Cameron Says People Radicalized By Free Speech; UK ISPs Agree To Censor Button 316
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Techdirt: A few years ago, we mocked then Senator Joe Lieberman's request that internet companies put "report this content as terrorist content" buttons on various types of online content. The plan went nowhere, because it's a really bad idea, prone to massive abuse. Yet, over in the UK, some apparently think it's such a grand idea that they're actually moving forward with it. This isn't a huge surprise — the current UK government has been going on for quite some time about banning "extremist" content, and just recently ramped up such efforts. And now it appears that a bunch of big UK broadband access providers have agreed to play along: The UK's major Internet service providers – BT, Virgin, Sky and Talk Talk – have this week committed to host a public reporting button for terrorist material online, similar to the reporting button which allows the public to report child sexual exploitation. They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.
The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Let's not take the UK as an example, though. The UK is pretty bad compared to most of Europe. It's closer to Russia in this regard.
People are literally sent to prison for racist tweets [theguardian.com] there.
Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The US government values free speech so much, it was found guilty of conspiracy in the assassination of MLK Jr.
Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score:4, Interesting)
And when they're caught, the punishment is?...
Freedom of speech can be forcefully suppressed, but it turns out it's a lot more efficient to simply get the public so used to corruption no one cares anymore. Assasination, torture, kidnapping, spying; those are just another day in Home of the Free. Watergate destroyed Nixon; neither Snowden nor Manning leaks caused any effect, at least in America.
Re: (Score:2)
But there is also something called freedom of information, that one is part of the Dutch legal system and I cherish it.
Not that I in any manner want to say The Netherlands has a perfect record on either, like Adolf Hitler's work Mein Kampf is still forbidden...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Britain has struggled - successfully - for freedom of speech for hundreds of years before the US existed.
They do not, however, make a religion out of it, and don't live in a theocracy anyway.
Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
BS.
The US government didn't attempt to suppress the free speech of OWS or the TEA Party. Even the RNC's boneheaded idea of having "free speech zones" back when Dubya was in charge was summarily shot down by both sides.
Free speech may lead to more consequences since the times of Reagan, but free speech itself is still alive and well. The current administration even wanted to have a government official in each newsroom, and that was quickly shot down too, even in this very polarized administration.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So the IRS going after tea party groups according to their own internal emails wasn't an attempt to suppress free speech? Okay. I mean, I can see how you believe it wasn't, after all...all those "convenient losses of emails" from a very particular time period, of not only lois lerner, but a dozen or more other people directly related to it...well, what are the chances right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Tea Party groups have a high statistical rate for tax fraud. The IRS investigates people who don't pay their taxes. Image that.... right wingers who don't want to pay taxes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Tea Party groups have a high statistical rate for tax fraud. The IRS investigates people who don't pay their taxes. Image that.... right wingers who don't want to pay taxes.
If that were true, surely the IRS would have simply cooperated with the ongoing investigation instead of destroying evidence. Imagine that ... a political leader abusing the power to tax to have a chilling effect on his critics. Or don't you think the parties will be flipped the next time this happens?
Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, it probably encouraged conservatives to have more rallies. Instead of the typical rhetoric about "big government", the IRS went after them personally which adds weight to the claims they had been making all along. It's almost a Streisand Effect. The TEA Party was starting to fizzle out at that point. The actions of the IRS reignited it for a time and gave the GOP a reason to put the federal government on trial (in front of a special committee anyway).
Nothing that the IRS did would stop me
Re: (Score:3)
The IRS purposely impeded certain groups trying to publish poli
Re: (Score:3)
What the IRS did was to punish people for speaking.
Punishing people for speaking is tantamount to prohibiting speech. Virtually every law against anything is a declaration to the effect of "if you do this, you will be punished"; so if you can legally be punished for doing something, it is effectively illegal to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree, it's bullshit that the standard doesn't *appear* to have been applied equally, the whole process is hardly an attack on *speech*, by anything but the mos
Re: (Score:2)
You could argue that what the IRS did made it more difficult for conservatives to get their message out,
How exactly is this not attacking freedom of speech? I would agree that there are multiple simultaneous attacks occurring, but you seem to be minimizing this particular vector for some reason.
