Free speech(12 Posts)
So, where is everyone's stance on this, thin end of the wedge or justified.
It's not a partisan question either as labour introduced a hell of a lot legislation that enabled this creep, this is more around where do you think we should stop.
Where does 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about' to 'your saying the wrong things on Twitter etc' cross over
I worry about this. Having the state decide what we are and aren't allowed to say under threat of prosecution doesn't appeal to me at all and i think the lib dems were right to block it.
The convenient excuse "terrorism" enables this increasing police state, every call bugged and your every footstep tracked.
Westminster desperately wants to be a mini Washington, who are more Orwelian by the day.
Doesn't the state already ban certain things? You cannot say anything covered by discrimination legislation in public.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not about the State, or anyone else, reading every email etc?
The 'anti terrorist' point of asking ISP's etc to hold onto data e.g. emails, is that SHOULD the likes of the anti terrorist services be investigating individuals or organizations, they can request access to that stored data?
P.S. And that the request, is through the same legal channels that exist today on say, tapping a phone?
> Doesn't the state already ban certain things?
The state has already effectively banned anyone from doing or saying anything in public which is 'likely to cause alarm, harassment, or distress' (see Public Order Act Section 5).
Which is why the Police can basically arrest you for any made up reason and your 'freedom of expression' is left to the discretion of the police and courts.
..........and our Human Rights/European Courts will set us, and anyone else, free.
Are you sure you want that?
I am for free speech and a free society and am wary of going too far in removing civil liberties and curtailing free speech. I think it is a slippery slope that can be extended gradually over time until we one day wake up in a society that may no longer be free.
This is what Dame Stella Rimington, former head of MI5, said a few years ago
"Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people's privacy," Dame Stella said.
"It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state."
I saw Tim Berners-Lee on the news and thought he made some good points. He said that our politicians' emails etc will be read. Now most of us lowly lot haven't got much time or sympathy for politiians (apart from Farage), but at the end of the day they are our representaives in a free democracy and if their civil liberties are breached, then it means that they could one day be influenced and controlled and that may lead to them taking decisions that are not in the interests of the people, but are in the interests of a metropolitan elite.
We have a great country with a police force that is better than in many other countries (including European countries). We don't need to carry ID cards (in spite of New Labour's attempts to introduce them), we enjoy freedoms that make us a dynamic, vibrant, resourceful country that makes good decisions because free dicussion of alternatives is possible.
I admire the United States and its First Amendment. What a brilliant thing free speech is and it is enshrined in their constitution. It hasn't stopped the US being a free and safe country which is a meritocracy and an open society.
I tend to prefer more freedom and diversity, not less. I don't believe Big Brother's mantra "Freedom is Slavery". I think the contrary is true.
"Tom Watson Tells Leveson MPs Live In Fear Of Rupert Murdoch's News International
Giving evidence on Tuesday, Labour MP Tom Watson said at least a dozen fellow politicians had lived with a "sense of fear" about what would appear in the papers about their personal lives or past political mistakes.
Watson, whose political career has come to be defined by his pursuit of News International over phone hacking, said that MPs from all parties had experienced "fear of ridicule and humiliation" at the hands of Britain's tabloid press.
He said that after admitting he had been scared by fear of the tabloids other MPs came forward to him.
"I got the distinct sense this was a very solitary fear that they had felt they could share with colleagues and they weren't the only ones," he said.
He told the Leveson inquiry he planned to write to all MPs to encourage them to come forward if they had similar experiences.
Watson said he believed politicians had failed to pursue the News of the World phone hacking scandal at first out of fear."
This is not good for democracy because these people, warts and all and skeletons and all, are supposed to be on our side and if they are frightened of what others have on them, then they can't do their full duty in serving the people.
I am for a free press that does print skeletons so that the people can decide rather than it being kept secret as a hold over our representatives.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.