Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Gov't Plans To Censor "Extremist" Websites Via Orders To ISPs

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the say-fellas-since-we've-got-this-stuff-in-place dept.

United Kingdom 208

Not content with blacklisting certain kinds of pornography, writes an anonymous reader, according to this news from The Guardian, "The UK government is to order broadband companies to block extremist websites and empower a specialist unit to identify and report content deemed too dangerous for online publication. The crime and security minister, James Brokenshire, said on Wednesday that measures for censoring extremist content would be announced shortly. The initiative is likely to be controversial, with broadband companies already warning that freedom of speech could be compromised."

cancel ×

208 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gaining speed down that slope... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549427)

n/t

Re:Gaining speed down that slope... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549457)

You got that right. Once again, protecting our freedom by pissing it away.

EVERYBODY said that would happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549577)

and EVERYBODY knows what will be the next steps. Go on, the frog is still comfortable in the warm water.

Re:Gaining speed down that slope... (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 10 months ago | (#45550359)

"You got that right. Once again, protecting our freedom by pissing it away."

Note to UK government: censorship never works. It never has, it never will. All it does is foment rebellion.

Re:Gaining speed down that slope... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550453)

Fuck the UK Government. I have said it often, always got modded as trolll: The UK is a shitty little piece of Mother Russia with worse censorship than China. Fuck the UK. Once again Fuck THE UK.

(I like individual Brits, so don't feel offended if you are British).

Re:Gaining speed down that slope... (5, Insightful)

RocketChild (1397411) | about 10 months ago | (#45549525)

I'm very surprised that they moved so quick to do this so provocatively. It seems like that mission creep takes several years before it actually shows up. But that smoke screen of "think of the children" blew away quick. So...that leaves me wondering. What is "really" next?

Re:Gaining speed down that slope... (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 10 months ago | (#45549703)

The department shall be called "The Ministry of Truth" or MINITRU for short.

Re:Gaining speed down that slope... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550039)

I think you mean #MINITRU

Re:Gaining speed down that slope... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550143)

Here's what happened the last time a British government tried to censor media in matters of extremism and terrorism (in this case, IRA-related organizations):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4409447.stm

Spoiler: it didn't do a damn thing.

It will be interesting to see whether Islamic terrorists manage to do what Irish terrorists couldn't, namely, make Britain clamp down on basic freedoms.

Well, (5, Insightful)

Dartz-IRL (1640117) | about 10 months ago | (#45549433)

When Terrorism is 'Any action that is intended to influence the government', what is extremism? Any idea that the current sitting government doesn't like?

There was once another group of people that went out of their way to censor information their people received, to hide atrocities committed in their name and smash an idea that didn't fit the party line.

As I recall, at one stage, the UK did quite a bit to stop them.

Re:Well, (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549539)

Under that definition voting would qualify as terrorism.

Re:Well, (1, Troll)

paiute (550198) | about 10 months ago | (#45549593)

Under that definition voting would qualify as terrorism.

Jesus, don't give the retards in the South any more excuses.

Re:Well, (1, Flamebait)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 10 months ago | (#45549751)

Under that definition voting would qualify as terrorism.

Jesus, don't give the retards in the South any more excuses.

What do you have against people in the southern UK?

I know you can't mean the American South. This kind of nanny-state crap is the kind of thing you'd expect from the Northeast from people like Herr Bloomberg and/or from the "land of fruits & nuts" aka California and some of the northwestern States from people like Feinstein & Pelosi.

Strat

Re:Well, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549779)

the kind of thing you'd expect from the Northeast from people like Herr Bloomberg and/or from the "land of fruits & nuts" aka California and some of the northwestern States from people like Feinstein & Pelosi.

With us or against us, comrade!

Re:Well, (2)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 10 months ago | (#45549859)

Fooking English, they they are the ancient enemy! We'll never surrender our kilts!

Re:Well, (2)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45550341)

For the love of all that is good and right: please keep that kilt on!

Re:Well, (1)

immaterial (1520413) | about 10 months ago | (#45550133)

He's clearly referring to the anti-voting laws that have recently been put into place, mostly in the South and Bible Belt states (not exclusively there, for sure, but your bastions of crazy liberalism are not on the list).

Re:Well, (2)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 10 months ago | (#45550223)

He's clearly referring to the anti-voting laws...

Wait, wait, wait...

So, now laws that simply require presenting basic personal ID (which everybody would need to have to do almost anything in society) in order to prevent election fraud are now "anti-voting laws"?

LMAO!!

Sheesh, you people just get funnier (and more desperate) every single day!

Strat

Re:Well, (2)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45550331)

Right, right, because laws that require you to actually be eligible to vote, and vote only once, are "anti-voting laws"?

