“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."

David Cameron

A counter-terrorism bill including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalise young people is to be included in the Queen’s speech, David Cameron will tell the national security council on Wednesday.

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 or use HATE SPEECH in public places (like the internet).

As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation: “Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of RACE, GENDER or SEXUALITY".

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/counter-terrorism-bill-extremism-disruption-orders-david-cameron??

i don't see how people are supporting this, obviously we need to combat terrorism but at what cost

Define hate speech

I dont know why Cameron is getting extra flak for this. I mean yeah, I can see it being an infringement on speech, but the fucking SNP have criminalized sectarian songs at fucking football matches in Scotland, and nobody says a word about it.

Scots aren't people and therefore lack free speech rights

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.

-D.C.

Why isn't that fucking enough?!

This "harmful activities" clause is pretty broad. I mean, "a risk of causing...alarm or distress"... that's virtually anything depending if you say something potentially "offensive" to a devout religious person, a SJW, a feminist, a member of the opposite political party, etc etc...

I'm not liking this one bit, and that quote is some serious 1984 shit.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 14, 2015, 11:24:44 PM

Can we please stop with the 1984 comparisons? Making comparisons to 1984 just makes people want to not bother reading your thread and just call you out for being a conspiracy lunatic before reading what you actually had to say.

It's just my favorite statist dystopia (lol implying all states aren't dystopias) to reference.

Like I read this book on a bi-annual basis, I love it.

Fair enough. It's just that I have to deal with lots of people saying "X IS PROOF THAT AMERICA IS LIKE 1984", and it really gets annoying to hear so much. You'd understand if you were in my position. >__>