This feed contains pages in the “civil_liberties” category.
There's been a lot of discussion recently about the banning of the fundamentalist group “Islam4UK”. Opinions are strongly divided; many people on both the left and the right think it was perfectly acceptable, while others (at least on the left; I'm afraid I don't know of any sensible right-wingers, or even if such a thing exists) believe that “free speech should be absolute”, or at least that Islam4UK had not abused freedom of speech (nobody had shouted “fire” in a crowded theatre, for example).
I'm in the second camp; I'll explain my reasoning shortly, but first I want to talk about the Governmental tactic of proscribing organisations that are seen to be a threat.
What exactly does this achieve? Fundamentally, all any organisation, of any kind, is, is a group of people and a name. Proscribing an organisation does not forbid its members from associating with any other members (and indeed cannot, as freedom to associate is a fundamental human right). Therefore all it does is prevent people from using a particular name, which is completely impractical in preventing any sort of crime (al-Qaeda would be unlikely to operate under that name in the UK even if it were permitted, so why should they care what name they use?). In fact, Islam4UK is just the latest of a series of names used by what is effectively the same organisation: proscribing it is clearly achieving nothing.
If the members of Islam4UK have committed a crime, prosecute them for it. If they have not, then do not. It's not a complicated matter. “Proscribing” an organisation is about as effective as demanding that they stop misbehaving without actually doing anything about it.
As for the wider freedom of speech issue: as David Mitchell argued in the Guardian, protecting the right of free speech even for people with whom you disagree is essential for a free society. I don't agree with what Islam4UK have to say – but then, I don't agree with what the other side have to say either. I doubt that living in a Muslim nation with enforced Muslim religious law would be any worse than living in a Christian nation with enforced Christian religious law (or “values”, as they're generally called). I put up with Islamic nutters like Anjem Choudary for the same reason that I put up Christian nutters like Rowan Williams – because, loony or not, they have the right to an opinion and to express it. (Incidentally, Dr Williams: yes, I do think you're an oddball, along with any other grown man or woman with an imaginary friend, but you're not doing any harm so feel free to carry on.)
Nobody seriously considers preventing the BNP and similar organisations from having their say – as much as I wish they'd shut up and go away on their own, and as much as I support acting against them wherever possible, even I don't believe that banning them outright would help in the slightest. Why, then, should they be permitted to have their say and not other, similarly extremist groups?
I'm not arguing that free speech is, or should be, absolute – as mentioned, the crowded theatre is the canonical example of when free speech should be limited. If their speech caused harm, or was likely to cause harm, then by all means restrict it; if they want to incite a mob to rampage across a city, burning and looting as they go, then lock them up. If they want to express their disagreement with the UK's involvement in the Middle East (which, by the way, I would entirely sympathise with), then stop whinging, let them go ahead, then organise your own march to express your support for the war. Don't stop people having their say, just have your own say back. More speech, not less, is the way forward.
Mark Pilgrim writes about the future of reading. Read it, think about it.
Also, read rms’ essay The Right to Read.
A few weeks back I signed a petition asking the government to “create a new exception to copyright law that gives individuals the right to create a private copy of copyrighted materials for their own personal use, including back-ups, archiving and shifting format.”
The result:
As you may be aware, in December 2005 the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced that there would be a review of the intellectual property framework in the UK, led by Andrew Gowers.
The findings of this review have now been published and recommend the introduction of a private copying exception for the purposes of format shifting. This would allow individuals to copy music which they have legally bought on compact disc onto an MP3 player without infringing copyright.
The Government welcomes this recommendation and is currently considering how such an exception should be created in UK law.
A copy of the Gowers report can be viewed on the HM Treasury website.
Not exactly a resounding victory, but it looks promising.
Gary McKinnon is to be extradited to the USA, despite being a British citizen and Britain having its own laws to deal with computer-related crimes commited against targets in another country, and despite the fact that he was originally arrested in 2002 (why’s it taken them so long to take notice, if he did so much damage? It’s not like he ever denied it). He’ll face 60~70 years in prison.
Quote from Gary McKinnon:
“I found out that the US military use Windows,” said Mr McKinnon in that BBC interview. “And having realised this, I assumed it would probably be an easy hack if they hadn’t secured it properly.”
Apparently, he broke in by writing a Perl script that scanned for machines with empty (not insecure, empty) passwords. If the US military are that incompetant, they deserve everything they get. Maybe $700,000 dollars of damage will convince them they need to improve their security.
And if you need any proof that this is the case:
From January 2007, the Department of Homeland Security will have to give explicit permission for anybody to be allowed to enter or leave the United States.
References: