Will recession impact the debate on civil liberties?

The Economist wants to know.  The Bagehot column questions the depth of the party's commitment to civil liberties:

"The Tories... are recent and wavering converts to the eccentrics’ cause. Chris Grayling, the new shadow home secretary, has made manly noises about wanting “fewer rights, more wrongs”. Other leading Tories are privately more authoritarian than their party’s officially liberal line. But they have made some commitments—to scrap ID cards, for example—that will be difficult to disavow, if and when they take office."

It reviews the trends that might impinge on civil liberties and those that will help them to flourish:

To impinge: "Precedents in Britain and elsewhere do indeed suggest that freedom often contracts in line with GDP. People get angry. They misbehave: crime may rise, as a leaked Home Office memo predicted last year. They march, demonstrate and occasionally riot: newspapers this week reported lurid police warnings about a forthcoming “summer of rage”. They become more susceptible to extreme, xenophobic voices: there is widespread anxiety in British politics about a breakthrough by the loathsome British National Party at the European elections in June. Capturing a Euro-seat would represent a triumph for the far right greater than any achieved by Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts in the 1930s. The big risk to civil rights could come in the way the government responds: in the methods it uses to contain the wrath, to cater to it and to distract the wrathful. It would, sadly, be unsurprising if ministers were to echo far-right rhetoric about immigrants instead of wholeheartedly repudiating it; they might tout even more inhumane policies towards asylum-seekers and terrorist suspects. Demos may be met with harsh counter-measures (Liberty was formed to protest against police treatment of the “hunger marchers” who came to London during the Depression)."

To flourish: "Even if penury encourages ministers to take shortcuts, a lack of cash for security projects will help. The technology of unfreedom is costly: number-plate recognition systems, identity cards and the government’s assorted, panopticonic databases of DNA and other information are hugely expensive (always much more so than is at first estimated). They will be a much harder political sell when spending in other areas is being cut. Faith in such databases has anyway been undermined by civil servants’ unfortunate habit of leaving discs and computers on trains, by the pool, etc. That incompetence has contributed to a general loss of confidence in government. The campaigners’ hope is that, as public disenchantment sharpens, it will take in a scepticism about over-mighty criminal-justice policy as well as about economic oversight."

Iain Dale has blogged about tomorrow's session at the Convention on Modern Liberty on The Right and Civil Liberties.

Comments

[Malcolm Dunn]

Interesting thesis although I'm not sure I agree with it all.
As a rule I think most Conservatives believe in freedom and civil liberty and the state impacting as little on peoples lives as possible.
But they also believe in justice and a robust approach to crime which is in this country expensive. However I would expect a Conservative government to put it toward the top of their spending priorities.
Inevitably the recession will have an effect and I expect that criminal reform will be slower than if the economy was healthy.

[Iain]

"Will recession impact the debate on civil liberties?"

As growth has impacted on our civil liberties in that to accommodate the mass immigration policy driven by the CBI its required more and more authoritarian control on the population to slap down any decent, may be a recession will ease the situation and that people will be able to voice their concerns and the politicians will have to take them seriously.

[Sally Roberts]

Interesting indeed and it revisits the Libertarian -v- Authoritarian Debate! At one time I was an unashamed believer in the "If you have Nothing to Hide, you Have Nothing to Fear" school of thought but the onward creep of the Police State combined with Government incompetence and inability to keep hold of database information has changed my views to some extent.

Having said that, I do worry that there is a "lunatic fringe" attached to the civil libertarian cause - those who believe that we poor "sheeple" are being manipulated by the Dark Forces of the Bilderbergers/Illuminati/Lizards - in other words the David Icke Groupies! We have to be very careful to dissociate ourselves with such people.

[Tony Makara]

Individual freedom can only exist so long as it does not encroach on the collective rights of others.

If left or right wing political groups planned to carry out a march or mass rally and there was a possibility of public disorder, the home secretary or the police should have the right to cancel, re-route or even ban the proposed march or rally. In the interest of public safety.

The same applies to individuals who behave in a way that could be deemed dangerous to the rest of society. For example those who publish websites promoting suicide or gloryfying anorexia should be punished by the law and the offending sites banned.

Freedom to publish and freedom of assembly are not cast iron rights, they exist only so far as they do not represent a danger to society as a whole.

[Sally Roberts]

"Freedom to publish and freedom of assembly are not cast iron rights, they exist only so far as they do not represent a danger to society as a whole."

Fair enough, Tony but who decides whether they represent a danger or not?

[Tony Makara]

Sally, each case can only be judged in relation to its own particular circumstances. Public order has to be the determining factor regarding assembly and marches. On publishing, the criteria is more complex but I'm sure most people would agree that websites promoting anorexia or suicide should be closed down in the interests of public safety. As David Cameron said last year, we don't live in a bubble and we have a responsibility to each other.

[Super Blue]

"Will recession impact the debate on civil liberties?"

It certainly should. Labour should scrap their expensive plans for ID cards, ContactPoint etc because the country can't afford them, as well as all the civil liberties reasons. They almost certainly won't but next year's Conservative Government will.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

Interesting that civil rights are seen as the province of eccentrics.
Also interesting that the article claims freedoms contract with the GDP - a phenomenal number of encroaching laws were enacted during the boom years.
Tony Makara: I am very afraid that you sound like a government HSE leaflet. Banning marches in the interests of 'public safety' sounds an awful lot like monitoring the entire population in case of the possibility of potential terrorism. As for punishing those who glamourise anorexia etcetera - well, they obviously have a problem, but after all one doesn't have to look at the damn' thing; let the ISP take the site down and get the offender a bit of help. Throwing them in the slammer is costly and pointless.

[Tony Makara]

"punishing those who glamourise anorexia"

Mara, fourteen year old girls confused about self-image don't have the maturity to think rationally. Chris Grayling can do parents and children a big favour by banning websites that promote anorexia and other forms of self-harm.

[Opinicus]

What all Tories believe in is Order. They also believe in Liberty. The two are not opposites but actually go together. One cannot be free without order in which to exercise freedom. Anarchy is only freedom for the strongest and fittest.

I agree with the pessimism that the oncoming depression will lead to a rise in civil disobedience and violence. No Tory will find that acceptable.

But Labour's authoritarianism is part of the reason for civil disobedience. You can't hunt, you can't smoke, you can't make unapproved jokes. You are spied on by the government in ways the Stasi or the Gestapo would have given their other ball for. The police have morphed from friendly bobbies to being tinpot dictators enforcing an unpopular system. Britain has a history of Liberty and personal freedom, which has been thrown away in the last 20 yrs.
New Labour needs Muslim terrorism the way Big Brother needed his perpetual war. I am more afraid of the modern state than I am of Al Qatada. He is a fat man with a beard, the government oppresses me every day.

The Conservatives could immediately lighten the mood after the election by making a bonfire of these petty regulations. But I don't hold out much hope.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

Tony, did I not say that ISPs should take down websites that promote self-harm? Incidentally, maturity and rationality are not synonymous; nor are they confined to the individual. Greater freedoms foster greater self-reliance and, therefore, the ability to make an informed choice. Your argument that those with a bad self-image must necessarily be influenced by said images is far too much along those behaviourally deterministic lines that have informed so much authoritarian governmental policy.

[Bishop Hill]

We need to have a bit of clarity on what we mean by rights and liberties. We must defend civil liberties from all encroachments but we must also be clear that they don't apply to criminals.

[Tony Makara]

Mara, Two questions: If Chris Grayling were to ban all UK based websites promoting anorexia, would you object? And if so why?

[Mara MacSeoinin]

I would object; I think that such a policy should be at the discretion of the ISP based upon rigorous public consultation, not a government diktat. The definition of 'promoting anorexia' is too ambivalent; one could argue that advertisements for Fashion Week, where, as it was written in the Daily Mail food is considered a 'sin', could be construed as part of the same promotion. In short, I'm not a fan of censorship. If you don't like it, you don't have to look at it. Nor do you have to go *actively* looking for it.

[Bishop Hill]

Hear, hear Mara.

[Tony Makara]

Mara and Bishop Hill, I take it you are not interested in protecting children and teenagers who often lack the maturity to understand what is malicious content?

Once again we see Libertarian ideology taking precedence over common sense. Any website that consciously promotes anorexia or other aspects of self-harm should be banned by the government of the day. After all, we wouldn't expect to see this sort of thing on television.

There has to be protective legislation applied to the internet, just as with other media.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

So in effect, Tony, you're arguing for the right for people not to - and not to have to - look at something, which they could achieve perfectly well by closing their eyes? If libertarianism is the belief that people possess enough rationality to think through all the options and then make a decision; that individuals, rather than the state, are best placed to act in their own interests and don't have to be saved from themselves, then sign me up.

[Alex Swanson]

their party’s officially liberal line

What officially liberal line? The only three police-state policies I've ever heard the Conservatives officially disagree with are;

(1) the ban on .22 handguns, originally opposed by the Tories but now supported;
(2) original opposition to the RIP act, but who knows what the position is now;
(3) opposition to ID cards, almost invariably opposed not on principle but on the pragmatic grounds that it wsan't worth the money.

If this is "liberal" I hate to think what authoritarianism would look like.

[David Bean]

"Mara and Bishop Hill, I take it you are not interested in protecting children and teenagers who often lack the maturity to understand what is malicious content?"

Speaking personally if I believed that were actually true then maybe I might have some concern, but actually the maliciousness or otherwise of a piece of content will always be a matter of opinion, and I reckon individuals - yes, including children and teenagers, who contrary to your apparent belief are autonymous individuals and not sheep, and could benefit more by being treated as such than from any amount of cotton wool - are always in a better position to gauge for themselves what it is or isn't a good idea for them to read and pay heed to than the government ever could be.

[Tony Makara]

Mara, the problem is children can't differentiate between content, decisions have to be made on their behalf, to protect, to ensure that these young people are not inticed into behaviour that is detrimental to their health or mental well-being.

Websites that promote anorexia, self-harm and suicide have no other rationale but to destroy people's lives, they should be closed down and their innovators charged with offences against the person.

Allowing these websites to continue, in the name of liberty, is turning a blind eye to the abuse of young people and the otherwise impressionable.

Our nation needs a home secretary who knows how to strike the right balance between the freedom to publish and the right to protect the vulnerable.

[David Bean]

"If libertarianism is the belief that people possess enough rationality to think through all the options and then make a decision; that individuals, rather than the state, are best placed to act in their own interests and don't have to be saved from themselves, then sign me up."

Hear, hear!

On a related issue, thank God Tony is here to tell us which instances of censorship are healthy necessary for the protection of society and the weak, and which ones present a dangerous and annoying diminution of individual freedom of choice and tend towards the fostering of oppression. If he wasn't, who knows where the precedent he advocates might lead!

As a force of human nature the internet is a free for all, which is as it should and always will be. Any attempt to make it otherwise is doomed to swift and comprehensive failure, as all attempts to legislate against, instead of to guide, inform and educate, human nature must be.

[Geoff Middleton]

loathsome British National Party...far right

Yadda yadda yadda.
I suppose I shouldn't expect an ex-Labourite to recognise that the BNP is far left, not right.
It's the socialism bit, you see.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

"Allowing these websites to continue, in the name of liberty, is turning a blind eye to the abuse of young people and the otherwise impressionable."

If children are so feeble minded and morally retarded that they can't distinguish between "good" and "bad" (I use these words in quotes as socialists don't tend to like morals) why let them on the internet at all? Why aren't the Parents policing their children's activities? Why does it become necessary for the State to take on the parents' role? As I stated earlier, ISPs - *not* the State - should have the discretion to take down or block certain content based on rigorous public consultation.
But then again, it appears that I like to believe that people are fundamentally moral and able to determine what is good for or harmful to them, not the government.

[Ross Warren]

" those who believe that we poor "sheeple" are being manipulated by the Dark Forces of the Bilderbergers/Illuminati/Lizards - in other words the David Icke Groupies! We have to be very careful to dissociate ourselves with such people."

Talking as one Lizard lord of utter darkness to another. For the most part they "the Loonies" Want nothing to do with mainstream political parties in the first place.
"If you have Nothing to Hide, you Have Nothing to Fear" Like you I was of this opinion until quite recently. The drift into a surveillance state seems to be the downside of not having clear laws protecting the privacy of the individual.

"Will recession impact the debate on civil liberties?" I can't see why it would have any effect on debating. Politics in general becomes more important in times of economic stress. I hope that a new Conservative administration would reverse some of the more intrusive measures forced on us by the Labour party. I also hope to see an end of the biometric ID card, if for no other reason than its high cost. Up until quite recently a person who talked about Governments drift toward a police state, would almost certainly have been labelled as a Loon, now it is being openly discussed by ordinary folk like ourselves. I fear incompetence far more than a conspiracy. I don’t believe that those in power have a clear agenda of repression, but rather are sleepwalking us into a very dangerous situation. Even this Labour government awful though it is, serves the people of this nation. The Danger is that having put all of the tools of our repression in place, a future leadership abuses the vastly enhanced powers that the state has acquired during this relatively peaceful period. We should do everything in our power to protect the rights of the individual.

[Steve Tierney]

Tony Makara :
>>There has to be protective legislation applied to the internet, just as with other media. <<

Usually I agree with what you say, but not here. The internet is the last bastion of genuine free speech. It already has regulation. Trying to regulate it more is madness.

It's not like other 'media'. I'm not really sure it's media at all. Many of the things broadcast ON it are media and they are already subject to the laws of the countries in which they are produced, but the internet itself is form of delivery, not an end product.

When phones first appeared, did we 'regulate' what could be said on them? Just in case a young child picked one up and started talking to a mouth-breather?

The internet is an 'easy target' for people who are afraid of it, don't understand it, or are too long in the tooth to deal with it. The media love a good Moral Panic and the Internet Scare makes great headlines. The vast majority of what is said is absolute nonsense.

The internet is as dangerous to your children as the street outside is. By which I mean: You need to pay attention to what's going on for safe use, and as long as you do they'll be fine. That's called good parenting where I come from.

The correct approach to protecting young kids from the 'dangers' of the internet is to **spend more time with them**. Make sure their use of the internet is monitored until they are old enough to know what's what.

