Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew threat to free speech in the UK: "Extremism Disruption Orders"
Theresa May will also announce that the Conservative manifesto will contain pledges to introduce banning orders for extremist groups and extremism disruption orders for extremists who spread hate but do not break existing laws. Conservative briefing note.
.....
The difference is spelled out in the detail of the policy, where it says that it is intended to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the purpose of overthrowing democracy.
This is an area fraught with difficulties that could see non-violent political activists in all sorts of areas deemed to be anti-democratic. The Conservatives already say that the policy would catch neo-Nazis, raising questions about whether the EDL or the BNP would be banned under the measure. But the official definition of non-violent extremism is already wide-ranging and, as Big Brother Watch has pointed out, the national extremism database already includes the names of people who have done little more than organise meetings on environmental issues.
So what would an extremism disruption order involve? The police will be able to apply to the high court for an order to restrict the harmful activities of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder or even a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or the vague-sounding threat to the functioning of democracy. These are very low thresholds. The restrictions would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or in print. Taking part in public protests or speaking at any public event would also be banned. It is no wonder the Liberal Democrats blocked the plans immediate introduction on free speech grounds.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/theresa-may-extremism-disruption-orders
.....
The difference is spelled out in the detail of the policy, where it says that it is intended to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the purpose of overthrowing democracy.
This is an area fraught with difficulties that could see non-violent political activists in all sorts of areas deemed to be anti-democratic. The Conservatives already say that the policy would catch neo-Nazis, raising questions about whether the EDL or the BNP would be banned under the measure. But the official definition of non-violent extremism is already wide-ranging and, as Big Brother Watch has pointed out, the national extremism database already includes the names of people who have done little more than organise meetings on environmental issues.
So what would an extremism disruption order involve? The police will be able to apply to the high court for an order to restrict the harmful activities of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder or even a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or the vague-sounding threat to the functioning of democracy. These are very low thresholds. The restrictions would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or in print. Taking part in public protests or speaking at any public event would also be banned. It is no wonder the Liberal Democrats blocked the plans immediate introduction on free speech grounds.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/theresa-may-extremism-disruption-orders
This is just horrible. Anyone could be designated to be an "extremist" based upon what they post online, and such persons will be banned from participating in public protests and speaking at public events, and will be required to get pre-approval from the police for anything they want to post on the internet or in print. In other words, an authoritarian's wet dream to shut people up.
Americans should be very, very thankful for the First Amendment. One of the most precious ingredients of the Constitution.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 596 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New threat to free speech in the UK: "Extremism Disruption Orders" (Original Post)
Nye Bevan
Jan 2015
OP
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)1. What a brave new world, that has such people in it!
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)2. Sad.
the U.K. is really in a downward spiral regarding individual liberty.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)3. Off to prison for the royal family then.
"The difference is spelled out in the detail of the policy, where it says that it is intended to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the purpose of overthrowing democracy.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)4. A bad idea begging to be abused by the worst of people.
It will empower the very extremism it purports to quell.