Censoring mobiles and the net: how the West is clamping down

It was only a matter of time before governments decided that the ability of their citizens to use electronic media to organise themselves was a freedom too far. I can hear the screams about freedom of speech now, but what about sedition, which takes precidence the freedom of speech or the crime of sedition?

Se·di·tion   /sɪˈdɪʃən/ Show Spelled[si-dish-uhn] noun
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic . Rebellious disorder.

Often sedition laws are used to muzzle political opposition. When /where is the line crossed ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Often sedition laws are used to muzzle political opposition. When /where is the line crossed ?

---

Well Tom I would say the line was crossed in UK when people were organised to riot, raid shops and apparently attack members of the public thus the intent to shut down the means whereby they can organise by calling on others to support them in what will ultimately become racially motivated disorder

In Iran they have effectively shut down the green revolution by taking down social media networks and are now removing sat dishes off rooftops .
APA - Iranian police launched special operation to dismantle satellite dishes ? <font color=red>PHOTO </font>

I think you have made my point, trogladites, but it is sad to see it happen in an advanced society although the Brits have been becoming more Orwellian for a long time now.

Again ; when is the line crossed ? I don't know. Our 2nd President John Adams tried to stifle political opposition with a sedition act . Woodrow Wilson again introduced them during WWI... and at various times we've had sedition trials... mostly during war times .

I don't know the law as it is applied to Great Britain. Generally I think err in favor of free speech.

Hello clete:

The airways don't belong to the government.. They belong to the people. But, if the people LAY DOWN for the government, as they are when they let the NSA spy upon them, then why wouldn't the government feel as though it could BLOCK the public airways??

Guard your rights, America, or they will soon be gone.

excon

yeah of course it stands to reason that the NSA listening in on jihadists call into the US would next shut down social media to repress domestic opposition .:rolleyes:

Who knows exactly what happens even in the US, when the news is. How many of us have been at events that happen, of know of soldiers who were at events in war, and when they heard of the official version or the news account it was nothing like what really happened.

Yeah who knows ? But there have been plenty of recent examples where if the government were going to shut down social media for things like wilding and flash mobs they could've made a case for it.
Ex is going a step further and saying that we should not even use the technology the enemy is using to combat them by listening in.

Of course the left never shys away from advocating the shut down of information organizations they disagree with ;or subjecting them to 'fairness doctrines '... or liberally identifying hate speech(or anything they define as hate speech ) as a crime. So I can see where a left leaning government like GB would not shy away from shutting the net down .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Of course the left never shys away from advocating the shut down of information organizations they disagree with ;

---

There are plenty of left leaning people here who would never advocate shutting down information organizations they disagree with, so there goes that theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So I can see where a left leaning government like GB would not shy away from shutting the net down .

---

Strange I had the distinct impression this UK government was on the right of the spectrum, I think your bias is showing

The spectrum is relative . The conservatives in GB are pretty much on board with the nanny state... they just think they can run it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the spectrum is relative . .

---

So where would you place Ahamadjihad then, to the left of the Republicans?

If you put liberty to the right and tyranny to the left then yes... OBL is a leftist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If you put liberty to the right and tyranny to the left then yes.

---

Well that quote pretty displays a warped view of the world.

http://www.americanthinker.com/Muller%202.JPG

Yes, I see where you got that image: American Thinker I'm sure they represent your points of view perfectly.

Interesting political spectrum I don't see republicanism or Islam on it anywhere. Perhaps they are off the chart.

Where I come from Liberal or liberalism is equated to conservative and certainly free but with a social conscience yet your ideas suggest it lies just short of totalitarianism you also suggests that conservative and libertarianism lie in the same plain. You forget that to the far right also lies totalitarianism

Hello again, tom:

Draw all the lines you wish..

If you call letting the NSA listen to your phone calls, and read you email, FREEDOM, and you call being the worlds LARGEST jailer FREEDOM, then I'd hate to see how free we're going to be when you get some more control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

you call being the worlds LARGEST jailer FREEDOM

---

Yes, I never understood that. Plus a lot of people aren't even free to travel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

you call being the worlds LARGEST jailer FREEDOM, then I'd hate to see how free we're gonna be when you get some more control.