Anyone who buys alcohol will have an ID that lets them vote. So other than a few conservative Christians, who exactly do such laws prevent from legitimately voting?

Re:Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549619)

Under that definition voting would qualify as terrorism.

Depends on who or what you're voting for.

Anything that isn't pro "current administration" (whatever that is at the time of the election) could be considered "dangerous" by their standards (or lack thereof) and blocked.

Freedom is great ... at least that what I hear from people old enough to remember what it actually was.

Re:Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549655)

I don't think voting has ever influenced the government.

Re:Well, (1)

Flavianoep (1404029) | about 10 months ago | (#45550245)

I don't think voting has ever influenced the government.

You're right! No Briton can vote in the City of London.

Re:Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549677)

Under that definition voting would qualify as terrorism.

Easy fix. War on Voters.

Seriously though, this is already a problem. When the political face of organisations such as IRA, Hizbollah or Hamas win free and fair elections. There was one in Algeria, if memory serves, that participated in a democratic election on the strength of a single agendum: abolish democracy.

The problem is that you can't, regardless of ones opinion of such an organisation, deny them the legitimacy or mandate that come with winning an open, honest democratic race. At least not without seriously depreciating the concept of democracy.

In international affairs, it is all too common to pay lip service to democratic ideals in the abstract, only to then proactively undermine if an undesirable government is chosen somewhere.

Re:Well, (5, Interesting)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about 10 months ago | (#45549809)

IRA, Hizbollah and Hamas are all nationalistic organisations in countries that are under intense external pressure, either politically, militarily or economically, to such an extent that the general population are suffering. The same was true of Germany in the 1930's. While I agree with the points you make I feel that most discussions on this topic miss the most important point of all. Yes democracy can throw up some problem leaders, but ignoring the circumstances that lead up to each of these cases is failing to learn lessons from history. While it is possible that removing the treaty of Versailles may not have prevented the nazis' rise to power, it seems almost certain that Hamas would never have been elected without the Israeli blockade and attacks. It also seems hard to imagine the IRA getting any power in a world where Ireland was not subject to brutal repression for a couple of centuries.

Democracy is not the problem, it is imperialism that is the problem. Desperate people act desperately, and voting is no exception.

Re:Well, (1)

Dartz-IRL (1640117) | about 10 months ago | (#45550117)

Well, voting for the wrong party anyway.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549547)

The Internet has truly become the Volksempfanger [wikipedia.org] - a method of distributing government propaganda while limiting "pirate" content.

Re:Well, (4, Informative)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 10 months ago | (#45549643)

When Terrorism is 'Any action that is intended to influence the government', what is extremism?

you misquoted.

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

just stating the fact, not it's implications.

Re:Well, (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#45549773)

does it say OR or OF?

and I don't know, you could constitute "lets march to piccadilly and show them what we think!" could be a threat..

Re:Well, (1)

dnaumov (453672) | about 10 months ago | (#45549833)

When Terrorism is 'Any action that is intended to influence the government', what is extremism?

you misquoted.

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

just stating the fact, not it's implications.

"let's vote them out of office" would qualify as a threat

Re:Well, (2)

Nyder (754090) | about 10 months ago | (#45549959)

When Terrorism is 'Any action that is intended to influence the government', what is extremism? Any idea that the current sitting government doesn't like?

There was once another group of people that went out of their way to censor information their people received, to hide atrocities committed in their name and smash an idea that didn't fit the party line.

As I recall, at one stage, the UK did quite a bit to stop them.

Churchill is most likely a bit miffed how the UK government pissed away all the hard work he accomplished. Then again, it's not bad when you are doing it, only when someone else is doing it to you.

Re:Well, (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#45550035)

Churchill is most likely a bit miffed how the UK government pissed away all the hard work he accomplished.

You mean, accomplishments like bankrupting the nation, losing the Empire and giving half of Europe (including Poland, which Britain supposedly entered the war to save) to Stalin?

Re:Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550459)

Oh, losing the Empire, you lost all those nations you STOLE!
I very much like a UK that is NOT an Empire.
We have enough imperialism for now...

Re:Well, (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 10 months ago | (#45550421)

There was once another group of people that went out of their way to censor information their people received, to hide atrocities committed in their name and smash an idea that didn't fit the party line.

As I recall, at one stage, the UK did quite a bit to stop them.

Hurrah for the Blackshirts!

Extremists? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 10 months ago | (#45549435)

Theres a lot of them in the States, but I don't suppose they count.

On both ends of the political spectrum

Re:Extremists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549649)

You mean our news channels? They're going to be playing with fire based on these efforts to "protect the children".

Since Snowden has released information "dangerous" to the UK's government I wonder if the ISPs will be required to block stories about that information?

