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 - toad@???
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