Seriously, what sort of idiot would give a nine-year-old unfettered internet access?

[Sally Roberts]

"Talking as one Lizard lord of utter darkness to another. For the most part they "the Loonies" Want nothing to do with mainstream political parties in the first place."

Now Ross, how did you guess my identity? It must have been that secret invisible sign between the two "l"'s of Sally that you spotted ;-)

You are right I think that mainly the "loonies" don't approve of any of the mainstream political parties. I believe their view is that we are all one party anyway - controlled by Their Dark Lordships (and I don't mean Mandelson...). Intriguingly of course Icke did fight the By-Election against David Davis - I suppose he put aside his principles for that one gesture!

[Mara MacSeoinin]

I usually like what you have to say, Sally, but your latest posting takes not just the biscuit but the entire patisserie.
Are you *seriously* suggesting that one is a lunatic for not adhering to mainstream political parties and their ideologies? That these policies being put forward are indeed radically different? That concepts such as 'progressive Conservatism', a coupling of antonyms, have had the effect of driving voters - including this one - elsewhere? That such voters are deeply disappointed that Cameron hasn't forced a vote of confidence over Labour's appalling mismanagement of, well, everything?
Proposing that it is logically unsound not to toe a populist line and have one's own opinions, whether it deviates from the norm or not, is indeed a fundamental denial of liberty - which makes it imperative that the Conservative party have a rethink of its fundamental ethos.

[chris southern]

Tony, their are options for parental controls on their internet providers software packages.

and what promotes anorexia? is a picture of somebody that you deem to thin, is it a site that tells people to throw up after eating or just to eat so little that they slowly starve to death?

educate children, sort out the fashion industry as that is what ultimately helps to push the idea of these disorders (film starts fall for the size zero crap as well)

education and finding the real root of the problem is the key, not banning everything that a few people blame/disagree with.
banning everything you disagree with in a kneejerk reaction is what labour have been doing for almost twelve years, and they have made everything they have touched worse.

[Sally Roberts]

"Are you *seriously* suggesting that one is a lunatic for not adhering to mainstream political parties and their ideologies?"

No of course I am not Mara - I think you have entirely misunderstood. I am taking the mickey if you like out of David Icke and the Conspiracy Theorists who believe that Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour are all part of "The Matrix" as they would like to put it - all part of some vast Conspiracy controlled by Giant Puppetmasters from Heaven Knows Where! I am most certainly not suggesting that support for smaller parties (not not EVEN UKIP ;-) ) comes into the same category! Heaven Forfend.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

Thank Heavens for that, Sally - I *knew* that such a pronouncement sounded out of character.

Over on my blog, I'm going to be posting a daily roundup of all the instances (well, as many as I can manage) of ways in which civil liberties eroded: like Victor Klemperer's diaries of the 1930s, I think it's essential to document exactly what we have lost, and the way in which the state has crept into every aspect of our lives. But, as posts like Tony Makara's show, I think there is a huge disagreement within the Conservative party as to what exactly constitutes a civil liberty and its erosion; this is an area of vital importance and a strong consensus must be reached. Even the Lib Dems are ahead of you; they've come up with a Freedom Bill which lists various liberties that should be restored.
It is important that the Opposition does not allow themselves to be sidetracked by the State into approving unpopular measures. The Civil Contingencies Act will probably be dusted off this summer when riots are 'predicted' - this will remove any pretence of freedom. Likewise, the Conservatives need to take a definite stance on the DNA database, biometrics in general (why should other nations force British citizens to submit to fingerprinting, for example?), ContactPoint, indiscriminate sharing of medical information, CCTV, PCSOs vs PCs, extending the power to fine to council members/local busybodies, RIPA, ECHRA, religious 'hate' laws, free speech etc.

[Malcolm Stevas]

I see the usual suspects are relegating liberty to the status of occasional luxury, to be pandered to - within reason necessarily - when times are good but, regretfully, to be put on the back burner as the economy struggles a bit...
Well might Mara MacSeoinin write, "Interesting that civil rights are seen as the province of eccentrics," since this seems the default Tory position. But I don't see it as at all eccentric to disapprove of (read "bitterly distrust") the mainstream political parties, indeed to believe there really is clear blue water between the Tories and the other lot is to demonstrate a staggering degree of naivety - but that too is a characteristic of our regular Tory lapdogs here...
I reject any suggestion that liberty is just a quaint accessory to modern democracy: it is fundamental, utterly necessary, everything for which our forbears shed blood & tears, ultimately the only thing that matters, and any politician who vacillates over this is beneath contempt. If a belief in liberty makes me a "loony" by the standards of the Conservative Party it is further proof that this Party offers no home to a great many believers in traditional virtues.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

"I see the usual suspects are relegating liberty to the status of occasional luxury, to be pandered to - within reason necessarily - when times are good but, regretfully, to be put on the back burner as the economy struggles a bit..."

