UK riots Rioting leads to Cameron call for social med

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/au...edia-clampdown

Freedom og speech or control with criminals and rioters?

The violent riots after police shot a person in Tottenhamd last Saturday has meant that premiere minister Cameron has called for censorship of various media.

"The prime minister told parliament on Thursday that Facebook, Twitter and Research in Motion (Rim), the maker of BlackBerry devices, should take more responsibility for content posted on their networks, warning the government would look to ban people from major social networks if they were suspected of inciting violence online."

"The police have promised to track down those suspected of inciting the violence on Twitter, but much of the planning for the disturbances took place in the relatively private world of the BlackBerry Messenger service."

"Mike Conradi, partner and telecoms specialist at the London law firm DLA Piper, said that emergency measures to stop rioters communicating on social media sites would require legislation and threaten free speech."

"Conradi said: "What David Cameron appears to be wanting is a police power to trawl through millions of messages – ideally in real time – to prevent possible criminal activity. I don't believe that any such power exists and nor would I want there to be one. Parliament would have to pass new legislation and I would certainly warn against that. That gets the balance wrong in terms of free speech and security.It would certainly put the UK in a difficult position in terms of talking to authoritarian regimes and trying to convince them not to turn off their networks.""

"Current powers allow Rim and others to identify people who may be worth further investigation and potential prosecution without looking at the contents of their messages."


Where is the line between security and freedom of speech?

Rioters as well as professional lot gangs are using these media. So are ordinary people, so are freedom fighter in North Africa. Where should the line be drawn?

They are already doing it with Phone texting....if certain words are mentioned in texting and i have no idea what they are ..the police end up on your door to ask why the word was used. I read an article on this over three years ago, and have no reason to disbelieve it.

Be well IAN 2411

It may help to examine some things about freedom of speech and how it is already maintained in some countries....wiki had some interesting things to say about it where as it's birthplace is considered:

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws, with the exception of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words,^[1] as well as harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, commercial speech such as advertising, and time, place and manner restrictions.
Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.
Flag desecration has continually, albeit controversially, been protected by the First Amendment, despite state laws to the contrary. A Constitutional Amendment has been introduced to contravene the First Amendment's protection on flag burning, but it has failed to acquire the requisite enactment by all the states.
Despite the exceptions, the legal protections of the First Amendment are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of Americanjurisprudence.
Historical background

England

During colonial times, English speech regulations were rather restrictive. The English criminal common law of seditious libel made criticizing the government a crime. Chief Justice Holt, writing in 1704, explained the apparent need for the prohibition or no government can subsist. For it is very necessary for all governments that the people should have a good opinion of it. The objective truth of a statement in violation of the libel law was not a defense.

Until 1694, England had an elaborate system of licensing. No publication was allowed without the accompaniment of a government-granted license.
Colonies

The colonies originally had different views on the protection of free speech. During English colonialism in America, there were fewer prosecutions for seditious libel than England, but other controls over dissident speech existed.
The most stringent controls on speech in the colonial period were controls that outlawed or otherwise censored speech that was considered blasphemous in a religious sense. A 1646 Massachusetts law, for example, punished persons who denied the immortality of the soul. In 1612, a Virginia governor declared the death penalty for a person that denied the Trinity under Virginia's Laws Divine, Moral and Martial, which also outlawed blasphemy, speaking badly of ministers and royalty, and "disgraceful words."^[2]
More recent scholarship, focusing on seditious speech in the 17th-century colonies (when there was no press), has shown that from 1607 to 1700 the colonists' freedom of speech expanded dramatically, laying a foundation for the political dissent that flowered among the Revolutionary generation. See Larry D. Eldridge, A Distant Heritage: The Growth of Free Speech in Early America (NYU Press, 1994).
The trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 was a seditious libel prosecution for Zenger's publication of criticisms of the Governor of New York, William Crosby. Andrew Hamilton represented Zenger and argued that truth should be a defense to the crime of seditious libel, but the court rejected this argument. Hamilton persuaded the jury, however, to disregard the law and to acquit Zenger. The case is considered a victory for freedom of speech as well as a prime example of jury nullification. The case marked the beginning of a trend of greater acceptance and tolerance of free speech.
The First Amendment

In the 1780s after the American Revolutionary War, debate over the adoption of a new Constitution resulted in a division between Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton who favored a strong federal government, and Anti-Federalists, such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry who favored a weaker federal government.
During and after the Constitution ratification process, Anti-Federalists and state legislatures expressed concern that the new Constitution placed too much emphasis on the power of the federal government. The drafting and eventual adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, was, in large part, a result of these concerns, as the Bill of Rights limited the power of the federal government.
The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Supreme Court applied the incorporation principle to the right of free speech with the case of Gitlow v. New York. This decision applied First Amendment speech rights to state laws as well as federal ones.
The Alien and Sedition Acts

