England Riots

[Danqazmlp]

The golden rule is that when your 'rights' as a criminal infringe on the rights of innocent civilians, the police have the right to prioritise the latter over the former. I really don't see the problem with that, and I don't see what makes free speech so special it deserves its own special clause. For a hypothetical example, a gang leader would not be allowed to communicate with members whilst in jail. Is that a denial of free speech? Yes. Is it in the public's interest? Absolutely.

 

Of course, this is all a red herring argument since it's very hard to stop people communicating through technology these days anyway. But if the police had reason to believe criminal activity was being organised through BBM, and failed to do anything about it, I'd be more annoyed about why my taxpayers' money is going to them to do literally nothing just so 'free speech' is preserved for people who couldn't give a damn about other people's rights.

 

 

This completely aligns with my views on the matter.

 

Slippery slopes are just an annoying argument to use because it stops people doing anything at all. As long as the government could come up with a good way to put it through with restrictions in place, it could work wonders.

 

Comparisons to the American constitutions are pointless to make because unlike in America, our laws have the ability to ebb and flow, change in accordance to the country and it's will. We aren't restricted to policies supported by a minority just because they have the backing of an out of date piece of legislation. When what seems like the majority of a country supports something, even if to others outside said country it seems odd to them, it has the possibility of being passed. True democracy.

[PhaperPlane]

Well, the e-petition for rioters to have their benefits axed has reached the 100,000 signatures it needed for it to be sent to the Commons for a debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14474429

 

This is going to be interesting how this turns out. Also, the courts have been sentencing people non-stop today, people as young as 11 have been appearing in court.

[Range_This11]

Yes, but in wiretapping/monitoring cases documented proof (police reports with strong evidence) is required before a request for a wiretap is even put before a judge. Then the judge has to decide whether or not there is a case to be made or if the evidence is enough to warrant a wiretap.

 

In this scenario, monitoring of BB and other social media completely bypasses those safeguards. The idea that "you shouldn't be worried if you aren't doing anything wrong" is complete and utter hogwash.

 

Where this coming from?

 

I'll tell you where: Made up land.

All they have said is looking to put measures in place to block accounts where the account is being used for criminal purposes.

We have 0 details other than that and its just pessimistic "erosion of free speech" hog wash to suggest that we can categorically say it'll by pass any sort of safeguard or including unjustified monitoring.

Heck its not like ALLLLLL these things arent monitored already anyway by the parent companys

Police or government agencies blocking accounts that they believe are being used for criminal purposes is invasion of privacy and infringes on free speech.

 

That is a basic fact.

 

Of course parent companies monitor messages and the like (and in all likelihood, police too), but taking any action against it is unlawful without a wiretap/search warrant.

[Sy_Accursed]

Yes, but in wiretapping/monitoring cases documented proof (police reports with strong evidence) is required before a request for a wiretap is even put before a judge. Then the judge has to decide whether or not there is a case to be made or if the evidence is enough to warrant a wiretap.

 

In this scenario, monitoring of BB and other social media completely bypasses those safeguards. The idea that "you shouldn't be worried if you aren't doing anything wrong" is complete and utter hogwash.

 

Where this coming from?

 

I'll tell you where: Made up land.

All they have said is looking to put measures in place to block accounts where the account is being used for criminal purposes.

We have 0 details other than that and its just pessimistic "erosion of free speech" hog wash to suggest that we can categorically say it'll by pass any sort of safeguard or including unjustified monitoring.

Heck its not like ALLLLLL these things arent monitored already anyway by the parent companys

Police or government agencies blocking accounts that they believe are being used for criminal purposes is invasion of privacy and infringes on free speech.

 

That is a basic fact.

 

Of course parent companies monitor messages and the like (and in all likelihood, police too), but taking any action against it is unlawful without a wiretap/search warrant.

 

Criminals for go certain rights in the interest of maintaining law and order, and as I said before its no more a infringement than wiretapping etc. is.

Its absolutely stupid to sugar coat the world and tip toe around trying to not tread on free speech and other rights when dealing with criminals, if you do that you'll never catch anyone cause you won't be able to handcuff them or force them into a jail cell etc.