I agree entirely, Malcolm. Thinking about it, it is pretty astonishing that this posting is asking, in all seriousness, whether we should make a choice between the economy and our own existence.
The world economies only exist because people have a blind faith in something that isn't actually there: money. Cash is given value because it is presumed that a sheet of paper can be exchanged for a good or a service. When it fails, money ceases to have any value whatsoever. By virtue of the same argument, if we cease to have the belief that freedoms exist within a society (freedoms which we bestow on others and commensurately expect for ourselves), we've effectively written off the existence of humanity. Our history is populated by the examples of the will to freedom and belief in its sovereignty, be it the US constitution, Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, Voltaire or Rosseau, Bentham or Locke or Mill or Avicenna for that matter. Faith in the fundamental goodness, rationality and morality - be you a theist or an atheist - is appallingly difficult to restore, once selfhood has been handed over to the state; and it usually happens at the end of a sharpened pitchfork. If we *don't* want anarchy in the coming months, we'd better restore that faith in liberty PDQ.

[Serf]

What all Tories believe in is Order. They also believe in Liberty. The two are not opposites but actually go together.

I couldn't agree more. The reason we have had so many civil liberties forcably removed is that we have become weak on law and order, and chaos has reigned.

If the justice system worked properly, if the streets were not ruled by the lawless, then everyone would feel much more comfortable about freedom.

Unfortunately we have reached a position where the man on the street thinks that collective punishment (for that is what authoritarianism is) is ok, because they are so scared of crime.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

"Unfortunately we have reached a position where the man on the street thinks that collective punishment (for that is what authoritarianism is) is ok, because they are so scared of crime."

Absolutely. And this is a direct result of the erosion of the concept of responsibility.
People often couple libertarianism with self-centred, anarchical behaviour. But that is to deliberately obfusticate definitions of liberty. To be truly free one has to be entirely responsible for oneself. One must diligently and rigorously weigh up every decision, because no-one else is making that decision. The individual alone must work out ways in which to behave that will allow them the maximum happiness and absence of pain for the Other. For in order to have freedom, one cannot deny another's, or they will deny one's own. This government is the worst culprit when it comes to erosion of responsibility because in making all the decisions for the individual, they are suppressing deliberately the individual's moral sense. It encourages the development of an entire generation convinced of their entitlement to everything and their responsibility for absolutely nothing. Included in this is the way in which young people - particularly in inner-city London - respond to provocation: with absolute violence and complete lack of respect for the existence of the Other. Without responsibility, societies could never have evolved; without it, we are feral and moronic.

[Tony Makara]

It is interesting how libertarians always try to frame the arguments against censorship in terms of a curtailment of personal liberties.

This is a flawed position to argue from and places the rights of the individual as being more important than the collective best interests of all.

The individual does not exist alone, he/she is part of society and must measure their amount of personal liberty in terms of how it impacts on the rest of society.

The very act of producing a website becomes a social act because the website can be accessed by the rest of society. Therefore the content contained in the website should not contain material likely to cause harm to others.

The right to publish carries with it a great deal of responsibility. The right to influence others has to be qualified and open to censure. Those who cannot see this and insist on the right of the individual to publish free of restraint are themselves anti-social.

[chris southern]

Sorry Tony, it's not up to the state to determine what offends people.
it's not up to the state to decide what can be written and what can't.

if you want freedom, then people need to be responsible for their actions.
the nanny state.big brother and authoritarians need to go.

with responsibility comes morales, something the the big state has removed through it's interferance.
it has destroyed the freemarkets and removed peoples liberties/freedom.

the state has authorised people to be able to break common law.
it is the state that has failed society, not the people.
don't blame the people for the states failings.

banning everything that you do not like does not make it right, banning things that the minority does not like is not right.
banning things in a knea jerk reaction is not right, if people are to become free then we need to look at the root of the problems we face, not what we percieve to be the problem. that has been the mistakes of the state for quite some time, that has been the mistakes of history, we are only repeating what has happenend in the past.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

Do you actually *read* others' comments, Tony Makara, or do you press on resolutely with your own opinion despite evidence to the contrary?
I pointed out that libertarianism is *not* anarchical and selfish because it places a huge burden of responsibility on an individual not to deny someone else's liberty in the pursuit of their own happiness. Now, you draw attention to collective 'goods' (which, in a socialist society have no meaning as the concept of moral centres are dismissed). The government argues that a police state is for the collective 'good'. It claims that banning free speech is a collective 'good'. It claims that using over a trillion of the taxpayers' money without consultation is a collective 'good'. Utilitarianism is the most flawed of all systems, because the 'good' in question is never made explicit; it relies upon a majority vote from those who have had their opinions manipulated and fabricated by those who wish to secure their 'consent'.
You use terms like 'responsibility' and 'harm' very ambivalently. As I argue above, we live in a society in which personal resonsibility has all but been negated. With that negation, definitions of 'harm' have changed extensively. They bear little relation to what was construed as 'harm' ten years ago. There are documented cases where social workers have removed children or blocked adoptions because the parents are Christian, deeming religion to be 'harmful'. The obnoxious David Semple believes home education to be 'harmful' because it is outside the remit of the State. Free movement is deemed 'harmful' by the government because someone might potentially be a terrorist (another definition that shifts endlessly).
Freedom is about having unpleasant, as well as pleasant ideas expressed. That is how we learn. That is how humanity works out right from wrong. If there is a website out there which promotes harm, let the ISPs deal with it. Let the parents deal with it. Let society deal with it. But don't place even more responsibility in the hands of the state.

