Posted on 05/14/2015 12:04:13 PM PDT by Rusty0604
Last fall,..UK Home Secretary Theresa May had made it clear that if her Conservative Party were re-elected, one of the first orders of business would be a new "Extremist Disruption Orders" plan that would outlaw any speech or events that the government declared "extremist." She wasn't kidding around. Following last week's election in the UK, David Cameron appears to be announcing just such a plan ...
The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy ...
Oh, and here's the really insane part. David Cameron is claiming that he's doing this in the name of free speech.
“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance."
Here he is, saying that for too long we've been "tolerant" of free expression, and thus we have to ban it,...And he flat out admits that they no longer think "obeying the law" should keep you out of trouble.
As Glenn Greenwald rightly notes, once again it appears that the biggest threat to free speech is not from terrorism, but from those claiming to fight terrorism.
(Excerpt) Read more at techdirt.com ...
First and foremost, the 1st amendment is about no prior restraint.
This is totalitarianism, nothing less.
“extremist”, huh? Sounds like an adjective in search of a noun.
Bkmrk.
Well, that’s one reason we did that revolution thing.
Not sure the 1st Amendment applies to the UK, where no laws implemented by the Parliament can be struck down.
They don’t have a first amendment. But I think the lesson is there. They already are twisting the meaning of out first amendment here in U.S.
admit a bunch of ‘immigrants’ from IslamoNazi countries...
and you get instant troubles in the streets, violence, assaults, arsons, and you name it.
so the “answer” is for those in power to take away everyone’s civil rights and liberties...including free speech....
“to protect you from further disruptions”
(hum..... maybe that was the plan in the first place? I mean, since the violence and street riots were so obvious and predictable)
But of course, it can’t happen here...
Fear of the UKIP by the establishment?
>> First and foremost, the 1st amendment is about no prior restraint.
First of all, this is in Britain where they don’t have a 1st amendment. Secondly, even in America, “incitement to riot or murder” is not constitutionally protected speech.
UKIP did get a lot of votes. This could be one way to shut them up. I’d like to hear what Garage has to say about this.
Thanks for the explanation. I see that some people need things spelled out for them.
The point is that our 1st amendment is about no prior restraint - did I say somewhere that I thought it was a part of the Monarchy?
And as for “fighting words”, “incitement” etc., note that it is not subject to prior restraint...only after the fact consequence.
The British don’t have a Bill of Rights.
They are not talking about just incitement to riot or murder. Unless you are talking about Muslims. So I ask you, if our first amendment doesn’t cover incitement to riot or murder that that include all things sharia?
No way that the Muzzies will use this against the Brits. /s
Anything is incitement for Muslims.
Well, inciting to violence is not considered free speech. However poorly written laws become tools of oppression — and I don’t think they could write this type of law any way but poorly.
In America, laws passed by Congress can be invalidated by the judicial system on Constitutional grounds.
In U.K., laws can be whittled into ineffectivesness by administrative law judges. They are the successors to the old King’s Council & Star Chamber in terms of unaccountability.
The term `Parliamentary government’ means the majority party takes over the administrative branch of government and has been called “dictatorship interrupted by elections”.
If Cameron decides that UKIP is a bigger threat to domestic peace than Anjem Choudary & millions of disruptive Muslims, then UKIP becomes the target.
This recent “Conservative sweep” has nothing of Margaret Thatcher’s conservatism about it. Accomodationist is a better term, IMO.
The problem is Islam, not everyone else.
But it will be used to abuse politically incorrect groups, as well as Islam.
That's the point. Merely pointing out why it's such an evil thing that the Tory's are doing.
But England does have a Bill of Rights, and ours descends from it.
Note that there are many things that survived from this to show up in our Bill of Rights. Jefferson didn't just come up with this concept out of whole cloth. Like:
"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;"
And this is my favorite:
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"
The beginning of the Second Amendment.
We did come from somewhere. And our system is based on 1000 years of British history. But they haven't quite kept up, and the Tory's mean a different kind of "conservatism" in England.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.