Teh Terror (part 3)

Read this if you haven't.

The government want to give police constables the right to censor the internet. A police constable. A police constable can order content removed from a website. The debate on this amendment is happening now. The Lords want to put this judgement in the hands of the judiciary. The government does not.

The judgment the police constable must make under the government proposal is based on this:

(1) A person commits an offence under this section if he disseminates a terrorist
publication and either—
(a) he does so with the intention of directly or indirectly encouraging or inducing the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or of providing information with a view to its use in the commission or preparation of such acts; or
(b) he is reckless as to whether the dissemination of that publication will have such an effect.

(2) A person disseminates a terrorist publication if he—
(a) distributes or circulates a terrorist publication;
(b) gives, sells or lends such a publication;
(c) offers such a publication for sale or loan;
(d) provides a service to others that enables them to obtain, read, listen to or look at such a publication, or to acquire it by means of a gift, sale or loan;
(e) transmits the contents of such a publication electronically; or
(f) has such a publication in his possession with a view to its becoming the subject of conduct falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (e)

(3) For the purposes of this section a publication is a terrorist publication, in relation to conduct falling within subsection (2), if matter contained in it is likely—
(a) to be understood, by some or all of the persons to whom it is or may become available as a consequence of that conduct, as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; or
(b) to be useful in the commission or preparation of such acts and to be understood, by some or all of those persons, as contained in the publication, or made available to them, wholly or mainly for the purpose of being so useful to them.

Got that? A police constable. Not a judge.

I fully intended to write about Abu Ghraib today (probably still will) and I had no intention of using the following image to make a political point but this link contains a disturbing image of abuse at Abu Ghraib. It is worth noting that US covert operations have long used accusations of rape as a propaganda tool in all sorts of ways. Does that qualify? To me, it is absolutely essential that the British public are made aware of the consequences of the actions of their government.

But, under this law, it looks like it might be possible to have it taken down. To try to unpick it, is the publishing of the image an act which is reckless as to whether the dissemination of the image would directly or indirectly encourage or induce... terrorism? It is possible that someone will see that image and feel indirectly encouraged to participate in a terrorist act. It could be argued that I am being reckless by publishing the image. Those are the sort of judgements which the government wants police officers to make.

The definition of what is a terrorist publication is equally dubiuos. Unpicked:
A publication is a terrorist publication if matter contained in it is likely to be understood, by some or all of the persons to whom it is or may become available as a direct or indirect encouragement of acts of terrorism.

In theory, the fact that one person in the world exists who is able to access that image and who may be motivated to commit a terrorist act if he does see it, means that this image is a terrorist publication.

There're voting on it. If I believed in a god, I'd be praying to him/her right about now.

Update
Government wins by about 64 votes. Fung!

But as Unity points out, this can only be applied to websites hosted in the UK. Blogger is hosted in the United States of America so I can just encourage all my readers to go ahead and blow stuff up (not to be taken seriously obviously). Individuals, individual bloggers for example, in the UK would still be liable.

We know how the government uses the current anti-terrorism laws to suppress opinions it finds uncomfortable. This new law will extend that power.

Tags: News, Politics, Civil Liberties, Terrorism