from behind a curtain.