Re:Extremists? (5, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 10 months ago | (#45549737)

The United States of America was founded by armed political extremists.

Re:Extremists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550325)

So the UK is doing this so we don't get another United States? Now I am conflicted.

Capitalism at its finest creates Criminals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549443)

Already recommended Slashdot to them. They said there wasn't enough CP or threats of violence on here yet, but they'll be working hard to fix that problem.

Its almost like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549449)

Its almost like they WANT an uprising on their hands...

Re:Its almost like... (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 10 months ago | (#45549549)

Its almost like they WANT an uprising on their hands...

Imagine the frustration of today's governments. They imprison us en masse, they torture us, they let the 1% rape the 90%, they basically piss away the rights we took back from the old-world monarchies as fast as they can...

And we just sit around and take it. "Oh well", we say, "at least they keep me safe from dying of something slightly less likely than choking to death on a goldfish".

Can you see how unsatisfied our leaders must feel at that level of rolling over by those they seek to oppress? "Stop hitting yourself in the face", the bully says, and here we stand around actually hitting ourselves in the face over, and over, and over. Takes all the fun out of it!

Re:Its almost like... (2)

Alarash (746254) | about 10 months ago | (#45549673)

What do the 9% remainder do? Watch? Bloody pervs!

Re:Its almost like... (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 months ago | (#45550047)

Heavy on the hyperbole are we? And "today's governments" is mostly the US government. Our incarceration rate is 1/10th of the US. We don't have a Gitmo. The 1% is getting richer but with the march of technology the TVs are getting bigger, the smartphones smarter so I can't see any real decline in living standard even though the gap is widening. As for rights, go back to the pre-Internet days and see how much they controlled the mass media back then. They're still trying to put Internet back in the bag, for all the attempts at trying I'd say in most ways we're freer in the 2010s than the 1980s, though there might have been a wild west gap in between. Granted, there's not much progress being made but the trend isn't horribly bad [wikipedia.org] either.

So much for the Internet.. (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 10 months ago | (#45549505)

..if this kind of shit continues.

Nobody listens to science, sadly. (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#45549509)

Historically, far and away the most dangerous information a web site can host is the idea it's good, necessary, and proper for a government to have the power to censor.

That's just based on a silly metric called megadeaths, though.

Re:Nobody listens to science, sadly. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 10 months ago | (#45549687)

Dammit, my mod points expired!

Re:Nobody listens to science, sadly. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549767)

Historically, far and away the most dangerous information a web site can host is the idea it's good, necessary, and proper for a government to have the power to censor. That's just based on a silly metric called megadeaths [wikipedia.org] , though.

So far, so good... so what? Peace sells, but who's buying? Killing is the government's business, and business is good. Censoring these Cryptic Writings carries the Risk of putting us on a Countdown to extinction. It's clear that The System has failed, but what is the Endgame? The world needs a hero.

Re:Nobody listens to science, sadly. (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#45550195)

The world needs a hero.

The world needs to stop looking for heroes. The belief that an almighty hero will ride into town and save us all is the root cause of much human suffering, from Hitler to Stalin to Mao to David Cameron.

When humans finally accept that someone with the power to save them is also someone with the power to enslave them, we might actually be able to build a sensible society.

Internet Shit & Stomp Troopers!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549523)

"The government is to order broadband companies to block extremist websites and empower a specialist unit to identify and report content deemed too dangerous for online publication."

That would be anything that either embarrasses the government or any of the F500 corporations or otherwise interferes with them
shitting all over you and your family and stomping you flat if you object.

Very extremist behavior (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549527)

Maybe they should block the government's web site.

Remember, kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549541)

Extremism is anything which the government doesn't like.

You saw the Prime Minister steal a candy bar? Don't tell anyone about it, extremist.

Perfect Justice (0)

TempleOS (3394245) | about 10 months ago | (#45549565)

God is perfectly just. False witness is a high crime. I judge you, not you judge me. God says... C:\TAD\Text\DARWIN.TXT boulders, crossing the Portillo valley, which, there can hardly be a doubt, once formed a huge moraine; and Mr. D. Forbes informs me that he found in various parts of the Cordillera, from latitude 13 to 30 degrees south, at about the height of 12,000 feet, deeply-furrowed rocks, resembling those with which he was familiar in Norway, and likewise great masses of detritus, including grooved pebbles. Along this whole space of the Cordillera true glaciers do not now exist even at much more considerabl

Re:Perfect Justice (2)

Cenan (1892902) | about 10 months ago | (#45549629)

Who the fuck writes a text spamming bot in 2013 and then has a fixed size text buffer???

