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.

[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.

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And then there's the Blasphemy Law (which I'd like repealed, btw).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

[Emsworth]

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

Everyone's free speech rights.

[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.

[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."

[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.