---

Yes, interesting isn't it that the one who touts freedom the most also restricts it the most. And what are these people being locked up for? I think it demonstrates that the jail model isn't working, but it must keep the unemployment statistics low and someone very busy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Yes, I see where you got that image: American Thinker I'm sure they represent your points of view perfectly.

---

Yes, very much an over simplification. Unfortunately, it is not that simple.

Fascism can cover both the left and right side of the spectrum. Same with Libertarianism. There can be both left wing and right wing Libertarian positions.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Yes, very much an over simplification. Unfortunately, it is not that simple.

Fascism can cover both the left and right side of the spectrum. Same with Libertarianism. There can be both left wing and right wing Libertarian positions.

Tut

---

Watch those splinters Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So where would you place Ahamadjihad then, to the left of the Republicans?

---

Hi Clete,

I would say that it is a Theocracy. Again, it is an over simplification to say it is left wing. It does have some similarity with Fascism and Totalitarianism.
In other words, it could be left or right in the political spectrum. It's uniqueness in the modern world makes it difficult to place.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Clete,

I would say that it is a Theocracy. Again, it is an over simplification to say it is left wing. It does have some similarity with Fascism and Totalitarianism.
In other words, it could be left or right in the political spectrum. It's uniqueness in the modern world makes it difficult to place.

Tut

---

Tut I would have placed it in the Fascist camp on the far right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tut I would have placed it in the Fascist camp on the far right

---

Hi Clete,

I'll go along with that.

Tut

Fascism and communism are both on the socialism wing ;the totalitarian wing... that would make jihadists perfect bedmates for that wing..

Quote:

---

If you call letting the NSA listen to your phone calls, and read you email, FREEDOM, and you call being the worlds LARGEST jailer FREEDOM, then I'd hate to see how free we're going to be when you get some more control.

---

Nonsense hyperbole. I'm more concerned about politicians censoring content and controlling the means of dissent . You are afraid that the government will read the content .
There is nothing wrong with legitimate law enforcement . Document for me the number of domestic political prisoners in our jails . If you can find any at all it's a rare exception. If you argue we should not lock up as many non-violent offenders ;and end mandatory minimum sentences I'm on your side.
But if you are comparing us to nations that have large sections of their territory that are lawless then you distort the reality. Or maybe you are comparing us the nations that lock up political prisoners and make them disappear. Again you distort the facts. China alone has hundreds of thousands of people held in "administrative detention," re-education camps that don't get reported in the stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

fascism and communism are both on the socialism wing ;the totalitarian wing... that would make jihadists perfect bedmates for that wing ..

---

Hi Tom,

As I said before this is an oversimplification. Fascism can be both right and left wing. If you don't believe me then Google it yourself.

Clearly this is an attempt to funnel anything extreme down to the left wing, i.e. communism, fascism totalitarianism and theocracy. That is a nonsense.

Tut

I don't agree with the classic linear spectrum (or any linear spectrum of political philosophies) which in itself is an over simplification .It gets used to smear legitimate forms of political philosophy . It is offensive to me to be compared to a fascist so I return the favor.

The truth of the matter is that fascism is a form of socialism.. That is just an undeniable fact. So to put it on the same side of an artificial linear spectrum as people who oppose socialism distorts the political philosophies. The spectrum I posted is closer to reality in my opinion than the text book left right spectrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The truth of the matter is that fascism is a form of socialism.. That is just an undeniable fact.

---

Nah, that's just plain wrong.

Fascism: advocates the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics

Socialism: is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs

I realize that it serves your end to make the word socialism a pejorative but that's not the case either, it's just another form of econimic system. YOu have some socialistic aspects in the US political economy of course and survey after survey reports that the happiness and standard of living of socialist-leaning countries are greater than in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't agree with the classic linear spectrum (or any linear spectrum of political philosophies) which in itself is an over simplification .It gets used to smear legitimate forms of political philosophy . It is offensive to me to be compared to a fascist so I return the favor.

The truth of the matter is that fascism is a form of socialism.. That is just an undeniable fact. So to put it on the same side of an artificial linear spectrum as people who oppose socialism distorts the political philosophies. The spectrum I posted is closer to reality in my opinion than the text book left right spectrum.

