Wednesday, November 14, 2007
UK looking at internet content controls
The Associated Press is reporting that Britain is seeking the assistance of ISPs and technology companies to help stop the online distribution of terrorist propaganda.According to The Guardian:
The prime minister also set out measures to counter the influence of radical fundamentalists in Britain's schools, universities, mosques, youth clubs and prisons, as well as on the internet.The Independent is reporting that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith will hold talks with internet service providers and global technology companies on blocking online incitement of terror.
The Prime Minister's official statement phrased the meetings as targeting a theme that has been raised on this blog many times before:
The Home Secretary is inviting the largest global technology and internet companies to work together to ensure that our best technical expertise is galvanised to counter online incitement to hatred.We will want to watch how this initiative evolves.
Technorati Tags:
illegal content, net neutrality, hate
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 11/14/2007 03:48:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Hey,
I know you are a proponent of 'censuring' the internet, but I just think that this type of thing just leads in the wrong direction. Defining what is considered 'propagating radical fundamentalism', if left to the government, will only lead to the definition being anything that disagree with current norms.
The internet is an ideal engine for those online to counter fundamentalism with rational arguments, and if rational arguments seem extreme, that's what's rational. Government is not one to decide, because if you left the Taliban to decide, you get a different kind of rationality. Not one we'd prefer, but it is one decided by government.
I know you are a proponent of 'censuring' the internet, but I just think that this type of thing just leads in the wrong direction. Defining what is considered 'propagating radical fundamentalism', if left to the government, will only lead to the definition being anything that disagree with current norms.
The internet is an ideal engine for those online to counter fundamentalism with rational arguments, and if rational arguments seem extreme, that's what's rational. Government is not one to decide, because if you left the Taliban to decide, you get a different kind of rationality. Not one we'd prefer, but it is one decided by government.
I think you mean 'censor', not 'censure'.
The quote from the PM indicates that the proposed UK initiative isn't as vague as you suggest but rather specifically targeted "to counter online incitement to hatred".
It is quite a leap to suggest that the courts would allow that to slide to "being anything that disagree with current norms".
The quote from the PM indicates that the proposed UK initiative isn't as vague as you suggest but rather specifically targeted "to counter online incitement to hatred".
It is quite a leap to suggest that the courts would allow that to slide to "being anything that disagree with current norms".
Posted by 
Mark Goldberg : 11:22 PM, November 14, 2007
Mark Goldberg : 11:22 PM, November 14, 2007
Yes, censor, not censure. Quick typing error.
To say that 'countering online incitement to hatred' will only lead to minimal censorship and monitoring one only needs to look at the U.S. Patriot act and how it has been applied. It has been used to examine and monitor many groups who have views contrary to the government's view on the world. Censoring their views would be pretty easy using that definition, and making their views 'illegal' or considered 'hatred' would not be a big challenge.
For disagreement to become 'hatred' is an easy slope. Consider Bill O'Reilly's recent rant:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/billo-talkingpoints-111207.mov
That's the concern.
To say that 'countering online incitement to hatred' will only lead to minimal censorship and monitoring one only needs to look at the U.S. Patriot act and how it has been applied. It has been used to examine and monitor many groups who have views contrary to the government's view on the world. Censoring their views would be pretty easy using that definition, and making their views 'illegal' or considered 'hatred' would not be a big challenge.
For disagreement to become 'hatred' is an easy slope. Consider Bill O'Reilly's recent rant:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/billo-talkingpoints-111207.mov
That's the concern.
Brian - Not sure of the relevance to the subject of criminal hate in O'Reilly's rant, but thanks for the link. I don't see the relevance
Incitement to hatred is existing legal terminology in the UK and in Canada.
See the Public Order Act (1986) in the UK or various sections of the Criminal Code in Canada around S.318/319.
The UK acts use language like:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
A worthwhile discussion on this blog would be: "Is the internet immune to the application of such laws?"
This isn't new legislation. If you want to debate whether such laws should exist at all, you should take that up with the civil liberties folks.
Incitement to hatred is existing legal terminology in the UK and in Canada.
See the Public Order Act (1986) in the UK or various sections of the Criminal Code in Canada around S.318/319.
The UK acts use language like:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
A worthwhile discussion on this blog would be: "Is the internet immune to the application of such laws?"
This isn't new legislation. If you want to debate whether such laws should exist at all, you should take that up with the civil liberties folks.
Posted by Mark Goldberg : 1:12 PM, November 15, 2007
Mark Goldberg : 1:12 PM, November 15, 2007
By the way, I am by no means an expert on Canadian law, let alone the UK. Here is a link to the UK Public Order Act that I cited.
Post a Comment
Posted by Mark Goldberg : 1:17 PM, November 15, 2007
Mark Goldberg : 1:17 PM, November 15, 2007 << Home
Syndicate