See also: Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918
In 1798, Congress, which contained several of the drafters and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights at the time, adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The law prohibited the publication of "false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame . . . or to bring them . . . into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them . . . hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States."
The law did allow truth as a defense and required proof of malicious intent. The 1798 Act, however, made ascertainment of the intent of the framers regarding the First Amendment somewhat difficult, as some of the members of Congress that supported the adoption of the First Amendment also voted to adopt the 1798 Act. The Federalists under President John Adams aggressively used the law against their rivals, the Democratic-Republicans. The Alien and Sedition Acts were a major political issue in the 1800 election, and after he was elected President, Thomas Jefferson pardoned those who had been convicted under the Act. The Act expired and the Supreme Court never ruled on its constitutionality.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court declared "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history." 376 U.S. 254, 276 (1964).
First Amendment interpretation

Freedom of speech in the U.S. follows a graduated system, with different types of regulations subject to different levels of scrutiny in court challenges based on the First Amendment, often depending on the type of speech.
Types of Speech

Core Political Speech

This is the most highly guarded form of speech because of its purely expressive nature and importance to a functional republic. Restrictions placed upon core political speech must weather strict scrutiny analysis or they will be struck down. The primary exception to this rule would be within the context of the electoral process, whereby the Supreme Court has ruled that suffrage or standing for political office as a candidate are not political speech and thus can be subjected to significant regulations; such restrictions have been upheld in the Buckley case.
Commercial Speech

Not wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment is speech motivated by profit. Such speech still has expressive value although it is being uttered in a marketplace ordinarily regulated by the state. Restrictions of commercial speech are subject to a four-element intermediate scrutiny. (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission)
Types of restraints on speech

Time, place, or manner restrictions

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to free speech zones, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas — the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.^[3]Civil libertarians claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.^[3] The Department of Homeland Security under the Bush Administration "ha[d] even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."^[4][5]
Time, place, or manner restrictions must withstand intermediate scrutiny. Note that any regulations that would force speakers to change how or what they say do not fall into this category (so the government cannot restrict one medium even if it leaves open another). Time, place, or manner restrictions must:
1. Be content neutral
2. Be narrowly tailored
3. Serve a significant governmental interest
4. Leave open ample alternative channels for communication
Content-based restrictions

Restrictions that require examining the content of speech to be applied must pass strict scrutiny.
Viewpoint-based restrictions

Restrictions that apply to certain viewpoints but not others face the highest level of scrutiny, and are usually overturned, unless they fall into one of the court's special exceptions. An example of this is found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez in 2001. In this case, the Court held that government subsidies cannot be used to discriminate against a specific instance of viewpoint advocacy.
Special exceptions

Obscenity

Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)
'Fighting words'

Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words like "the n-word" but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used. Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation.
Imminent Threats

Speech that presents imminent lawless action was originally banned under the clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater (This example was authored in Schenck v. United States, but still passes the "imminent lawless action" test). The trend since Holmes's time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content.
Lesser protection of commercial speech

Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech mainly in furtherance of selling a product, is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (which try to sell stock in a company).
Speech of falsehoods

Limits placed on libel and slander have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt.
Government Speech Doctrine

The Government speech Doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth.
Speech in the role of the employee

Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline as per the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos. This applies also to private contractors that have the government as a client. The First Amendment only protects employees from government employers albeit only when speaking publicly outside their official duties in the public interest Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. Speech is not protected from private sector disciplinary action.^[6]
Prior restraint

If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must: clearly define what's illegal, cover the minimum speech necessary, make a quick decision, be backed up by a court, bear the burden of suing and proving the speech is illegal, and show that allowing the speech would "surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people" (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.
Schools

Main article: School speech (First Amendment)
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court extended broad First Amendment protection to children attending public schools, prohibiting censorship unless there is "substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others". Several subsequent rulings have affirmed or narrowed this protection. Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) supported disciplinary action against a student whose campaign speech was filled with sexual innuendo, and determined to be "indecent" but not "obscene". Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) allowed censorship in school newspapers which had not been established as forums for free student expression. Guiles v. Marineau (2006) affirmed the right of a student to wear a T-shirt mocking President George W. Bush, including allegations of alcohol and drug use. Morse v. Frederick (2007) supported the suspension of a student holding a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" at a school-supervised event which was not on school grounds. In Lowry v. Watson Chapel School District, an appeals court struck down a school dress code and literature distribution policy for being vague and unnecessarily prohibitive of criticism against the school district.
Such protections also apply to public colleges and universities. For example, student newspapers which have been established as forums for free expression have been granted broad protection by appeals courts.
In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), the Supreme Court of the United States held (in a unanimous decision) that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was offended by a school district that refused to allow a church access to school premises to show films dealing with family and child-rearing issues faced by parents.
State action and lack thereof

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
A sign prompted by the Pruneyard case.
A major issue in freedom of speech jurisprudence has been whether the First Amendment merely runs against state actors or whether it can run against private actors as well. Specifically, the issue is whether private landowners should be permitted to utilize the machinery of government to exclude others from engaging in free speech on their property (which means balancing the speakers' First Amendment rights against the Takings Clause). The right of freedom of speech within private shopping centers owned by others has been vigorously litigated under both the federal and state Constitutions, notably in the case Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.
Censorship

