Interesting URL, I had seen some of that before... Don't terrorist investigations require that an organization be already proscribed? That is the main restraint on the more serious powers in the 2000 Act - proscription of an organization requires a vote in parliament.
The new powers then become rather alarming... according to the media, the offence is that you said something that a reasonable person might interpret as glorification of a terrorist act. If a terrorist act is defined as broadly as in the 2000 Act, this could be anything from motorway sabotage to GM crop destruction to hacktivism to the firemens' strike a couple years back. On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:44:00PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote: > Jei wrote: > > >Clarke's draft bill proposes new offence of glorification > > It's also worth noting that the British definition of terrorism is > extremely broad, covering politically-motivated vandalism and computer > crime. So glorifying those things would also be illegal. > > http://www.magnacartaplus.org/bills/terrorism/#definition > > Cheers, > Michael -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