If you are harassed for an activity, other people see that harassment and are less likely to perform the same action. Example: If you bomb 20 people with guns how likely are other people to go get a gun? You may not have caused direct bodily harm to all of those people, but you have still attacked a much larger popul
Re: The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score:4, Interesting)
You did not save any lives, you killed 20 people. You can attempt to claim "We saved 100 lives by killing 20" but that is horse shit. Complete and utter horse shit.
Example: WW II and the 2 Atomic Bombs. You really want to claim that Japan, who was already considering surrender, would not have surrendered if those bombs were dropped near a population instead of _on_ a population? How about dropping them on a military installation instead of a city full of women, elderly, and children? It was a senseless killing at least 1/4 million civilians outright, and not even military aged men who were in military installations or dead already.
Any claim that this "saved lives" is complete fabrication. It was the murder of 250,000 people that people try and justify with a false claim. We happened to win the war which means our side did not face a tribunal for war crimes. Numerous Germans were put to death for killing far fewer people.
Re: The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
In actuality the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did save lives in the long run. The two cities were chosen for their geographic and demographic profiles, to test the effects of terrain and building types on bomb effectiveness with a future clash with the Soviet Union in mind. What they found was that the effects of nuclear weapons were so horrible that even the lunatics in the Pentagon and Kremlin hesitate to use them. If the nukes had just been used at some remote location to demonstrate to the Japanese what we could do it's very likely that they would have been launched at some point during the 1950s and the highest life form left on the surface of the planet would be rodents.
Re: (Score:3)
Prove it! Not with hyperbole but actual proof. Did we drop any atomic bombs in any non-civilian areas to demonstrate that we could decimate large populations and Japan seeing this refused to surrender? NO! We dropped 2 atomic bombs on two cities full of civilians. We never attempted to drop the atomic bombs on more sensible targets, such as a military base on the coast. We went right after two large civilian targets, killing for "maximum psychological effect". Here [foreignpolicy.com] is a source for you to read, but yo
Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact remains that you're free to say whatever you want, but it might have consequences.
That has got to be one of the stupidest recurring phrase n use. It's ambiguous enough that any attempt to point out the idiocy of the phrase would be met with "well that's not what I really meant"; however, all interpretations are stupid. Just because you seem to be having trouble, I'll suggest some phrases to help you understand:
You are free to kill whoever you want, but it might have consequences.
You are free to steal whatever you want, but it might have consequences.
You are free to be as stupid as you want, but it might have consequences.
+5 interesting for this crap. What world am I living in?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I love how the Democratic Party invention of free speech zones [wikipedia.org] somehow became a "Dubya" thing. They may have only become widely covered starting in 2000, but they were originally an invention of the DNC to keep pro-life protestors away from their 1988 convention.
Both parties have been using them since the 2004 elections, so it's not like you can lay the blame solely on the Republicans either. Both parties do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how the Democratic Party invention of free speech zones [wikipedia.org] somehow became a "Dubya" thing. They may have only become widely covered starting in 2000, but they were originally an invention of the DNC to keep pro-life protestors away from their 1988 convention.
Both parties have been using them since the 2004 elections, so it's not like you can lay the blame solely on the Republicans either. Both parties do it.
The UK has had 'free speech zones' for decades, its called 'Hyde Park Speaker's Corner'.
Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. It wasn't an attack Dubya thing. I was barely a teenager in '88.
In some ways it has more than the US (Score:4, Interesting)
Free speech may lead to more consequences since the times of Reagan, but free speech itself is still alive and well.
Really? The US makes a lot of noise about free speech but this law only restricts the US government. If you exercise your "right" you can end up fired, refused services and/or prosecuted for minor crimes to silence you. There is no concept that someone providing a public service has a duty not to discriminate based on your political views. Hence there is no real freedom of speech: if you say something loudly enough which the big corporations disagree with then expect to end up jobless, homeless and penniless...but hey at least your aren't in prison so it's all good, right?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that bad. There are SLAPP laws. And, as horrible as the incident involving Brendan Eich's personal political views was, it's the exception, not the rule.
You have the right to anonymous speech, too, if you feel you might be discriminated against for what you say.