Re:Perfect Justice (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549717)

We live in a "twitter" world. If you can't spam it in a limited number of characters you're just not with the times.

even if all of my HDDs belong to the dump (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549571)

i can still access my bitcoin acct.so just more scripted pr firm deceptive blather is expected

Appalling, yet interesting as a social experiment. (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 10 months ago | (#45549573)

Compare and contrast the comments herein with the comments of this other thread. [slashdot.org] Note the framing words used in each headline -- One says "Extremist" the other one "Radical". This allows us to compare the interchangeable terms in big O notation: Whereby O( 1 ) is clear and unbiased news, and higher big Orwellian factors indicate additional obfuscation and framing complexity to add connotative bias where none is required.

Re:Appalling, yet interesting as a social experime (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 10 months ago | (#45549801)

A comparison in six words:

"It's OK when we do it."

What criteria? (1)

dhaen (892570) | about 10 months ago | (#45549583)

Sites that disagree with the government line? But facebook beheadings are presumably not extremist enough..

Re:What criteria? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 10 months ago | (#45550225)

That's because beheadings is porn for a corrupt government.
They imagine doing the same to any of their opponents.

Soon "Extremism"(TM) will be an automatic death sentence.
Game of Thrones, 21st century style.

Re:What criteria? (2)

jarle.aase (1440081) | about 10 months ago | (#45550405)

Unfortunately, we may end up with censorship that cuts off anything that may offend anyone.
So in 10 years time, you will again be able to carry the entire content of the "Internet" on a 3.5" floppy-disk.

Seriously - I will make my sites available as onion-sites before new-year.

really? (0)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 10 months ago | (#45549585)

"The initiative is likely to be controversial, with broadband companies already warning that freedom of speech could be compromised."

freedom of speech is a total fiction anyway...there is a plethora of restrictions on free speech, not the least being having to be careful of what you say in social settings as to not alienate yourself from whatever group your are trying to gain favor in.

Re:really? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#45549769)

freedom of speech is a total fiction anyway...there is a plethora of restrictions on free speech, not the least being having to be careful of what you say in social settings as to not alienate yourself from whatever group your are trying to gain favor in.

Congratulations, you just confused freedom of speech with freedom from consequences. Speech is an action, actions have reactions, we can call them consequences. Those consequences are limited by the same rules of society as all other consequences, that is, nobody is ever entitled to break the law because of something someone said and thus you are theoretically protected from violent reprisal for expression of your opinion. In practice, the state operates no enterprise engaged in your protection; it operates through reprisal, not ensurance of safety.

I will defend (perhaps to the death, perhaps not) your right to say whatever you want, but also my right to feel however I want about it. Indeed, I will defend my right to my own opinion more strenuously than your right to express yours.

Both rights are critical to a free society.

Re:really? (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 10 months ago | (#45549937)

There's "freedom of speech". Then there's "freedom after speech". Even China and the old USSR guaranteed the former.

Re:really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549797)

there is a plethora of restrictions on free speech, not the least being having to be careful of what you say in social settings as to not alienate yourself from whatever group your are trying to gain favor in.

That's not a restriction. You're 100% free to say what you like in that instance. The listening party has no obligation to like it.

That's basically the definition of free speech. I don't think you could have found a more incorrect example.

Re:really? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 months ago | (#45549819)

freedom of speech is a total fiction anyway...there is a plethora of restrictions on free speech, not the least being having to be careful of what you say in social settings as to not alienate yourself from whatever group your are trying to gain favor in.

Yes, it's this terrible human right called freedom of association which on the flip side says I don't have to associate with people I don't want to associate with. Now you're down to schoolyard level though, you can't force someone else to be friends with you. It doesn't exactly belong in the same discussion as actual censorship, harassment, imprisonment, discrimination or persecution based on your speech. It's only the freedom to hold and express an opinion, you can't by law make it a popular one.

Re:really? (2)

bigfinger76 (2923613) | about 10 months ago | (#45549839)

To be fair, "freedom of speech" does not imply freedom from consequences of said speech, nor should it.

Ahhh, the Brits (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45549601)

Always the trend setters they are, except when it comes to rock 'n roll...

Time for a new limey song!! REPOST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549865)

Piggybacking on your post for visibility.

Time for a new limey song... (Score:-1)
==
by JockTroll (996521) on Thursday November 28, 2013 @12:25PM (#45549631)
Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the web. Britons never, never, never shall be smart!
==

We all knew it was only the beginning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549607)

We all knew it was only the beginning when they started with the censorship.

Time for a new limey song... (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 10 months ago | (#45549631)

Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the web. Britons never, never, never shall be smart!

Offshore hosting. Game, set, and match. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549647)

I guess the British government morons who thought this idiocy up
have never heard of servers which are located in areas
which do not fall under their jurisdiction ...