[Tony Makara]

"it's not up to the state to decide what can be written and what can't"

Chris, so the state has no right in banning the promotion of internet peadophile user groups or websites encouraging acts of terrorism? Whether you like it or not the state can be the only objective arbiter on these matters and many others.

Mara, your errant excitability in discussing this issue bears living testament as to why we need a dispassionate body like that state to make decisions on matters such as censorship. Remember the state isn't just the government, but is multi-faceted and takes its soundings from a wide range of sources.

Decisions on levels of censorship should not be taken lightly and only after considerable consultation. The first duty of any state is to protect its people and internet content is not exempt from scrutiny because it is a relatively new medium and has largely been allowed to run unchecked until now.

We do need to set sensible limits on the publication of dangerous internet websites. This is about common sense and security rather than trying to control people.

[Bishop Hill]

It's always "about common sense and security". The effect is always to control people.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

'Errant excitability'? Well, I have been accused of many things but never of illogicality. In what sense, precisely? Analysing your loose usage of essential terms such as 'good' and 'harm'? Believing that we must perceive both good and bad, the pleasant and unpleasant, in order to be rounded human beings? Defending freedom?
Your depiction of a dispassionate state bears a huge resemblance to Plato's Republic, one in which the Philosopher Kings have absolute control over the people. And, in the Republic, the Philosopher Kings rule by by virtue of a superior intellect; you are stating that the State should do people's thinking for them and make their decisions because they could not be trusted with the information available. (Otherwise they might be prone to some kind of 'errant excitability' and make decisions based upon deeply rooted personal beliefs as well as empirical evidence, presumably.) In other words, it appears that you believe that humanity is a slave to its worst instincts, rather than possessing a fundamental moral sense enabling it to discriminate between good and bad.
I second Bishop Hill's view. It is worth noting that the more legislation brought in to ensure people's security, the more afraid they feel.

[chris southern]

Tony, the state shouldn't ban those sites, it should with the help of the srvice provider prosecute those people as they are breaking laws.

web hosting companies don't always know what the sites contain that they are hosting, when it is brought to their attention that it is something that is breaking the law, then the hosting company should cease to supprt the site and help with any prosecutions in a friendly manner (i.e. not having the police confiscate equipment like has been done in the past, but profiding information to the police)

it is strange that you picked two things that are illegal when your previous examples aren't.
breaking the laws and personal morales are two differen't things.

[Malcolm Stevas]

Wasting my breath I dare say but cannot just let the latest extravagantly audacious collectivist drivel from T.Makara go:
"The very act of producing a website becomes a social act because the website can be accessed by the rest of society. Therefore the content contained in the website should not contain material likely to cause harm to others."
Of all the outrageous assertions made by TM this has to be a choice example, really quite breathtaking in its arrogance and its wholly pernicious implications, a recipe for conformist tyranny.
"The right to publish carries with it a great deal of responsibility. The right to influence others has to be qualified and open to censure..."
OK so far, sort of...
"Those who... insist on the right of the individual to publish free of restraint are themselves anti-social."
But this ain't! It's an argument in favour of tyranny of the majority at best, and outright State totalitarianism at worst. I do wonder sometimes whether Citizen Makara has actually read Orwell, or whether he's some great guru of satire poking fun at the authoritarian elements of Toryism.

[Summerfield]

sorry but I have to disagree with Sally Roberts "those who believe that we poor "sheeple" are being manipulated by the Dark Forces of the Bilderbergers/Illuminati/Lizards - in other words the David Icke Groupies!"