---

Hi Tom

Well, if you don't agree with the linear spectrum of politics why did you post it in the first place? Isn't the spectrum you posted a classical one dimensional left-right representation. Perhaps I need to go back and have a look at it.


Fascism as a form of socialism? You could argue that, but I think you would be struggling. It is possible, but it is far from undeniable.

What exactly are legitimate forms of political philosophy?

Tut

Fascism is a totalitarian form of state socialism.. communism is a totalitarian form of international socialism . Both are collectivist/totalitarian philosophies.
Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Nonsense hyperbole. If you argue we should not lock up as many non-violent offenders ;and end mandatory minimum sentences I'm on your side.

---

Hello again, tom:

Hyperbole?? I think not. While I appreciate your liberal attitude, it's YOUR party who brought us mandatory minimums and supports locking up NON violent offenders... The LEFT WING doesn't do that.. They don't sound like freedom loving people to me.

In fact, the righter we go, the LESS free we become! Oh, I know you TALK a good game about freedom... But, what about your LISTS of people who DON'T qualify for Constitutional rights?? I don't have a list. EVERYBODY qualifies for Constitutional rights, in my book.

Who sounds like he supports freedom MORE??

excon

Quote:

---

But, what about your LISTS of people who DON'T qualify for Constitutional rights??

---

That would be foreign enemies at war with the country. It's a very small list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

fascism is a totalitarian form of state socialism ..communism is a totalitarian form of international socialism . Both are collectivist/totalitarian philosophies.
Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

---

Hi Tom,

The way you have set out the above seems to warrants another look. Especially the conclusion you have drawn. Yes, I know I am an nitpicker.

That aside, I agree with the article, but it is important to keep in mind the author is talking about the similarities of fascism and socialism in economic terms. No one is denying there are some similarities but socialism is more than an economic theory. It is just as much a political theory as it is a social theory as it is a moral theory.

To argue they are one and the same based on economic similarities is trying to assert the impossible. It is a bit like saying that it is an undeniable fact that fish are the same as whales.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That would be foreign enemies at war with the country. It's a very small list.

---

Hello again, tom:

Let's talk about YOUR list... You bandy about words like "foreign enemies", but you're only guessing... Some of the people we're going to keep FOREVER, haven't been found to BE an enemy by having a trial... No, Sir. It's only been SUGGESTED that they're enemies. Somebody TOLD us. They got snitched on... You believe it.. I don't know why.

Certainly, if you're really a freedom loving guy, you'd WANT something MORE than a mere suggestion before you lock somebody up FOREVER...

Plus, you DO know too, that Barack Obama can unilaterally DECLARE YOU to be an enemy combatant, don't you? You know that you wouldn't have ANY Fifth Amendment rights to challenge him, don't you? Does that bit of Patriot Act sound free to you??

I'm glad that you TRUST the government NOT to abuse the authority you gave them, INCLUDING the authority to SPY on Americans... Personally, I DON'T trust the government... I didn't think right wingers did either... Oh, that's right... You trust the COP side of government... The side that wants to take care of sick people, you don't. Doesn't that make you feel schizoid?

excon

PS> What about people who want the same marriage rights you have? Are THEY on your list? I think so. You don't believe they should HAVE the same right's you have. How free is that?

Quote:

---

Certainly, if you're really a freedom loving guy, you'd WANT something MORE than a mere suggestion before you lock somebody up FOREVER...

---

Nope... I want tribunals conducted asap. Who's preventing that ? The freedom loving lib in the White House.

Quote:

---

PS> What about people who want the same marriage rights you have? Are THEY on your list? I think so. You don't believe they should HAVE the same right's you have. How free is that?

---

My position is clear. Given the complexities; the government should not be in the marriage business... just the contractual side of which I am for full rights for all. No one should be penalized for the rights bestowed on couples by the State... but it isn't marriage .

They still have the same rights as I do regarding marriage . Marriage is between man and woman and everyone who wishes can marry if they find someone from the opposite sex to agree .

I think you miss the point far right or far left they both have the same characteristics,; totalitarian, state control, mobilisation of the population, slavery, limitation of political activity

What we have here is an attempt to say that these things are the characteristics of the left alone