A sociopath going under the pseudonym M.E. Thomas published a memoir about what it's like to be a sociopath. That's almost as bad as "child predator" in the public consciousness. But, she was free to speak, and to hide her name while spe
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)
but free speech itself is still alive and well
Not as well as it used to be, and if corporations continue having the influence over lawmakers they have today things are going to get much worse before getting better. For an example look into the so called food libel lawsfood libel laws [wikipedia.org] and for examples of how these laws effectively have made people cautious to the extreme in bringing forward even the most modest of criticisms, watch the documentary Food, Inc.
Report every press release from the government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Make this such an onerous burden that the ISPs are forced to either withdraw their support, or just censor everything that is flagged without checking it. To do this, report everything that is remotely political as "extremist" and "radicalizing". When the politicians themselves are the targets of their bad law, they just might take a hint.
Report every press release from the government. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is actually quite a good idea. Though without a troll army, you won't be doing much.
Still, I guess a browser add-on could be made that would automatically report any page you visit that contains certain keywords (politicians' names, hint hint) as extremist and radicalizing. Reporting shouldn't be a hassle, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing we have one!
I mean, I know Anonymous isn't my personal army, but I hope it'll go after this just the same.
Re:Report every press release from the government. (Score:5, Interesting)
Make this such an onerous burden that the ISPs are forced to either withdraw their support, or just censor everything that is flagged without checking it. To do this, report everything that is remotely political as "extremist" and "radicalizing". When the politicians themselves are the targets of their bad law, they just might take a hint.
There is this story online which claims that efforts to introduce wheel clamps were defeated by a mass movement of the French people who injected superglue into the lock of every single wheel clamp they came across. Eventually the whole wheel clamp introduction became more trouble than it was worth.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the (unstated) part that anything a "legitimate" politician says will be immune to this. Because, you know, they're legitimate. Just ask 'em.
Do you really think a politician would enact a law restricting what THEY do? Law is for little people.
Re: (Score:2)
Just incidentally... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice work, Airstrip One.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we try making children resistant to radicalization by teaching them what to look out for [wikipedia.org], the same way we teach them not to talk to strangers or what to do in case of a nuclear explosion [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The world is a giant Stanford Prison Experiment, outside the lab, and the results have been confirmed many times over. Unfettered authority will be abused. But people throw the report into the round file every time they vote... Further confirming the results how everyone turns a blind eye because of some tribal bond to the party.
Re: (Score:2)
/thread with a Hermann Göring quote.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the part where the Nazi reference wasn't intended to discredit anyone. Pretty sure using a Nazi reference to unsarcastically agree with someone is a reverse Godwin.
Can we get a button? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It's the same button as the "extremists" button.
The "child abuse" button is also appropriate, considering these people affect your childrens' future freedom.
Re:Can we get a button? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to put that button to good use: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This already exists (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, because there are so many websites that make it work, there are ways to make it work. Whether it will be abused by consumers (including trolls, shills, marketers, etc etc) to the point of uselessness depends entirely upon the implementation. Whether it will be abused by politicians to control the ideas we're exposed to ultimately depends upon the same thing it always has: whether we keep talking to each other.
The concept we have all gotten used to by now is that we have the right to speak, but not a right to be heard. Again, the fact that you're here means that you've already accepted that. People just don't trust governments to do the same, and site owners may not want the government doing it for them. Obviously there are other options, so it's just a matter of making the right tools.
Have you ever used a "webrep" browser plugin? Personally, I think it would be refreshing and useful to have one that works.
Re:This already exists (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we are on a site where strangers can rate what we say, potentially burying it where others won't get the chance to read it, and we're complaining that governments are vaguely coming around to the same idea?
Yes, but if we don't like the type of moderation on Slashdot, we're free to go to another site. With the government, we're not free to do that (at least, not if they have their way).
This system, if implemented, will just drive radicalized speech underground and out of the public eye. It's not going to solve anything, except increase the number of people who want to rebel against the government, and make them better at hiding their trails.
Re: (Score:2)
Here we are on a site where strangers can rate what we say, potentially burying it where others won't get the chance to read it, and we're complaining that governments are vaguely coming around to the same idea?