In order to deal with criminality you have to infringe upon privacy and free speech, among other rights, to a certain extent.

 

Besides its not like we are proposing Guantanamo Bay...

 

And still banging on about no warrant as if its a stated fact they don't need one, when no such thing has been said at all.

[Danqazmlp]

Yes, but in wiretapping/monitoring cases documented proof (police reports with strong evidence) is required before a request for a wiretap is even put before a judge. Then the judge has to decide whether or not there is a case to be made or if the evidence is enough to warrant a wiretap.

 

In this scenario, monitoring of BB and other social media completely bypasses those safeguards. The idea that "you shouldn't be worried if you aren't doing anything wrong" is complete and utter hogwash.

 

Where this coming from?

 

I'll tell you where: Made up land.

All they have said is looking to put measures in place to block accounts where the account is being used for criminal purposes.

We have 0 details other than that and its just pessimistic "erosion of free speech" hog wash to suggest that we can categorically say it'll by pass any sort of safeguard or including unjustified monitoring.

Heck its not like ALLLLLL these things arent monitored already anyway by the parent companys

Police or government agencies blocking accounts that they believe are being used for criminal purposes is invasion of privacy and infringes on free speech.

 

That is a basic fact.

 

Of course parent companies monitor messages and the like (and in all likelihood, police too), but taking any action against it is unlawful without a wiretap/search warrant.

 

 

The argument isn't what you stated as fact (although I wouldn't call blocking an account as an invasion of privacy), but how far should free speech stretch?

 

Do those who are out to do nothing but cause harm to the public and their property deserve as much free speech as innocent civilians? Where do we set the bar for who gets certain rights and how far they go? Should not the mass opinion of the public do so like what seems to be happening, or should the minority?

 

It may be fickle to say this, but if you do nothing wrong, your free speech, your rights do not get effected. Even in the off chance a mistake is made, the British courts and police can swiftly counteract anything done.

[sees_all1]

Police or government agencies blocking accounts that they believe are being used for criminal purposes is invasion of privacy and infringes on free speech.

 

That is a basic fact.

 

Of course parent companies monitor messages and the like (and in all likelihood, police too), but taking any action against it is unlawful without a wiretap/search warrant.

Yelling "Fire!" in a movie theatre isn't protected free speech.

Advocating criminal acts in a public square isn't protected free speech. Inciting a riot isn't protected free speech.

 

Monitoring a service like twitter or public facebook groups for people inciting violence, in my opinion, is very similar to policing a public square. There is no expectation of privacy on twitter (or public facebook groups), why should police have to obtain a warrant?

[magekillr]

The First Amendment not only protects the mere "attending" of a speech "promoting the violent overthrow of our government," but also the giving of such a speech. The government is absolutely barred by the Free Speech clause from punishing people even for advocating violence. That has been true since the Supreme Court's unanimous 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had threatened violence against political officials in a speech.

[Range_This11]

Criminals for go certain rights in the interest of maintaining law and order, and as I said before its no more a infringement than wiretapping etc. is.

Its absolutely stupid to sugar coat the world and tip toe around trying to not tread on free speech and other rights when dealing with criminals, if you do that you'll never catch anyone cause you won't be able to handcuff them or force them into a jail cell etc.

In order to deal with criminality you have to infringe upon privacy and free speech, among other rights, to a certain extent.

 

Besides its not like we are proposing Guantanamo Bay...

 

And still banging on about no warrant as if its a stated fact they don't need one, when no such thing has been said at all.

Unless they are proven guilty of committing a crime or there is hard evidence (and subsequent warrant granted), there shouldn't be any sort of blocking.

 

As to your other comments, I'll just say this: rights, no matter who the person is or what they have allegedly done, should never be taken away for any reason at all until they are proven guilty of committing a crime.

 

The argument isn't what you stated as fact (although I wouldn't call blocking an account as an invasion of privacy), but how far should free speech stretch?

 

Do those who are out to do nothing but cause harm to the public and their property deserve as much free speech as innocent civilians? Where do we set the bar for who gets certain rights and how far they go? Should not the mass opinion of the public do so like what seems to be happening, or should the minority?

