Do the Tories want the end of free speech?

[Spijed]

Seems it's sooner rather than later:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... ebook-post" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Heathclaret]

Unbelievable, I'm against censorship of any sort, but this beggars belief. Global leader my arse, but it will take us closer to how the Chinese government controls the populace. What will be next, the late night knock on the door, being bundled into the back of a van never to be seen again for daring to disagree with chairwoman May? Vote for anyone except conservative.

[Quicknick]

This is disgusting.

[pureclaret]

Just had a phone call to see if i want to drive a black van good rates of pay some evening and weekend work

[FactualFrank]

So May wants 'back doors' to be added, yet doesn't understand the simple concept that doing so will make us more open to cyber crime, or she's not considered that. Either way, she's not the brightest spark. She wants 1984, but it'll never work.

[Sidney1st]

The government can read everything you put online.
The yanks also try to regulate the entire internet and I think they've got the 'master switch' to it.

The government monitor most things, but they cant control what terrorists or child abusers are doing online, they'd rather focus on the little people...

[ksrclaret]

I had my suspicions when ablueclaret disappeared in mysterious circumstances last week. This all but confirms things.

[starting_11]

Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about... right?!?! :S

[chorleyhere]

Slip some quite reasonable aims into the "control" of extremists and soon by the back door the Tories will be able to quash freedom to criticise government and the PM = President May.
Anyone who has read "Animal Farm" will know exactly what 'Her Highness " is up to.

[burnley007]

Terrifying stuff.

[dsr]

Slip some quite reasonable aims into the "control" of extremists and soon by the back door the Tories will be able to quash freedom to criticise government and the PM = President May.
Anyone who has read "Animal Farm" will know exactly what 'Her Highness " is up to.

On the other thread ("Tory Manifesto") you are quite vocal about the idea that the Tories aren't going to enforce the Leveson enquiry part two and are going to scrap section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act. Which suggests that you want more regulation of the press, which already have rules about publication of pornography, abuse, libel, etc., but less regulation of the internet, which doesn't. Isn't that a bit inconsistent?

[AndrewJB]

On the other thread ("Tory Manifesto") you are quite vocal about the idea that the Tories aren't going to enforce the Leveson enquiry part two and are going to scrap section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act. Which suggests that you want more regulation of the press, which already have rules about publication of pornography, abuse, libel, etc., but less regulation of the internet, which doesn't. Isn't that a bit inconsistent?

More importantly isn't that inconsistent of the government - to be unwilling to investigate the known abuses of powerful national newspapers, but to want to aggregate more power over what ordinary people can post and look for on the internet?

[chorleyhere]

Interesting isn't it when people query someone's views but don't think about defending the policy of the government in question ?
There is a danger in the fact that the press are already abusing people with their powerful 'stories' but a Tory government will not be able to unshackle themselves from their most influential press supporters in order to protect ordinary people.
My point is quite consistent - regulate the press to avoid biased and abusive reporting and don't allow government to gain similar 'power' over freedom of ordinary people to complain, by disguising the fact that they are hiding behind a cloak of decency regarding extremism

[dsr]

They spent £50m on the first enquiry and didn't get a single prosecution. Isn't the implication that there probably isn't much more to find?

I thought the idea of this new proposed set of rules was more to do with making the service providers share the responsibility. There are numerous anecdotal tales of children being bullied to the point of suicide by social media posts, and yet the social media network in question is seldom called to account for allowing it; and in many cases doesn't know or won't tell who was posting in their name, That sort of abuse c ertainly wants clamping down on; if someone uses a certain social network site for online bullying, for example, then the social network site ought to tell any relevant authorities who was doing it; just as the GPO would, as far as possible, if it was sent through the mail.

Obviously there is potential for this system to be thoroughly abused like the anti-terrorism legislation has been abused by local councils. I don't know how that could be prevented, except by trusting the government. And that's a BIG step into the unknown.