Re:Offshore hosting. Game, set, and match. (3, Insightful)

ray-auch (454705) | about 10 months ago | (#45549765)

er, that's why they are getting ISPs to block the routes to the sites, rather than taking the sites down.

They already forced ISPs to do it for child porn, then the courts enforced blocks on "pirate" sites because the child porn filters proved that it was technically possible, next step (previously announced, due to come in soon) they are forcing every UK ISP to implement porn (_legal_ porn) filters.

And now it's "block stuff that isn't porn/child-porn/illegal-under-copyright-law, but we don't like it anyway". No surprise.

Might be time stockpile some paper copies of the anarchists cookbook - could start to go up in value faster than bitcoins...

Re:Offshore hosting. Game, set, and match. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45550023)

Much as I like the romantic idea of being an underground data-trader, covertly threading my way through government blocks an thwarting investigations to bring forbidden cargo to those with the bitcoin to pay, there is a vital flaw in that vision of the future: It depends on the censorship efforts being half-way effective. Trying to stop the spread of information today is like trying to order back the tide.

Re: Offshore hosting. Game, set, and match. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549807)

I guess you didn't see they aren't going after the source. They will block them in the last mile carrier side. They don't care if you can to it from other countries just can't inside theirs. Think kinda like the China firewall

Re:Offshore hosting. Game, set, and match. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550011)

I guess the British government morons who thought this idiocy up have never heard of servers which are located in areas which do not fall under their jurisdiction ...

They don't go for the servers, they go for the ISPs: that's the end-user's connection - RTF Headline.

One man's extremism (2)

fnj (64210) | about 10 months ago | (#45549659)

One man's extremism is another man's passion for truth and the rights of the people.

This from the country that banned Michael Savage (1)

rconaway (1001967) | about 10 months ago | (#45549713)

Great, UK, one of great U.S. allies is following the Australia and Chinese models of censoring what the government doesn't like. We should send the IRS and Obama handles, err, Democratic operatives, over there to teach them how to violate the citizens freedom of speech rights in a more subtle manner.

Re:This from the country that banned Michael Savag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550269)

please name names, without a reference, nobody can search for Australian and Chinese models.... i heard Obama`s starting a new swimsuit edition, "Bad-Sports, Illustrated by their constitutionalviolations

In the famous words of noted hacker Pr1nc3ss L3Ah (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549729)

"The more you tighten your grip... the more bits will simply slip through your fingers."

Seriously though, censorship? "1984" was a warning, NOT A BLOODY GUIDEBOOK!

The UK Gov't has its head up its ass.

Taleban.com (1, Insightful)

AndyCanfield (700565) | about 10 months ago | (#45549747)

I remember that there was great controversy about the Taliban, then in control of the country of Afghanistan. I would go to www.taliban.com and read what they had to say. It was in English. Then in July it was hacked and the front page was replaced by a picture of the American flag. A month or so later the United States invaded Afghanistan. A month after that www.taliban.com disappeared from the Internet.

The United States of America does not have to block web sites. If they don't like you, you just cease to exist. They control the top level domain names, right?

Oddly enough, I see that there is a site there now. I'll have to check it out.

Re:Taleban.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549993)

Hello Comrade! We see that you are visiting the Taliban's website, which makes you a terrorist threat. We will be monitoring everything you do from now on.

Also, a GPS censor has been placed on your car. Do not remove it! If you do, you will be arrested.

The Truth Is Dangerous (3, Insightful)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 10 months ago | (#45549763)

It is true that exposure to truth tends to radicalize people. I say again that no government wants the population to have freedom in communications. People who think a lot can be difficult to control. Secrecy is a form of conspiracy in and of itself. Hiding truth tends to maintain social customs. And people can be manipulated simply by hiding the truth. Right now we have a lot of issues with terrorists from the Arab nations. Apparently they have some dream of bring back the caliphate. But how many of these Arabs are even aware that the caliphate was Ottoman and that Arabs were not particularly respected nor valued by the Turks who controlled the caliphate. For an Arab to dream of the joy of living under the caliphate is roughly equivalent to a German Jew dreaming of the good old days when the Reich was in total control of Germany.

Re:The Truth Is Dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550239)

"Suck me hard", said George Osborne.
"No need to be crude", said the Prime Minister, "juST WHISPER IN MY EAR, STOP YELLIN!"
"Piu Bella, you may-ke mi wanna overr-cum the ceiling", said Berlesque-scones-and-T.....

Gosh-darn Mervyn King!

Isn't that a bit extreme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549883)

So will they have to censor their own websites?
Or do we raise our right hand und sieg heil?

I don't know why people are upset with this (1)

holophrastic (221104) | about 10 months ago | (#45549903)

The Internet began as a freedom of speech thing the same way me standing in a park did. But that was in the '80s. Now, the Internet acts as a full publication and broadcast system, like me putting up a six-storey banner on the side of a skyscraper.