I was just going to move my cursor over to the little flag in the lower right corner of your comment when the irony hit me. No, actually, it hit me as soon as I read the summary. "Report" is not "censorship", unless the "report" button automatically removes something. Moderation here is closer to censorship because that can automatically lower a comment's rating below the limit the reader has set.
What was actually chilling in TFA was this comment:
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm taking them for my own private use and in no way, shape, or form causing any sort of abuse to occur in the process, why the fuck do you have the right to tell me not to do that?
Re:This already exists (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we are on a site where strangers can rate what we say, potentially burying it where others won't get the chance to read it, and we're complaining that governments are vaguely coming around to the same idea?
Usually, buried comments are garbage, but you're always able to change your comment threshold. Not so if a site you want to see is on your ISP's blocked list.
Re: (Score:2)
But you can already find them. Just read at -1.* And Slashdot users aren't even banned from the site for shitty karma; they still have their free speech.
Obviously, because there are so many websites that make it work
For instance this one, I dare say.
*And before you complain about the quality going down, you can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:3)
There are posts getting deleted due to down modding? Weird considering the ones that are rated -1 and still here. At that all I see is a rating system with posts rated on a scale of -1 to +5, I read them all, or at least skim them. If others want to self censor and miss some good posts by AC which is rated at 0, well that's their choice and whether people should have the right of self censorship, why not, there's only so much time.
ooo (Score:2, Funny)
Lets see... who's the most responsible for bombing the largest number of innocent civilians in Britain?
Parliament of course.
So get clicking folks. We need to stop the government from spreading it's propaganda and continuing it's 300 year terror campaign.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets see... who's the most responsible for bombing the largest number of innocent civilians in Britain?
Parliament of course.
So get clicking folks. We need to stop the government from spreading it's propaganda and continuing it's 300 year terror campaign.
I thought that was the Luftwaffe?
Treat the problem, not the symptom (Score:3)
The problem will not be fixed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorism goes for the Win! (Score:5, Insightful)
I literally get sick to my stomach every time I see these kinds of proposals. I know us turning into a police state is not the goal of radical Islam, but having us live in fear is and which this will promulgate as a constant reminder.
We use to want to defeat authoritarian regimes by being a beacon of freedom that their citizens aspired to – thus defeating them without having to have boots on the ground. It worked well against the Soviet Union and given enough time will work against radical Islam, that is if we don’t turn into something their people don’t admire and aspire to be.
Just quit playing their game, seriously, leave things alone to sort themselves out. I’m not completely isolationist, groups like ISIS certainly deserve a thumping. I’m not blind that some intervention is called for in extreme cases.
How about we get to UN to quit backsliding on basic freedoms, instead of worrying about the sensitivities of religions? How about to be full fledged member of the UN your people have to have freedom of speech and religion? Political systems and economic systems are up to whoever is in charge, but quit letting theocracies to get a pass on human rights. Do this and within a generation religious radicalism will be a thing of the past.
How do I report this thread? (Score:3)
You know - things like objecting to government regulation, complaining about government spying, making a request for public information, suing the government, that kind of thing.
Bigots (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't there also be `Racist' and `Sexist' "public reporting buttons" as well?
Did I actually just type that?
Holy shit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Holy shit.
Great, now we need blasphemy and profanity buttons too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sexist? No, only misogynist content will be reportable. Anti-male content is allowed.
Re: (Score:3)
Bitches hate that.
Because hiding stuff works! (Score:2)
Yep! We don't want our kids watching porn! It'll warp them into sex fiends!
We're puttin' in a filter!
No porn for you little Bobby!
Hey little Bobby! How the hell'd you get your hands on porn?
Yep! We don't want our kids watching or reading anything to do with terrorism! It'll turn them into head-chopping raghead terrorists!
We're puttin' in a filter.
No terrorism for you little Bobby!
Hey little Bobby! How the hell'd you get your hands on that terrorist manifesto? And why do you have three wives?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the greater concern is in the definition. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I thought western governments loved terrorism because it's the next big 'thing' to justify the continued existence of the military industrial complex.
Only a politician that supports terrorists (Score:2, Flamebait)
would introduce laws that stifle free speech and privacy. The goal of the terrorists is to disrupt our way of life so any that politicians that enact laws where free speech and privacy is removed in the name of fighting terrorism is in fact helping the terrorists spread terror and dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
The terrorists hate us for our freedom and our democracy. Or so I've been told time and again. So, I guess our politicians came to the conclusion, all we have to do to be no longer a target for terrorism is to eliminate it ourselves.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia, Animal Farm is a book that's anti-Stalin and in favor of democratic socialism.
