Most Popular
| Top Stories | Commented | Featured |
Weekend Open Forum: Your next hardware upgrade will be...? featured
4-Way Intel H55 Motherboard Shootout featured
Tech Tip of the Week: Customize Your Windows 7 Start Menu Button featured
Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 and 470 specs emerge
HP Slate coming with Atom and Flash in June for €400?
Microsoft removes XP Mode hardware requirements
TechSpot RSSIndustry News
UK Government loses internet terror Bill
The UK government has lost its Internet terror Bill by one vote. The proposed bill would have given Police the power to shut down websites which promote terrorism – or, more accurately, websites that the Police have decided promotes terrorism.
Lords voted 148 to 147 in favour of attaching an amendment to the controversial Terrorism Bill insisting that a police officer obtains judicial approval before serving notice on the offending internet service provider.
Conservative and Liberal Democrats made the case that the bill posed a risk to freedom of speech on the Internet. Many figures, such as Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, agree that there needs to be provision to take down Internet content that is truly terrorist related, but disagree that Police should have the authority to decide what should and should not be taken down.
Last month the Lords threw out plans for a new offence of "glorifying" acts of terrorism. The Government has said it will try to overturn this defeat. The Government was also defeated when peers voted to redraft ministers’ version of the offence of "intentionally" or "recklessly" disseminating a terrorist publication.
Lords voted 148 to 147 in favour of attaching an amendment to the controversial Terrorism Bill insisting that a police officer obtains judicial approval before serving notice on the offending internet service provider.
Conservative and Liberal Democrats made the case that the bill posed a risk to freedom of speech on the Internet. Many figures, such as Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, agree that there needs to be provision to take down Internet content that is truly terrorist related, but disagree that Police should have the authority to decide what should and should not be taken down.
Last month the Lords threw out plans for a new offence of "glorifying" acts of terrorism. The Government has said it will try to overturn this defeat. The Government was also defeated when peers voted to redraft ministers’ version of the offence of "intentionally" or "recklessly" disseminating a terrorist publication.
Related Stories
User Comments (11)
Post a comment| gamingmage on February 2, 2006 8:09 PM | Wow what a close call. I think that what happened is the
right thing to do. I mean to allow the police to decide what
counts as terrorism may lead to abuse and it's not very
efficient.
|
| howard_hopkinso on February 2, 2006 8:46 PM | In the post 9/11 world, terrorism has taken on a whole new
importance, and with good reason. Whilst I agree that the police need to get a judicial order to close down any particular website suspected of promoting terrorism. I do feel that it is important for the judiciary to act quickly on the evidence presented. I`m all in favour of free speech, but not at any price. Regards Howard
|
| Kaleid on February 3, 2006 12:34 AM | Stuff like this worries
me: [url]http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester[/ url] "The End of the Internet?"...as we know it? Since I'm in a bit of an hurry I'll leave with this quote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
|
| Cy6erpuke on February 3, 2006 1:07 AM | Wow Kaleid, well said. Now I just have to work harder on my
content filter programs to keep this out of my kids hands.
This kind of evil will always be with us. Legislation does
not replace healthy judgment and corporate and parental
control. I would love to know who they thought they would be
protecting with this bill..... themselves?
|
| sngx1275 on February 3, 2006 1:56 PM | Originally posted by Kaleid: Stuff like
this worries
me: Except that nobody actually
ever said that. Check it out on snopes. They have big
thing about it.
[url]http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester[/ url] "The End of the Internet?"...as we know it? Since I'm in a bit of an hurry I'll leave with this quote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
|
| barfarf on February 3, 2006 2:43 PM | I agree with the UK decisions. I can only imagine if cops
here the US tried to censor the internet. How would you
determine what is terrorism? Where do you draw the line?
Anything anti-government? Sounds like a police state. Not
to mention the cost of man power needed. From my Internet Communication class a few years back we talked about Freedom of Speech on the internet. While we didn't come to a solution the conversation was stimulating. I remember examples on how Freedom of Speech perhaps protected too much. One being www.martinlutherking.org which in fact is an evil KKK white supremacist website masquerading as an inncoentent MLK website. The other wwww.whitehouse.com which is a porn site or it used to be. From class we talked about should these websites be kept online? Who else might be affected if they were taken down? Overall my vote was to let Freedom of Speech ride on as it has been.
|
| Vaulden on February 3, 2006 3:03 PM | Very good decision. There needs to be checks and balances
in all things to keep one group from getting too powerful.
Anything like this also needs to have guidelines to follow;
else some sites will be improperly shut down.
|
| nathanskywalker on February 3, 2006 5:00 PM | http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester
Not happening. And if it ever did, well, "take my internet
and i shoot you".though i'm not for the police deciding whether or not a site should go down, if the police can't tell what terror is, then we are in big trouble. There would be some major problems in allowing this, so it would probably be best not to give the police this power. But the again, the internet is a vast resource. Even if the police were allowed to do this, and did their jobs well, that would take alot of effort.
|
| Need_a_Dell on February 3, 2006 7:36 PM | This truly is unfortunate. I can't believe that everybody
didn't vote in favour of this bill. There is no need for
websites that promote terrorism, and you'd think that after
so many tragedies, people would open their eyes and try to
help solve the problem. Just during the summer, the UK
suffered a terrorist attack on their subway system. This
attack could have been much more disastrous than it really
was, and they should realize this. If the Chinese government
is capable of banning sites returned on Google, than the UK
should be able to ban sites promoting terrorism.
Technically, there is no difference between these two cases.
|
| Race on February 3, 2006 7:48 PM | The people of the UK are certainly no strangers to
terrorism, even before the 'Tube' bombings, and this is part
of the third and final stage of the British Terrorism
Bill. It's no secret that governments are increasingly concerned that terrorists are using (in a big way) the internet and chatrooms to lure a less visible generation of recruits to the cause of militant Islam and other terrorist activities. I think the UK vote was the right one, and since judges will have the authority to immediately approve a ban on any website they consider related to terrorism, it's a good move. The closeness of the vote does indicate a division over who should have this authority, and to what end. It appears to have encouraged the government to try and overturn it. Hopefully, various bureaucracies won't delay or hinder this very important step.
|
| Canadian on February 4, 2006 1:50 PM | I really dont think anyone should have the power to control
the internet. Its called freedom of speech!
|