[chorleyhere]

You are changing the direction of the argument and the victims of abuse. The press need regulating not self-regulation. Don't please cite costs of £50 million as an argument against not enforcing Leveson.
The social media abusers and their victims need sorting out too but Leveson was not set up to do this - let's sort out the original problem and also the more modern form (social media ) as well NOT instead of.

[dsr]

You are changing the direction of the argument and the victims of abuse. The press need regulating not self-regulation. Don't please cite costs of £50 million as an argument against not enforcing Leveson.
The social media abusers and their victims need sorting out too but Leveson was not set up to do this - let's sort out the original problem and also the more modern form (social media ) as well NOT instead of.

It's not the cost of £50m that I object to, it's the cost of £50m with no result. I expected there would be many prosecutions arising from this enquiry because I understood that all sorts of illegal stuff was going on; either it wasn't anything like as bad as we thought, or it was very well hidden. Either way, part two seems to be throwing good money after bad.

My way of press regulation would be to strengthen the law. If the press are doing something illegal, then the people concerned - both the individual acting and the boss who told them to do it, right up to the top if necessary and possible - should be prosecuted and punished in law. What I don't want is a government-run body that can tell the press to do what the government wants them to. I don't trust Murdoch at all, but I'd still rather have him free to publish his filth than have an all-powerful government telling him what he can print.

The best way of press regulation, of course, would be if people stopped buying the stuff.

[Imploding Turtle]

The government can read everything you put online.
The yanks also try to regulate the entire internet and I think they've got the 'master switch' to it.

The government monitor most things, but they cant control what terrorists or child abusers are doing online, they'd rather focus on the little people...

You're not wrong. This literally is about controlling the general population. If they were going after child abusers or terrorists then this would be the very last thing they'd do because what this does is encourage people away from typical web browsing and onto more secure, anonymous networks such as TOR. The people this government are pretending to target are already using TOR to anonymise their traffic and internet usage and the more people that use TOR the more secure it is for those who use it.

So what would be the next step to stop people from using services such as TOR? Criminalise it. I guarentee that if they get laws passed to regulate speech on the internet, as per their manifesto, they will realise (assuming they haven't already) it's impossible without enacting further laws which criminalise anyone who sends encrypted messages or internet traffic, and then they'll get onto doing that too.

I usually hate slippery slope arguments, they're often just lazy attempts to end a discussion, but this isn't that. What the Tories want to do isn't possible without far more encroachment on our personal freedoms than they're admitting.

[Imploding Turtle]

You are changing the direction of the argument and the victims of abuse. The press need regulating not self-regulation. Don't please cite costs of £50 million as an argument against not enforcing Leveson.
The social media abusers and their victims need sorting out too but Leveson was not set up to do this - let's sort out the original problem and also the more modern form (social media ) as well NOT instead of.

We don't need any more regulation of the press. We just need current laws to be enforced properly. It was already illegal for reporters to hack into phones of dead children. What the NotW did was already illegal and look what happened when the law got enforced. That's all that needs to happen.

[AndrewJB]

Going back to press freedom, yes free from government interference; but if most of the press is owned by a small group of like-minded people, then that isn't press freedom either.

[Rowls]

I'm committed to several Conservative ideals.

Things like:

Free Trade
The rule of law
Nation states
Pragmatism

I can exclusively reveal that the Tories are definitely attempting to end free speech. We're meant to be keeping it secret but I think it's OK to let you guys know this.

Once we've got a large Parliamentary majority we're going to team up with Steve Coogan and chums to abolish the free press. Then we'll turn our aim at everyone and forbid freedom of speech entirely.

Just please keep this quiet until after the election in case anyone sees it and thinks voting for Jeremy Corbyn can save them.

[Imploding Turtle]

Going back to press freedom, yes free from government interference; but if most of the press is owned by a small group of like-minded people, then that isn't press freedom either.

Then anti-monopoly regulations should be enforced, or passed. The doesn't infringe on free-speech.

[ClaretMoffitt]

If this is true then it is pretty horrific for an incalculable amount of reason...