 

It may be fickle to say this, but if you do nothing wrong, your free speech, your rights do not get effected. Even in the off chance a mistake is made, the British courts and police can swiftly counteract anything done.

As far as free speech goes, yes, I believe every person is completely equal (whether they are a criminal or an old lady) and should have unlimited free speech. Call me crazy.

 

Monitoring a service like twitter or public facebook groups for people inciting violence, in my opinion, is very similar to policing a public square. There is no expectation of privacy on twitter (or public facebook groups), why should police have to obtain a warrant?

I wasn't talking about public forums, I was talking about the Blackberry Wireless service. Anyone stupid enough to communicate about rioting or criminal activity over Facebook or Twitter is an idiot.

[sees_all1]

Monitoring a service like twitter or public facebook groups for people inciting violence, in my opinion, is very similar to policing a public square. There is no expectation of privacy on twitter (or public facebook groups), why should police have to obtain a warrant?

I wasn't talking about public forums, I was talking about the Blackberry Wireless service. Anyone stupid enough to communicate about rioting or criminal activity over Facebook or Twitter is an idiot.

Missed that.

 

I feel like governments do that all the time, but they only "use it against you" if they have a warrant.

[Sy_Accursed]

You cannot enforce law without infringement of rights, that is a fact. And even then you're big argument point is lack of warrants and specifically bbm; which are both assumed details of the vague idea which only stated "social networks" no specifics about warranting or implementation or even being discussed fully in parliament.

 

And you can't not do anything until proven guility as you can't prove guilt unless you do SOMETHING to investigate them and then arrest them and bring them to court for guilt to be proven.

 

And "free speech" is kind of a myth anyway what we can and can't say is moderated all over the place.

Racism and sexism are the big too, but also homophobia, religious status and many other have elements where free speech is limited to varying degree according to nation.

Parents try to control the language their children use.

Work places and schools moderate what we can and can't say.

In philosophical terms learning a language erodes free speech in itself as you are being confined and limited to pre-defined and shared words and constructs.

[Range_This11]

Monitoring a service like twitter or public facebook groups for people inciting violence, in my opinion, is very similar to policing a public square. There is no expectation of privacy on twitter (or public facebook groups), why should police have to obtain a warrant?

I wasn't talking about public forums, I was talking about the Blackberry Wireless service. Anyone stupid enough to communicate about rioting or criminal activity over Facebook or Twitter is an idiot.

Missed that.

 

I feel like governments do that all the time, but they only "use it against you" if they have a warrant.

Yes, and I acknowledge police probably illegally monitor many phones without taking action. Reminds me of The Wire.

[magekillr]

Free Speech is the ability to say what you want without the threat of being criminalized for it by the government. It doesn't mean what Sarah Palin thinks it means when she complains about people telling her she should maybe watch what she says to right-wing lunatics. It doesn't mean your employer can't fire you after you tell him/her that he/she's a moron to his/her face. It is most certainly not a myth, and it's a right that I cherish.

[Hamtaro]

I don't think shutting down particular communication methods to prevent riots would necessarily be a bad thing. It's not all that different from Obama's Internet Kill Switch. It's there for the protection of law abiding citizens, not some 1984-type regime. I think Cameron and Obama are in the right here.

[eias]

John lydon knew this would happen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkActP-isE

[Range_This11]

You cannot enforce law without infringement of rights, that is a fact.

I don't understand how you can't enforce laws without violating rights.

 

And "free speech" is kind of a myth anyway what we can and can't say is moderated all over the place.

Racism and sexism are the big too, but also homophobia, religious status and many other have elements where free speech is limited to varying degree according to nation.

Well that's vague.

 

I stated that my belief is that everyone should have unlimited free speech (with the only other alternative being zero free speech, there should be no in-between). That is a principle. And I don't know why you're bringing up other countries now. We're talking about England.

 

Parents try to control the language their children use.

Children are assumed not to have rights (outside of basic human rights) as they are not old enough or mature enough to understand the concept of rights.

 

Work places and schools moderate what we can and can't say.

Yes, and when you comply with those rules, you receive either pay or an education. You also have the right to not work or not go to school. What benefits does the average citizen receive from government moderating free speech? Only the assurance that things are safer, and that is not a guarantee that can be upheld because in order to make things completely safe, the government would have to control every person's actions.

 

In philosophical terms learning a language erodes free speech in itself as you are being confined and limited to pre-defined and shared words and constructs.

I don't even know how to respond to this. You win. Language limits our free speech.

[Sy_Accursed]

Free Speech is the ability to say what you want without the threat of being criminalized for it by the government. It doesn't mean what Sarah Palin thinks it means when she complains about people telling her she should maybe watch what she says to right-wing lunatics. It doesn't mean your employer can't fire you after you tell him/her that he/she's a moron to his/her face. It is most certainly not a myth, and it's a right that I cherish.

 

But employers are allowed to stop you saying anything bad about them on social networks and ban topics of conversation in the workplace and check social network profiles before hiring you.

The first two of which most definitely infringe upon free speech, which is actually the freedom to say as you wish without being punished/criminalised for it by any superior body be it government or just your boss at work.

 

And @range again with the random made up crud. There is nothing at all about the government "moderating" free speech just an idea of giving them similar powers to wiretapping on social networks. And blocking accounts that ARE doing criminal stuff.

 

And you cannot enforce law without infringing rights it is a fact. You infringe their right to freedom when you arrest them; you infringe their right to privacy when you investigate them and try them etc.

[Danqazmlp]

The First Amendment not only protects the mere "attending" of a speech "promoting the violent overthrow of our government," but also the giving of such a speech. The government is absolutely barred by the Free Speech clause from punishing people even for advocating violence. That has been true since the Supreme Court's unanimous 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had threatened violence against political officials in a speech.

 

This isn't America, there are no amendments to constitutions.

 

British law works in a much more flexible way without being hampered by something written many years ago.

 

The fact of the matter is that the police NEED these abilities to protect innocent civilians. It is their responsibility to do what is needed. Hampering them just because some people who are planning to cause harm claim they want free speech is something which needs changing.

[Dire_Wolf]

JUSTICE :thumbsup:

 

Ashraf Haziq (20, Malaysian student) got robbed when he was in a bad state (bleeding), the person responsible has been arrested :thumbsup:

[Danqazmlp]

You cannot enforce law without infringement of rights, that is a fact.

I don't understand how you can't enforce laws without violating rights.

 

Try it. Think of any situation where you arrest somebody without infringing some sort of right. Holding them in a cell, restricting their movement and who they speak to.

[Range_This11]

You cannot enforce law without infringement of rights, that is a fact.

I don't understand how you can't enforce laws without violating rights.

 

Try it. Think of any situation where you arrest somebody without infringing some sort of right. Holding them in a cell, restricting their movement and who they speak to.

It makes sense. I guess I assume that if you are arrested it is because there is already proof that you have done something wrong or there is a report you have done something wrong. If there is proof I don't exactly have a problem with the temporary suspension of rights. It is when the suspension of rights happens before proof is obtained that I have a problem.

[magekillr]

Free Speech is the ability to say what you want without the threat of being criminalized for it by the government. It doesn't mean what Sarah Palin thinks it means when she complains about people telling her she should maybe watch what she says to right-wing lunatics. It doesn't mean your employer can't fire you after you tell him/her that he/she's a moron to his/her face. It is most certainly not a myth, and it's a right that I cherish.

 

But employers are allowed to stop you saying anything bad about them on social networks and ban topics of conversation in the workplace and check social network profiles before hiring you.

The first two of which most definitely infringe upon free speech, which is actually the freedom to say as you wish without being punished/criminalised for it by any superior body be it government or just your boss at work.

 

Checking social network profiles before hiring you is just a future we'll have to deal with in the era of technological advancement. If they see pictures of you online binge drinking, it's not something they want associated with their company. It's not criminalizing what you're saying. You'll just be fired (or not hired). There's a huge difference. Freedom of speech has consequences, but one of those consequences does not include being tried before a court over what you said.

 

Danqazmlp, as I said, I know this isn't America...I'm just saying, I would not want a law like that in my country.