There have always been laws governing what you can say in a public arena.

Today, it's the norm for 3-year olds to use online systems, as well as educational institutions, and a whole host of real-world legitimate and vital purposes. It's no longer an optional activity at all in most circles.

So the question to ask yourself: is there anything that you wouldn't accept painted onto the side of a downtown building? You can always walk a different way to work and not see it. I'll bet there's something that you would call inappropriate as a public display. It may be something as simple as your grandparents kissing.

Whatever it is, that's what we've come to. And it's no surprise. For all the reasons that broadcasts have ever been appropriately restricted, so should the internet be.

Now, you can certainly complain with the way that it's done. You can be upset at the sheer number of false positives. You can be correct in saying that it may actually be impossible or unfeasible to enforce. But then that becomes the debate, not the need for the restriction in the first place.

Re:I don't know why people are upset with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550061)

So the question to ask yourself: is there anything that you wouldn't accept painted onto the side of a downtown building?

"This message censored by your government".

I'm fairly certain I just typed "http://slashdot.org/" into my URL bar to get here. If you enter a building with a mural you find unpleasant, you can usually leave; just as you can close your browser window / tab. Remember the "enter our website" style welcome pages from the '90s? That's because websites are private property - stick that on the side of your fucking building!

Re:I don't know why people are upset with this (0)

holophrastic (221104) | about 10 months ago | (#45550157)

You can't usually leave most buildings that you've entered -- because you've usually entered them for a reason that has no reasonable alternative. Think about renewing a licence, grocery shopping, the bakery, movie theatre, home improvement store. For most people, the alternative is another home improvement store of the same brand twenty minutes away.

Let's use the movie theatre as a great example. Actually, it might be the perfect example. A movie poster for next year's movie is, let's say, your idea of vulgar. You're at the movie theatre to see the latest disney movie (these days that covers both star wars and toy story, so you can pick). Whether or not you've brought your 8-year old nephew is up to you. It's a 5 minute walk from your home.

But you see the poster, you'd be forced to stare at it while standing in line for tickets and for entry into the cinema, you don't like it, so you leave. You walk back home. You get into the car, and you drive fifteen minutes to the next theatre. It's the same brand, and they have the same poster and same layout. So you get back into the car, and you drive another thirty minutes two towns over where the theatre company is different.

But they show the same movies, and therefore they have both the movie you want to see, and the poster that you don't.

So your only remaining option is to not go to any movie theatre until next year's movie poster is taken down -- which will be next year.

It's all private property. It's all recreational. And there's no getting away from it.

Now no one's saying that you find the colour green offensive. But there's something that could be in a movie poster that would ruin your night. It might be something very gory from a horror movie. It might be a perfectly fine scene from an R rated horror movie when you're trying to see a PG rated disney movie.

Ultimately, government censorship is supposed to be like movie ratings. This doesn't contain that. You won't accidentally see that when you're looking at this.

Web-sites have links. Web-sites have frames. Web-sites have ads, pictures, and public comments. Obviously there's going to need to be some limits some where.

You shouldn't like it. But you should desire it. And you should definitely expect it.

Re:I don't know why people are upset with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550263)

You can't usually leave most buildings that you've entered -- because you've usually entered them for a reason that has no reasonable alternative. Think about renewing a licence, grocery shopping, the bakery, movie theatre, home improvement store. For most people, the alternative is another home improvement store of the same brand twenty minutes away.

Therefore it is unreasonable to take offence.

Ultimately, government censorship is supposed to be like movie ratings. This doesn't contain that. You won't accidentally see that when you're looking at this.

Don't be so disingenuous, this isn't a proposal to censor the home depot website. When was the last time you saw something offensive on retail website in the way you're describing? Please provide full details.

You shouldn't like it. But you should desire it. And you should definitely expect it.

Gee thanks. I'll be sure to remember your telling me what I should and should not do next time I see a disturbingly commercial, garish poster for a Disney movie. A man could choose to take offence at things like that. Down with the commercialization of childhood, up with the gore and sex quotient I say! Not that any of this has relevance to the proposed legislation.

Re:I don't know why people are upset with this (1)

holophrastic (221104) | about 10 months ago | (#45550449)

You might want to not censor your name here.

Re:I don't know why people are upset with this (1)

jarle.aase (1440081) | about 10 months ago | (#45550455)

Sir. You are full of it!

What they are doing is like removing your house if they don't like the banner you put there. On your house. On your property.

Censorship is always evil. There are no exceptions.