I firmly believe that we are being manipulated by the Government. David Ickes has been predicting the current situation for years and has proved to be accurate.
We have more to fear from the Labour Government and the EU than we have from David Ickes

[Mara MacSeoinin]

Good post, Malcolm. An exquisite blend of contempt and erudition.
I've noticed that no-one seems to have mentioned the concept of self-censorship; deliberately *not* looking at things or seeking them out. I don’t watch gross-out movies because I’d rather not be grossed out. I don’t watch Westerns because I don’t like them. I’d never go searching for paedophiliac images because the mere concept revolts me to my very core. I wouldn’t go looking for websites devoted to self-harm, because I don’t wish to harm myself. I self-censor - as do you and every other rational being.
Children are considered by law as possessing the ability to determine the moral consequences of their actions by the age of seven. By this point, they have seen and learnt enough of the world for their character to be ‘fixed’. They know firmly what they like and dislike. Obviously they are still open to influence (as are all adults, save for the intractable totalitarian types) and change their opinion often. But nothing is going to make them commit suicide; you can’t glamourise the concept of your own death. They have to be heartily depressed in the first place. And, if there exist fora in which the young debate suicide techniques, the question must be asked: why have such fora been created? Why are the young so unhappy? Why would those with absolutely everything to live for want to cease existing? Banning such sites will not remove suicidal tendencies, just as banning anorexia-glamourising sites will not stop children from possessing a negative body image - particularly when extremely slender women are held up as role models.

[Tony Makara]

The arguments for self-censorship assume that all people share an equal ability to differentiate between good and harmful content. However this criteria cannot be applied to the young or to those whose perspective is flawed due to psychological factors such as low self-esteem.

The suggestion that we should not shut down harmful websites, in the name of liberty, shows a gross naivety and a failure to understand real-life consequences.

These muddled libertarian views are the same flawed arguments that have led to the state retreating in the face of a drugs epidemic, re-classifying drugs and trying to create more leeway for drug users, which in reality meant opening another window of opportunity to drug-dealers, rather than using all the means at its disposal to eradicate the problem. Had we taken a hard line against drug-pushers from the beginning, including capital punishment for the most serious offences, we would not have a drug problem in Britain today.

Ultimately this is all about the will to make things happen. Weak career-politicans do not have the moral conviction to fight social evils, occasionally they may make noises about drugs, prostitution, and the like, but they do absolutely nothing about it.

Is there not one politician who will stand up for what is right? Stand up and say that he/she is proud to moralize, proud to say that we must take a stand against the people who are dragging our country into the gutter?

Whether its drug-dealers, pimps, corrupt officials, or those who plant harmful ideas into the minds of the young via the internet, we need to take a stand.

The age of liberal tolerance must end and a new era of justice must begin.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

So by your account those of lower intellect, children and those with low esteem together with libertarians, liberals and anyone who likes the idea of existing freely are so morally retarded that they have to forcibly be told what they can and can't read, look at, and think?
I note that you don't answer the query as to *why* such sites exist in the first place or why the young are so unhappy. It is easier to go into a tirade about libertarianism the foundations of which you clearly have failed to understand and demand Big Government intervenes for everyone's good. I think perhaps you belong over at LabourList; Dolly Draper shares your sentiments (when it suits him, that is).

[RichardJ]

Tony, drugs were legalised in the near-libertarian Victorian period and we didn't have moral collapse.

In a libertarian society there is nothing to stop the respectable majority from socially ostracising, boycotting or discriminating against those they deem to be antisocial. You seem to have this strange idea that all libertarians are libertines. In fact, as I have said many times before, libertarians are often socially conservative and are morally opposed to such things as drug abuse, pornography etc. They simple do not believe it is the place of the state to suppress such things. If the local shop is stocking hardcore pornography and enough people disapprove then there's nothing to stop them organising a boycott until the offending material is removed. Similarly there's nothing to stop property developers from requiring people buying the houses to enter into a contract banning them from consuming drugs on the property.

[Steve Tierney]

There's no point in me taking freedom and liberty up against with Tony Makara any more since the rest of you are doing just fine.

Tony, are all these arguments against your position not causing you to think at all?

Was it Ben Franklin who said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

[Tony Makara]

The problem with liberty is that is an undefinable concept. It is an abstraction into which so many subscribe, like a faith, it has no grounding in the real practical and pragmatic world.

The supremacy of one mans liberty invariably means another mans liberty is diminished. The liberty of the anti-semite to publish race-hate leads to the persecution of Jewish people. The liberty of the misogynist to promote violent pornography leads to assaults on women. The idea that we should be at liberty to persue our own goals is unworkable and an illusion.

[Malcolm Stevas]