While personal freedom of speech is usually respected, freedom of press and mass publishing meet with some restrictions. Some of the recent issues include:
· United States military censoring blogs written by military personnel.
· The Federal Communications Commission censoring television and radio, citing obscenity, e.g., Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony (Though the FCC only has the power to regulate over the air broadcasts and not cable or satellite television or satellite radio).
See also Roth v. United States
· Scientology suppressing criticism, citing freedom of religion, e.g., Keith Henson.
· Censoring of WikiLeaks at the Library of Congress
As of 2002, the United States was ranked 17th of 167 countries in annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders. "The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings." In the 2006 index the United States fell further to 53rd of 168 countries. "Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism.' The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism. The US improved to rank 48th in 2007, however, and 20th in 2010. "Barack Obama’s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this."^[10]
Freedom of expression

While freedom of expression by non-speech means is commonly thought to be protected under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has only recently taken this view. As late as 1968 (United States v. O'Brien) the Supreme Court stated that regulating non-speech can justify limitations on speech. The Court carried this distinction between speech and expression through the early part of the 1980s (Clark v. CCNV, 1984). It was not until the flag-burning cases of 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and 1990 (United States v. Eichman), that the Supreme Court accepted that non-speech means applied to freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech on the Internet

In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court extended the full protection of the First Amendment to the Internet in Reno v. ACLU, a decision which struck down portions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a law intended to outlaw so-called "indecent" online communication (that is, non-obscene material protected by the First Amendment). The court's decision extended the same Constitutional protections given to books, magazines, films, and spoken expression to materials published on the Internet. Congress tried a second time to regulate the content of the Internet with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The Court again ruled that any limitations on the internet were unconstitutional in American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2002).
In United States v. American Library Association (2003) the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving e-rate discounts to install filters as a condition of receiving federal funding. The justices said that any First Amendment concerns were addressed by the provisions in the Children's Internet Protection Act that permit adults to ask librarians to disable the filters or unblock individual sites.

In Britain, free speech is not the sacred right it purports to be in USA. We accept that it must be restricted where it would impinge on other rights, such as the right to privacy and to live peacefully. Thus our defamation laws are stronger than America's, our press is (I believe) more restricted, and it is illegal to incite hatred, violence or civil commotion. With this in mind, the authorities already have all the powers they need to identify and prosecute people who incited the recent riots. Indeed, several police authorities have already warned that they plan to arrest people who posted messages on Twitter and Facebook.

What is more concerning is whether they should compel messages that were sent in a supposedly closed medium to specific recipients to be opened up to police scrutiny. To tap a telephone or to bug a building requires authorisation from a high authority, and one would expect no less when it comes to messages sent via Blackberry groups.

However, I don't see this as an erosion of our right of free speech, but protection of our more important right to live in peace.

The problem with such (drastic) measures is that they are never revoked after the situation has calmed down. Giv'em a finger and they take your whole arm.
Also, it tends to go out of hand and in the end nobody controls those who control us. Happened here a few years ago when about a seventh of the Swiss population had a file with the Swiss secret service.

So, in conclusion:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Where should the line be drawn?

---

As early as possible. Here. Now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucy

The problem with such (drastic) measures is that they are never revoked after the situation has calmed down. Giv'em a finger and they take your whole arm.
Also, it tends to go out of hand and in the end nobody controls those who control us. Happened here a few years ago when about a seventh of the Swiss population had a file with the Swiss secret service.

---

That, I think, is totally correct and one reason not to tighten up the laws. MMI, it is all well and good with these laws 'to live in peace', but pretty soon it is the goverment who decides who the bad guys are, and who should be able to 'live in peace'.

If the watch dogs and humam rights people stopped spreading go softly aproach over the world this would never have taken place. [Dont Smack your child for nearly getting run over by a bus, dont chastise him verbally because it will effect his brain, dont play football in the play ground because if he falls down he might scuff his knees, dont run in the play ground [same reason]. At 16 he/she is classed as an adault in the UK and out of parents control, so instead of a dificult child being natured into the correct way of life their parents kick him out onto the street to fend for himself. So who's fault is it that the 16 year old is running around London smashing windows, the parents? Of course not it is the governments for passing laws that they dont think through in the first place. It is ok for the PM to stand in parliment wearing his £1000 suit and white shirt and tie shouting tougher prison sentences, but the following week he has an half brain telling us that the prison sentences could be halved. Six months earlier the same PM was saying our prisons are full to capacity, but they have been for several years. The old get out [put a tag on the offender and comunity service]. So with the tag instead of smashing things up at night, the offender has all day to do it because all the police are on the motorways in cars waiting to give a speeding ticket. Comunity service 200 hours in the UK at 8 hours a week is six months of non punishment.

Be well IAN 2411

I'm not aware that life is so oppressive under British laws, thir, despite our semi-restrictive attitude to free speech. In fact, I would rather one or two people had a few dark secrets than anyone at all be fair game for defamatory statements in the interests of freedom of expression.

Besides, I think it's better for the government to decide who the bad guys are than for the mob to do so: that way lies anarchy.