YOu FAIL IT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549923)

Satan's D1ck And Website. Mr. de

You will not believe how far Britain will go (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45549945)

When Tony Blair rose to power, he took a tighter grip of all the significant institutions that run the UK than any previous person in British history. You can compare Blair to Putin, although Blair's control of Britain is far more complete, comprehensive, and more importantly sustainable, than anything Putin could hope to achieve in Russia.

When Labour was in 'power' Blair was able to smash through a raft of sickening depraved changes, but was limited by what the public thought acceptable from a Labour flavoured government. The second half of Blair's agenda had to wait until he placed a seemingly 'right wing' government in power, although everything the current Liberal-Conservative coalition is currently inflicting on the country was designed and detailed by Blairites when Blair was formally the 'Prime Minister'.

The new age of CENSORSHIP in the UK has nothing really to do with controlling British sheeple- they are already as domesticated as a monster like Blair could need. What is happening in the UK is for a vastly more evil purpose. Britain is still influential across the planet. There is still the widespread concept that if the Brits think a given idea is 'good', then that idea is really worth implementing in other nations.

In nations most friendly with Blair, you can see the most appalling attacks against every kind of Human freedom. And these nations justify, at the highest level, their crackdowns by referring to current policies in the UK. Protest, without prior State approval, is technically illegal in the UK. The mere act of protesting is a CRIME is any person claims any aspect of the protest is 'offensive' - and EVERY crime in the UK is an arrestable offence, where the police have an automatic right (if they wish) to raid your home and confiscate all your electronic devices and other records.

In Britain, the 'proportionality' is simply that most protesters are NOT arrested, and their homes not raided, BUT the legal framework is there to do precisely this. In an nation like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Egypt, simple protesters are arrested, and their homes are raided, with the governments of these nations explaining that their laws and legal powers are the SAME as in the UK, and this is totally true. Blair has created the most atrocious police state powers in Britain, precisely so other nations can implement the same, and unlike the UK, use the laws in the most widespread fashion.

Let me make this easier to understand. Imagine that Blair legalised SLAVERY in the UK, but the actual ownership of slaves in Britain was near zero. Now imagine Blair ensured his people justified the slavery laws daily in Britain's mainstream media. The result of this would be other nations adopting full blown slavery, justified by the British example. Obviously, today slavery is largely pointless for industrialised economic reasons, but a 19th Century Blair, ensuring that Britain fully supported the principle of Human slavery regardless of the number of actual slaves in the UK itself, would have change the course of Human History.

Britain is a full blown police state. The vile shills that say this is not so, simply because Britain is NOT enforcing Blair's police state laws on a large scale deliberately miss the point. Blair is a monster infinitely more sophisticated than a Stalin, Hitler or Mao. He gutted the British will to fight back when Britain saw its biggest mass protest ever, with the march against Blair's invasion of Iraq. Blair created an official so-called anti war movement (the British perfected concept of 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' used so powerfully across the History of the British Empire) and put at its head his lieutenant, George Galloway, so that the co-opted movement could be safely run into the ground.

The failure of the people to stop their war criminal leader deflated the will of the people, and Blair steamed ahead, eventually introducing his Blair Brainwashing factories called 'Academy Schools' (slightly based on US Charter Schools), to ensure that future generations of Brits would be taught to think in the 'right' way.

'Extremism' in Britain means opposing Blair's wars in ANY active fashion. 'Extremism' in the UK means reading or disseminating the truth about world situations that contradict the messages from Blair's mainstream media sources like the BBC, Guardian, or any web site supported by George Soros. 'Extremism' in the UK means being against any of Blair's agendas. 'Extremism' in the UK is telling people NOT to vote, because any vote gives legitimacy to Blair's system and goals, goals ruthlessly pursued regardless of whether it is Blair's Liberals, Conservatives or Labour flavoured people in power.

Blair, like all monstrous dictators, believes strongly in the 'slippery slope' as a way to win continuous victories against the ordinary people. Blair has given British courts the ability to rubber-stamp the designation of ANY web site as illegal, under the depraved abuse of the CIVIL system where the 'complainant' automatically wins, no matter how terrible their case is, if the other side fails to make an appearance. There is no concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' or 'freedom of speech'. In the UK, protesters have gone to prison SIMPLY for shouting "war criminal" at elected politicians that voted to support Blair's genocidal wars (remember that British law criminalising 'offensive' speech).

America is the one nation NOT supposed to follow the British example. America has a Constitution guaranteeing free speech etc, so America chooses to abuse its citizens using very different methods- methods that are mostly unique on the planet. America simply exists to provide the 'muscle' for Blair's global war plans.

