I don't think we can call them "laws", because are clearly against the most fundamental values of any democracy.
No country is free anymore. Not even the US, which enjoys bolstering itself as "the free world".
Any freedom you enjoy in a democratic state nowadays is merely circumstantial and can disappear instantly at any moment.
But it's fine because it's the most powerful country in the world that does it. If anyone objects, they get dropped. If it comes to a vote in e.g. the UN security councel, they use their veto power.
> Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws.
Unless I misunderstand the legislative history, the law that was used here (Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000) dates from July 2000, so before 9/11.
Still part of the same trend as what happened after 9/11, of course, but we shouldn’t pretend 9/11 was the beginning of this, especially not in the UK.
For US readers who weren't taught this in history class, the UK suffered a number of terrorist attacks by the IRA from the 1970's til roughly 2001.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-bombings...
(George Carlin)
I was just thinking about this, imagining being indefinitely detained for terrorism because 4chan is in my browser history[0]. I'd take the fifth, and they would charge me with a crime, and so, the US Constitution is basically void.
But then I wondered: was it ever really not? Was there ever a time I could have relied on legal justice if I happen to be in an unsympathetic jurisdiction? Before there was an unconstitutional terrorism act, there would still probably have been DAs willing to look the other way on a police beating and willing to add bogus criminal charges because I'm uncooperative.
Has justice ever been reliable? Right now it seems like maybe it has always been a psychological blanket.
[0]hyperbolic obviously. Hopefully. Just a thought experiment, as that's the only/closest activity of mine that could be construed as terrorism.
As a more specific example of why it's 'dangerous', a recent meme I've seen a bunch tells the reader that if they are drafted (in a theoretical future US draft), the moral thing to do is to shoot officers as soon as you get a rifle.
You aren't responsible for what people post online. Anyone can post anything on a forum and you may be looking at it because of other interesting stuff doesn't mean you have bad intentions.
I think it's mainly paranoia, I still think the odds of falsely being charged with terrorism are incredibly low.
Right now, sure. I'm merely speculating about the future.
They might be referring to a couple decades ago when 4chan users were referred to as "domestic terrorists" in a hyperbolic fox news report
Especially the US. My government has no rights to do anything like that. Please don't project your non freedom to the world.
I don’t want to be partisan but the most striking example I remember was when Comey weighed in on Secretary Clinton’s email server saying “there was no criminal intent”
If you’re ignorant of the law, you cannot have a criminal intent, or am I missing something?
In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. So ignorance is a shield if you have a shield.
This is a misstatement of the rule. Qualified immunity applies if the alleged action would not have violated a "clearly established Constitutional right", which does not depend on the personal knowledge of the individual being sued. (It's also applies to all public employees/officers, not just police, though its application in the domain of policing has frequently been controversial.)
Rights are arbitrary limits made up by people which can be changed or eliminated by people. Nothing more, nothing less.