5 ms·

Ministers bid to block extremist videos posted on foreign websites

50 points by sp8 13y ago

SixSigma 13y ago
Very disturbing turn of events > Last October, Prime Minister David Cameron condemned Facebook's decision to allow videos showing people being decapitated back on its pages. > He said it was "irresponsible" of the social network. Watching videos of LiveLeak of people being executed by all the sides in Syria, Iraq, Chechnya, Lybia, Afghanistan has taught me more about those conflicts than the BBC, CNN etc. The narco Cartels releasing videos of their hideous torture and murder has totally changed my mind about the cocaine trade. The truth is liberating. Cameron is unwittingly turning himself into the King Canute of myth, trying to prove that he can turn off the tide of truth. Canute was trying to demonstrate the powerlessness of kings. Cameron thinks he has power. He will get wet feet just the same.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
betawolf33 13y ago
Oh yes, we must protect people from being exposed to certain ideas. Else they might be convinced those ideas are true. This is for everyone's protection.
- sp332 13y ago
  Don't be silly, everyone has already decided that these ideas are wrong. They're not very interesting and you don't need to see them.
DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
Remember when they said filtering would just be for porn? And then just for pirates and porn? Now coming to you based on being an extremist in the eyes of government!
- DanBC 13y ago
  This is a different filter-attempt than the porn filter. As the article says that can be turned off. This is more in line with the piracy filters, but implemented by government not the courts after private cases. The big brother spokesperson suggests that if content is to be blocked it should be after a court order. I'd prefer for most of it not to be blocked. > Last October, Prime Minister David Cameron condemned Facebook's decision to allow videos showing people being decapitated back on its pages. That was a weird decision, especially when they had earlier been deleting images of breast feeding women.
  - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
    My point was more general than about a specific blocking methodology: that people who were defending specific blocks all pointed out how they would be targeted, but the social acceptance of one seems to encourage people to try for more.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      But there have always been calls to block those three things. Sinn Fein members used to have their voices dubbed in news broadcasts because of UK law and that was in the 1980s. Material useful for terrorism has been illegal for some time. This article talks about not just keeping those videos illegal but blocking them from entering the country. That's not a new thing. The UK has been preventing plenty of material from entering the country if they can. The UK has censored some forms of pornography for many years, and people importing magazines would have had them removed. This "slippery slope" argument fails not because there isn't a slippery slope, but because we're so far down it already and have been for years.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - oakwhiz 13y ago
    Just wait until they use the fact that you turned off the filter against you.
kalleboo 13y ago
> The BBC has also been told it has proved difficult for the government to act against sites hosted abroad, both in the Middle East and in the US, where freedom of speech is protected by the constitution. As a European, I'm a bit jealous of US free speech protections.
- dobbsbob 13y ago
  That's why most authors have moved there like Rushdie and Hitchens claimed to have moved to the US because of the stifling UK slander laws where any politician could accuse a critic of slander and the onus was on the critic to prove they haven't slandered instead of the other way around. Still, not like politicians in the US haven't tried to dismantle free speech protections under the phony excuse of "hate speech" remember the Obama administration pressuring youtube to censor that "innocence of muslims" video? Meanwhile in my pathetic country, silly anti-bullying reactionary legislation has led to all sorts of censorship on written "bullying" prose, and of course politicians were the first to use the laws against each other and their critics.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  We've been lucky that the 1st Amendment has been respected by the courts.
Aoyagi 13y ago
I see UK is becoming the new China when it comes to internet freedoms.
godfrzero 13y ago
Have these guys considered that maybe instead of filtering the world to make it seem a better place, just work on making it a better place?
- d0 13y ago
  That's more expensive and they need to other bits to be shitty to help the war-driven economy.

50 points by sp8 13y ago

Very disturbing turn of events > Last October, Prime Minister David Cameron condemned Facebook's decision to allow videos showing people being decapitated back on its pages. > He said it was "irresponsible" of the social network. Watching videos of LiveLeak of people being executed by all the sides in Syria, Iraq, Chechnya, Lybia, Afghanistan has taught me more about those conflicts than the BBC, CNN etc. The narco Cartels releasing videos of their hideous torture and murder has totally changed my mind about the cocaine trade. The truth is liberating. Cameron is unwittingly turning himself into the King Canute of myth, trying to prove that he can turn off the tide of truth. Canute was trying to demonstrate the powerlessness of kings. Cameron thinks he has power. He will get wet feet just the same.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

betawolf33 13y ago

Oh yes, we must protect people from being exposed to certain ideas. Else they might be convinced those ideas are true. This is for everyone's protection.

sp332 13y ago
Don't be silly, everyone has already decided that these ideas are wrong. They're not very interesting and you don't need to see them.

DerpDerpDerp 13y ago

Remember when they said filtering would just be for porn? And then just for pirates and porn? Now coming to you based on being an extremist in the eyes of government!

DanBC 13y ago
This is a different filter-attempt than the porn filter. As the article says that can be turned off. This is more in line with the piracy filters, but implemented by government not the courts after private cases. The big brother spokesperson suggests that if content is to be blocked it should be after a court order. I'd prefer for most of it not to be blocked. > Last October, Prime Minister David Cameron condemned Facebook's decision to allow videos showing people being decapitated back on its pages. That was a weird decision, especially when they had earlier been deleting images of breast feeding women.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  My point was more general than about a specific blocking methodology: that people who were defending specific blocks all pointed out how they would be targeted, but the social acceptance of one seems to encourage people to try for more.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    But there have always been calls to block those three things. Sinn Fein members used to have their voices dubbed in news broadcasts because of UK law and that was in the 1980s. Material useful for terrorism has been illegal for some time. This article talks about not just keeping those videos illegal but blocking them from entering the country. That's not a new thing. The UK has been preventing plenty of material from entering the country if they can. The UK has censored some forms of pornography for many years, and people importing magazines would have had them removed. This "slippery slope" argument fails not because there isn't a slippery slope, but because we're so far down it already and have been for years.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- oakwhiz 13y ago
  Just wait until they use the fact that you turned off the filter against you.

kalleboo 13y ago

> The BBC has also been told it has proved difficult for the government to act against sites hosted abroad, both in the Middle East and in the US, where freedom of speech is protected by the constitution. As a European, I'm a bit jealous of US free speech protections.

dobbsbob 13y ago
That's why most authors have moved there like Rushdie and Hitchens claimed to have moved to the US because of the stifling UK slander laws where any politician could accuse a critic of slander and the onus was on the critic to prove they haven't slandered instead of the other way around. Still, not like politicians in the US haven't tried to dismantle free speech protections under the phony excuse of "hate speech" remember the Obama administration pressuring youtube to censor that "innocence of muslims" video? Meanwhile in my pathetic country, silly anti-bullying reactionary legislation has led to all sorts of censorship on written "bullying" prose, and of course politicians were the first to use the laws against each other and their critics.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
We've been lucky that the 1st Amendment has been respected by the courts.

Aoyagi 13y ago

I see UK is becoming the new China when it comes to internet freedoms.

godfrzero 13y ago

Have these guys considered that maybe instead of filtering the world to make it seem a better place, just work on making it a better place?

d0 13y ago
That's more expensive and they need to other bits to be shitty to help the war-driven economy.