Re:You will not believe how far Britain will go (0)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about 10 months ago | (#45550091)

I can imagine why you feel more threatened about this than most. I'm not from the UK, but I did notice a link between extremist ideas on the internet and terrorism. The Boston bombers for instance, were totally into tin-foil hat theories and "right wing" ideology [infowars.com] . My immediate reaction to that realization was just this: extremist ideas should be dealt with with extreme prejudice.

And then I stepped back and looked at what that would mean.

Freedom is hard. It's about taking a risk. The risk is that in exchange for not putting everyone in a cage, the 1/2 of 1% of the population might murder you. Perfect safety, or at least, perfect safety from spectacular attacks, is going to require that we all be put into electronic cages. You will have freedom of movement, but be on camera and recorded at all times. Your location, heart-rate, voice, and someday even thoughts, will have to be monitored by the government, much like a game designer testing his virtual world for bugs.

Its required to fight terrorism. Fighting terrorism is a good way to get elected. Most people won't mind so long as they can play XBox, drive a car, "follow their dreams", and so on. "Leave the politics to the politicians, I just want to make a living." They'll say.

80 years from now our "1st world" won't even be recognizable.

Rot from within (2)

RichardCory (2533518) | about 10 months ago | (#45549953)

So many have battled external enemies for our freedom. Fought and died for freedom. Yet, despite the fact that the majority of people agree that the average polititian is pretty much pond scum, we still allow them to take our freedom without even a whimper. What all outside fources have failed to do we do to ourselves. God help us all...
 

But this can't happen (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#45550025)

This is a slippery slope, and I've been assured here on many occasions that slippery slopes are a logical fallacy.

Do your part to report extremist websites! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550105)

Go to Report online terrorist and extremist material [www.gov.uk] and do your civic duty to report extremists websites that UK citizens should be protected from!

I myself have reported the site, http://www.jamesbrokenshire.com/ as example of a radical extremist who wants prevent British citizens from being exposed to alternative opinions and information and making up their own minds as to their validity which runs counter to government sanctioned media outlets. I encourage other people to utilize this website pronto and start identifying those freedom hating websites out there. And if you are worried about the UK government getting all in your business by reporting an extremist website? Well, don't be because the site has this disclaimer on it:

Report illegal terrorist or violent extremist information, pictures or videos on the internet. Your report will be treated anonymously.

The need to censor politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550123)

You may not recall, but there have been repeated promises that the UK censorship would never be used, cross our black little politicians' hearts honest, for anything except the most grave and depraved child abuse pictures.

That already went out the window with the general ban on porn and the resulting requirement to phone in and admit you're a pervert, to (in the law's honest-like-spammers-are-honest terminology) "opt out" of filtering. If anyone still believed it would stay limited and the ban on wikipedia was "just" an accident.

So this is no surprise. It's entirely logical. And yet another proof that promises from politicians are exactly that: Devoid of value, consistency, sense, or any purpose beyond "votes", no matter the cost to the country or its citizens.

The oxygen of publicity (2)

Butterspoon (892614) | about 10 months ago | (#45550185)

In 1985 Margaret Thatcher gave a speech to the American Bar Association in which she said "we must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend". This led to a ban on broadcast of utterances by republican politicians supportive of the Provisional IRA, which in turn led to the absurd situation of news programmes showing video of politicians such as Gerry Adams speaking but with the audio replaced by an actor's voice.

It only drew attention to the extremist's cause, as will be the case here.

Has Anybody Noticed... (1)

Carol Anne Ogdin (3404765) | about 10 months ago | (#45550215)

...the name of the Minister, Mr. Brokenshire.

Since "shire" is a county in the UK (i.e., a political subdivision) that translates directly to Mr. "Broken" "Government."

Couldn't have named him much better, myself :-)

What is an extremeist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45550231)

Anyone who opposes the actions of the government.

When does this become an issue? (1)

MacTO (1161105) | about 10 months ago | (#45550329)

Whether or not this becomes a freedom of speech issue depends upon many factors, one of which is the definition of free speech. Personally I draw the line at encouraging people to commit material crimes (e.g. murder) and at intentionally fabricating false information with the intent to harm others (e.g. accusing a person of rape when they did not commit that crime). Yet even if we all agreed upon that definition, there is the question of exactly what constitutes extremism and how that translates into law enforcement in practice.

For example: I am perfectly fine with a bunch of people with extreme views discussing how terrible the government is and how it should be changed, and I am fine with them spreading their message. It doesn't matter whether I agree with them or disagree with them. I am even fine with them discussing legal means of changing the government in order to reflect their perspective, even though I would be sure to oppose such changes if their views are actually that extreme. Yet I do have an issue with the promotion of violence and inciting terror in order to impose their views upon others. There are ample reasons for that, ranging from the intimidation tactics that people use in their everyday life to impose their will upon others to more extreme political movements that have resorted in anything from wholesale oppression to genocide.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>