Animal Farm is an allegorical and dystopian novel by George Orwell, published in England on 17 August 1945. According to Orwell, the book reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalin era in the Soviet Union.[1] Orwell, a democratic socialist,[2] was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism, an attitude that was critically shaped by his experiences during the Spanish Civil War.[3] The Soviet Union, he believed, had become a brutal dictatorship, built upon a cult of personality and enforced by a reign of terror.
-1 Socialism Is Not The Same As Stalinism
Re: (Score:2)
-1 Socialism Is Not The Same As Stalinism
Certainly not! Sadly, despite it's good intentions, the one inevitably leads to the other.
A widening gulf (Score:2)
Cameron 1984 meme? (Score:2)
Is it time to have a Cameron meme with 1984 on it?
Re: (Score:2)
Something along the lines of "30 years behind"?
UK ISPs Agree To Censor Button (Score:2)
I would like to hear what Jenson Button has to say - is he going to retire after this season?
Hey, now I get it (Score:2)
The reason why there are so many radical islamists in the middle east is that their governments gave them way too much freedom of speech... or something like that.
If you really needed any more proof that British beef might have some effect on your sanity...
Note to self...moving to UK, cancelled. (Score:2)
I'm a peaceful citizen, the closest thing I'll ever get to battle with someone is when my neighbors dog takes a dump on my lawn.
But I am seriously tired of the ongoing acceptance of total censorship everywhere, and since I'm pretty much independent and a free spirit, I can move basically anywhere in the world I want to go. UK has long been on my list since it's not that easy to get a Green Card in the U.S. But it's fairly populated, speaks English natively...an
ISPs may not have the same objective (Score:3)
Remember when BT got lambasted as they intercepted all their user's web page requests using Phorm to be able to track users and insert their own ads into web pages? There was a big backlash with everybody saying a web page should be allowed to travel from a web server to a web browser unmolested. It's no surprise they will jump at an excuse to be able to intercept all their users web pages and manipulate the content before it arrives at the web browser. Sets a great precedent for them.
It would be interesting to see transcripts of Cameron's speech as it's hard to believe he is as idiotic as he has been made out to be. His quote that we must "deal with the Internet" doesn't mean anything as radical as a report button on web pages. Though his quote "We must not allow the internet to be an ungoverned space" is bound to make him a hate figure globally online. I've no idea how his PR man let that slip past. "Just because you are online does not mean you are immune from the law" would have been much better.
Phillip.
You know something is running wrong... (Score:4)
...when the old Soviet era jokes start fitting the western world. Want some samples? These are original jokes that were told in or about the Soviet Union. All I really did was to switch names and places (and translate those that had no English translation yet).
Don't think.
If you think, don't speak.
If you think and speak, don't write.
If you think, speak and write, don't sign.
If you think, speak, write and sign, don't be surprised.
(this one is actually more funny in Russian because it's far more terse and laconic)
Every morning a man would come up to the newspaper stand, and buy a copy of USA Today, look at the front page and then toss it angrily into the nearby bin. The newspaper-seller was intrigued. "Excuse me," he said to the man, "Every morning you buy a copy of USA Today from me and chuck it in the bin without even unfolding it. What do you buy it for?" "I'm only interested in the front page,' replied the man. "I'm looking out for an obituary." - "But you don't get obituaries on the front page!" - "I assure you, this one will be on the front page.
A man was arrested for an assassination attempt on the president. "You didn't really want to kill the president, right?", asks the judge, "You're an ex-marine sniper with hundreds of confirmed victories, and missed from just 300 yards?" "Well, to be honest, it was my intention to kill him, but the people around me distracted me". "Oh, they tried to dissuade you and protect the president with their life?" "Not quite, they kept nudging me, yelling 'shoot, dammit, shoot!'"
We are the most progressive country in the world. Yesterday we already had it better than we'll have it tomorrow!
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it possible to make ends meet on salary alone?”