[Sy_Accursed]

Free Speech is the ability to say what you want without the threat of being criminalized for it by the government. It doesn't mean what Sarah Palin thinks it means when she complains about people telling her she should maybe watch what she says to right-wing lunatics. It doesn't mean your employer can't fire you after you tell him/her that he/she's a moron to his/her face. It is most certainly not a myth, and it's a right that I cherish.

 

But employers are allowed to stop you saying anything bad about them on social networks and ban topics of conversation in the workplace and check social network profiles before hiring you.

The first two of which most definitely infringe upon free speech, which is actually the freedom to say as you wish without being punished/criminalised for it by any superior body be it government or just your boss at work.

 

Checking social network profiles before hiring you is just a future we'll have to deal with in the era of technological advancement. If they see pictures of you online binge drinking, it's not something they want associated with their company. It's not criminalizing what you're saying. You'll just be fired (or not hired). There's a huge difference. Freedom of speech has consequences, but one of those consequences does not include being tried before a court over what you said.

 

Danqazmlp, as I said, I know this isn't America...I'm just saying, I would not want a law like that in my country.

 

I like how I listed 3 points and said the first 2 infringe free speech so your come back commented only on the third...

[magekillr]

Free Speech is the ability to say what you want without the threat of being criminalized for it by the government. It doesn't mean what Sarah Palin thinks it means when she complains about people telling her she should maybe watch what she says to right-wing lunatics. It doesn't mean your employer can't fire you after you tell him/her that he/she's a moron to his/her face. It is most certainly not a myth, and it's a right that I cherish.

 

But employers are allowed to stop you saying anything bad about them on social networks and ban topics of conversation in the workplace and check social network profiles before hiring you.

The first two of which most definitely infringe upon free speech, which is actually the freedom to say as you wish without being punished/criminalised for it by any superior body be it government or just your boss at work.

 

Checking social network profiles before hiring you is just a future we'll have to deal with in the era of technological advancement. If they see pictures of you online binge drinking, it's not something they want associated with their company. It's not criminalizing what you're saying. You'll just be fired (or not hired). There's a huge difference. Freedom of speech has consequences, but one of those consequences does not include being tried before a court over what you said.

 

Danqazmlp, as I said, I know this isn't America...I'm just saying, I would not want a law like that in my country.

 

I like how I listed 3 points and said the first 2 infringe free speech so you're big come back commented only on the third...

 

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT INFRINGEMENTS OF YOUR RIGHT TO SPEAK! If you want to badmouth those companies, you're free to do so...and they can't take you to court for doing it (unless you're guilty of libel, something of which is extremely hard to prove). If you want to talk about politics in an environment where a private employer -- their property rights -- rule, you're free to do so without being taken to court over it. All they can do is fire you. And that is not infringing on your freedom of speech. It's your choice to use your better judgment. If you want to go around yelling [racial slur, racial slur, racial slur], a lot of people aren't going to like you, but the government can do [bleep] all about it.

[Danqazmlp]

First let me say it is not the government wanting this control, it is the police. Two separate entities.

 

I can see where you are coming from roccodog, but law is not black and white. The various groups which laws have to go through would not allow police total control of a persons communication.

 

The details would be changed and churned in all the discussions, ending up somewhere along the lines of the current policies on phone tapping which is needing warrants on the more severe invasions of privacy.

[Sy_Accursed]

First let me say it is not the government wanting this control, it is the police. Two separate entities.

 

I can see where you are coming from roccodog, but law is not black and white. The various groups which laws have to go through would not allow police total control of a persons communication.

 

The details would be changed and churned in all the discussions, ending up somewhere along the lines of the current policies on phone tapping which is needing warrants on the more severe invasions of privacy.

The police might be a separate "entity" but you're kidding yourself if you don't think they "play for the same team" so to speak.

 

I'm just saying that, as he said it, it would be a severe invasion of privacy that I would find unacceptable.

 

 

He never said they don't play for the same team ;)

But yeah in all reality compare the initiating statement/proposal put to the house to the final outcome of any law and you'll see it gets tweaked and limited and pruned by various bodies to extreme levels and never makes it through in that raw form. Between committees, related bodies, effected bodies, the major 3 parties and the house of lords a lot gets altered to make the proposal acceptable.