Tony Makara:
”..muddled libertarian … flawed arguments … the state retreating in the face of a drugs epidemic… more leeway for drug users… opportunity to drug-dealers…Had we taken a hard line against drug-pushers from the beginning, including capital punishment for the most serious offences, we would not have a drug problem in Britain today.”
What strikes me about many of the things you say is not so much that they’re wildly contentious, but actually an inversion of the truth. You appear to rely on your feelings instead of looking at history, evidence, prior experience. If you did this regarding the “drugs problem” you would reflect on, for example, America’s flirtation with Prohibition, an almost perfect illustration of what happens when misguided politicians, driven by an unholy mix of religious zealotry, perverted patriotism and authoritarian intolerance, try to forbid something that many or most people want. The result is general disobedience, a vast mushrooming criminal infrastructure to supply illicitly what consumers cannot get legally, violence & nastiness, bad products, one's country a laughing stock, and a diminished respect for law & order and government in general. Then ultimately an acknowledgement it was all a hugely expensive, embarrassing, self-defeating, reactionary, pointless mistake.
Exactly the same with the “Drugs War” – when hard drugs were legal and readily obtainable there was no national problem worth mentioning; step forward a few decades to the present, when billions are expended in a futile effort to stop people ingesting substances classed – often whimsically and arbitrarily – as this or that degree of alleged harmfulness, and drugs are perceived (more often as moral panic than in actuality) as a dire national threat…
Exactly the same with firearms – when they were generally available to any British person who cared to visit the gunsmiths shop there was only a minimal level of gun crime in this country; politicians with unstated agendas introduce severely oppressive controls, and after less than a century criminals are obtaining & misusing them several thousand percent more frequently than previously, while ordinary citizens have to jump through vicious bureaucratic hoops if they want a gun…
But I don’t think you’re interested in these things; ultimately you just don’t like the idea of people being free agents and acting freely within society: you don’t think they’re up to it. I suspect Mara M is right when she says you believe that ”..libertarians, liberals and anyone who likes the idea of existing freely are so morally retarded that they have to forcibly be told what they can and can't read, look at, and think”. You don’t trust people, perhaps in part because you have this curious idea that liberty is a zero-sum game, in which "The supremacy of one mans liberty invariably means another mans liberty is diminished." It's not like that, Tony, otherwise we would not have seen a historical growth in the amount of liberty available to all, dependent only on the social system they inhabit. Libertarianism - which you consistently misrepresent - values liberty intensely, but not at the expense of any individual: liberty is only a valuable commodity if it is practiced without detriment to one's fellows. You don't get it.
”Ultimately this is all about the will to make things happen.”
So what we need is a Triumph Of The Will, perhaps…Hmmm…

[Tony Makara]

Malcolm, its not remotely possible to compare war-on-drugs with US alcohol prohibition, drug-addiction and the drug-culture is far more dangerous.

I wonder why you keep trying to compare my views with National Socialist Germany? Given my ancestry, the comparison is somewhat ridiculous.

I'm sure readers find it incredible that the libertarian view supports the use of drugs, uncensored websites that enourage self-harm like anorexia, and a general free-for-all.

The libertraians are truly children of the progressive 1960s, an era that even Germaine Greer now accepts was excessive and damaging. The fact is libertarians do not believe in society, these children only want to serve themselves.

[Malcolm Stevas]

"Malcolm, its not remotely possible to compare war-on-drugs with US alcohol prohibition, drug-addiction and the drug-culture is far more dangerous."
I sometimes wonder if we speak the same language: surely my analogy was clear to the meanest understanding. They are exactly parallel. Your pretence that "drugs" are different from alcohol is extraordinarily disingenuous. You know full well that alcohol is a drug, a chemical modifier of behaviour, but through historical precedent & acceptance it's accepted within our culture more than are marijuana and other more potent substances. Your sugestions about "drugs" are based on false premises and faulty logic.
"I wonder why you keep trying to compare my views with National Socialist Germany? Given my ancestry, the comparison is somewhat ridiculous."
Maybe, but it was a joke, albeit a pointed one.
"I'm sure readers find it incredible that the libertarian view supports the use of drugs, uncensored websites that enourage self-harm like anorexia, and a general free-for-all."
You don't listen, and you wilfully misunderstand. I support the freedom of free people in a free society to ingest whatever substances they like so long as it doesn't infringe others' liberty. Seems perfectly reasonable. A "general free for all" sounds like anarchy - but then, you consistently confuse this with libertarianism...
"The libertarians are truly children of the progressive 1960s"
Only in the sense that the 1960s saw the origins of today's Nanny State Leftists, of widespread approval for totalitarian oppression: Paris 1968, Che Guevara, Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, etc etc, all were food & drink to many in government today, which explains their dangerously authoritarian policies. I'm actually reacting against that - but as usual, you've got things the wrong way round.

[RichardJ]

"The liberty of the anti-semite to publish race-hate leads to the persecution of Jewish people"

Alternatively it leads to the ridicule of those who publish such nonsense. People are not as stupid as you seem to think.

"The libertraians are truly children of the progressive 1960s, an era that even Germaine Greer now accepts was excessive and damaging."

Libertarianism is simply a modern form of classical liberalism which was around long before the 1960s. I also ought to add that the 60s hipsters were very anti-private property, the complete opposite of libertarians. Drugs were legal in the Victorian period - does that mean highly religious people like Gladstone et al were morally bankrupt? Furthermore the early 1990s saw the rise of the paleolibertarian movement in America which was very much opposed to the values of the 1960s and believed that a strengthening of private property rights and the demolition of the welfare system would do much to undermine post 1960s hedonism.