We’re answering: “We don't know, we never tried.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the economic upturn is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?”
We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What to do if a man you don't know takes a seat at your table in a pub and starts to sigh?”
We’re answering: “Immediately demand to stop the defeatist propaganda.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it possible to export our system to Switzerland?”
We’re answering: “It's possible, but why? Did Switzerland really do something wrong to you?”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Why some people say that Afghans love the Americans and hate the Russians?”
We’re answering: “Because Americans helped Afghanistan to get rid of the Russians, but the Russians didn't."
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is the easiest way to explain the meaning of the word ‘democracy’?”
We’re answering: “Judging from our foreign policy, by means of weapons."
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is the duration of the workday in America?”
We’re answering: “Of course, it's an eight-hour workday: from eight am to eight pm.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is an exchange of opinions?”
We’re answering: “When you walk into your boss's office with your opinion and walk out with his.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Can a son of a middle manager become a CEO?”
We’re answering: “No, because every CEO also has a son.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it true that there are two kinds of people serving as senators, as congressmen and as members of the Supreme Court?”
We’re answering: “Yes, it is a true. One kind is those not capable of anything at all, and
Cameron is ruining Britain (Score:4, Insightful)
He almost lost the Scotland gamble. And of course there will be a second Referendum in a couple of years which will end in a divorce. He leads the UK out of the EU sinking the British finance sector. He also wants to cancel the European human rights treaty. And he censors the internet and spies on everyone.
He mostly acts like a child. He is angry or has tears in his eyes. And then he lies to the British and then the EU is the cause of all problems according to Cameron. He is an upper class classisist with a big ego and no intellect. And I am very sorry for the UK, but he will ruin it for most of them.
On Behalf of The Guys Whose Speech Isn't Free (Score:3)
As a Brit (Score:3)
I can think of various things that should be itemised as nasty. I am all for letting crazies speak but I would like them and everyone else to know how many people think they are dodgy,
"What type of things" you might ask "would I want to identify as hateful?"
You could start with our most hate filled politics. We have little as far right as you guys but there ae simple acronyms for some of the worst - ECDL, BNP, UKIP and the like. Their right to say things should not be restricted but everyone going to their sites should receive a reminder whenever they go to their web sites that these people are to be examined very carefully as some of them are completely nuts and even the mildest of them may well be the bunch of "fruitcases" that they were described as!
If there was a "Really Crazy" button that we could report groups from those to Home Secretaries who want to mess us up, that would be really useful...
Cameron to Shakespeare: (Score:3)
"Sorry Bill, too much terrorist, aristocrat-killing propaganda in your plays. Lock him in the tower, mates."
Sad to think of those who died for free speech (Score:3)
Might as well piss on their graves.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Who cares? The majority wants this and more. When you consider what those people eat, you'd still think the war was on, and good food was being rationed. Britain leads the way. The US will soon follow. They want the same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The people only want it because they're only fed misleading propaganda. Once again, this just shows that the ignorant masses are ignorant and gullible and incredibly easy to manipulate.
Re: (Score:2)
For the people in the government? Nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What could possibly (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Is the U.K. currently experiencing a prison occupancy shortage by any chance?
"How many protest reportings of my representative's speech as radical does it take to get to the center of a London* state prison, Mr. Owl?"
"ONLY ONE." [bars slam]
* everybody knows London is the only city in the U.K. anyway
Re:What could possibly (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, on the good side, this would probably silence religious speech.
Re:What could possibly (Score:5, Insightful)
It would likely silence the speech you just made too.
If you think silencing speech you do not like or agree with is proper, you need to consider how long it would take to silence yourself. I'm sure there are people who do not agree with you.
Re:What could possibly (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for Muslims. UK seems to have two separate standards: one for Muslims, one for everybody else.
Muslim preach hate in the streets all the time. Muslims are allowed to offend anybody. Nobody is allowed to offend Muslims.
Re: (Score:2)
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh...how radical does it have to be, before it's acceptable to hit the button? How radicalized is it acceptable to be? How radicalizable are the proles?
I'd hit the button for anything political or religious in nature. Just because I can.
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet. But I guess in 1-2 years I'll be earning that label with the ever changing definition then certainly including anyone who thinks the daily 2-minutes-hate is bull.