UK: "Glorifying" terror a crime?

[Emsworth]

BBC Article: 'Glorifying' terror plan revised.

The Blair Government originally proposed a bill that would have punished any person who "glorifies, exalts, or celebrates an act of terrorism." This new version of the bill makes "glorification" of terrorism a crime only when "it is likely to be understood by its audience as an inducement to terrorism."

The newer version is undoubtedly an improvement over the older one, which was horribly unclear. What is "glorification," "exalting," or "celebrating," and, more importantly, what is the difference among the three?

But although the new version appears to be more reasonable, I should still say that the mere "glorification" of any action should not be a crime. Any prohibition on "glorifying" something is an attack on the freedom of speech.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How can you have an attack on something that's never existed? We don't have an absolute freedom of speech here and never have; you know how absurdly restrictive our libel laws are, right? Or that in the '80's the government actually banned the voices of leading Irish Republicans from the airwaves? And then there's the Blasphemy Law (which I'd like repealed, btw).
Personally I don't really have a problem with a ban on glorifying terrorism; something has to be done after all, and this is certainly better than some of the alternatives and certainly better than some of the stupid laws already in place.

[Emsworth]

How can you have an attack on something that's never existed?

I am not speaking about freedom of speech from any particular nation's perspective, but rather as what I perceive as a right of all people, essential to any free society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were all equally attacks on the freedom of speech (excepting the libel laws, which are, I think, quite reasonable).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know if I agree with this line of logic: Something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do it. The idea that something must be done is not, I think, justification for doing the wrong thing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I am not speaking about freedom of speech from any particular nation's perspective, but rather as what I perceive as a right of all people, essential to any free society.

Ah... I see now

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Call it lesser of two evils. I personally don't especially like the idea of restricting what people can and can't say (even though it's very hard to fall foul of the proposed new law) but if it means less brainwashed idiots blowing themselves up in public places...

[Bono]

I wonder if they'd send the Sex Pistols to jail?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wonder if they'd send the Sex Pistols to jail?

No.
Although they're another example of the lack of genuine free speech; they were banned from appearing on the BBC for years.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And then there's the Blasphemy Law (which I'd like repealed, btw).

what's that?

I imagine if such a law was in the US I could be arrested for some of my previous names and signatures since the government at the type liked to classify such groups as "terrorists" simply because they were leftist. Bad idea.

[Peter]

The Blasphemy law is pretty much dead in the UK these days: It hasn't seen the inside of a court room for over half a century to my knowledge, though it does technically remain on the books.

Every few years somebody tries to use a Private Members Bill or an amendment to a Criminal Offences Bill to get it repealed, but somebody out of the Monday Club wing of the Tory Party gets it blocked somehow. Frankly, it needs to go, the sooner the better.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

what's that?

A bloody stupid law that bans criticism of the Established Church and it's doctrines. Not that it's ever used now; see Pete's post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er... no. Not at all.

[Emsworth]

And then there's the Blasphemy Law (which I'd like repealed, btw).

what's that?

"Blasphemy against the Almighty" is committed "by denying his being or providence, or by contumelious reproaches of our Savior Christ," as well as by "profane scoffing at the holy scripture, or exposing it to contempt and ridicule."

Only the Church of England is protected by the blasphemy law; the protection does not extend to other sects of Christianity, let alone other religions. I believe that the last person to be punished under the law was someone who called Jesus Christ a clown in the 1920s.

[Jake]

Why are we worrying about people who support terrorism's free speech rights? Blair has the exact right position on this issue and can actually act on it. Another reason the UK's lack of a constitution is superior.

[Emsworth]

Why are we worrying about people who support terrorism's free speech rights?

Everyone's free speech rights.

[Jake]

People who don't speak in support of terrorism don't get their "free speech rights" restricted.

[Emsworth]

People who don't speak in support of terrorism don't get their "free speech rights" restricted.

An attack on any individual's free speech rights is an attack on everyone's free speech rights. Once the government establishes that it may censor speech, no-one's free speech rights are secure.

[Jake]

Possibly true, though I am not a believer in the slippery slope argument on most issues. No speech or actions should be permitted that threaten public safety by either inciting terrorism or race riots. That is exactly what radical statements by Muslims are doing in the UK.

[Emsworth]

No speech or actions should be permitted that threaten public safety by either inciting terrorism or race riots.

Certainly, I would agree there. Any speech that incites terrorism, rioting, or, in fact, any other illegal action, is entitled to protection.

I suppose I define incitement somewhat more narrowly than you do. I don't include vague and indirect "glorification."

[KillerPollo]

No speech or actions should be permitted that threaten public safety by either inciting terrorism or race riots.

Certainly, I would agree there. Any speech that incites terrorism, rioting, or, in fact, any other illegal action, is entitled to protection.

I suppose I define incitement somewhat more narrowly than you do. I don't include vague and indirect "glorification."

^^^ I agree.

[Jake]

No speech or actions should be permitted that threaten public safety by either inciting terrorism or race riots.

Certainly, I would agree there. Any speech that incites terrorism, rioting, or, in fact, any other illegal action, is entitled to protection.

I suppose I define incitement somewhat more narrowly than you do. I don't include vague and indirect "glorification."

Then are disagreement is not on restricting speech, which we both support, but rather where to draw the line. My position holds that someone running around praising terrorists usually tends to support them at the very least and certainly a cleric praising the terrorists as heroes is inciting others to follow them.

[Emsworth]

Then are disagreement is not on restricting speech, which we both support, but rather where to draw the line.

I suppose. My position is that only direct incitement to terrorism should be prohibited. In fact, direct incitement to any crime should be prohibited. In this case, we aren't punishing the words alone, but rather the underlying order to commit an actual crime--the underlying conspiracy.

"Glorifying" terrorism, although despicable and reprehensible, should not be punished.