LibDem to bring web-censorship to Britain?

3 March 2010

Quite possibly a LibDem, this morning

The House of Lords are currently debating the UK Digital Economy Bill. First, they all have to read the manual to a computer and see if they can successfully switch the bloody thing on and then, once they've managed to send "an electronic letter" to another Lord, they'll be able to start unpicking the prickly subject of online copyright.

The LibDems are now getting involved and boy oh boy, they're making themselves look like real tools. Well... less useful than a tool, but you get the gist.

Lord Razzall and Lord Clement-Jones, have introduced an amendment that would open the door to nationally censoring entire websites on unsubstantiated claims of copyright infringement.

According to Cory Doctorow this could mean that YouTube or WordPress.com might disappear from the British Internet if someone makes a false accusation of copyright infringement against them.

How shit is that?

The Lords have asked for this clause to be inserted:

"97B Preventing access to specified online locations

(1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court."

There's more of their proposal to be found by clicking these differently coloured words. How you'd go about fairly implementing something like this is beyond me (granted, I'm as thick as your mum's custard).

TOPICS:   Technology

10 comments

  • Tom P.
    Stupid fucking Lords, they're not even elected.
  • Nobby
    I'm off to file a copyright infringement claim about something posted on the House of Lords website.
  • Theo C.
    Seems odd, given that their official policy document states: "End plans to spy on your email and internet use - Labour want companies to store information about your email and internet use – even storing data about what you do on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. This is a huge waste of money and time, which we will scrap. We will ensure your private data is kept safe." But maybe that means they're not worried about checking what people are looking at online because they will use Chinese-style censorship to make sure we only look at what they want anyway.
  • Nobby
    > But maybe that means they’re not worried about checking what people are looking at online because they will use Chinese-style censorship to make sure we only look at what they want anyway. That's OK then. I mainly use the internet for porn anyway.
  • John V.
    Nobody cares about politics but the general public loves Youtube and will fight to the death for it so this will never happen.
  • Bobbyman
    @ Tom Pickering: Isn't that the WHOLE POINT of the House of Lords? It being unelected?
  • andyofyarm
    Lord Razzle?
  • Warwick H.
    The "Lords! are a bunch of pompous old wankers and thats being kind to them.
  • Ed
    Given that a private organisation (the Internet Watch Foundation) can already cut off our access to web sites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_Wikipedia) on the basis of a whim or some mother saying "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!1", I think that the High Court having the power to place an injuction on a website is the least of our concerns.
  • LibDems B.
    [...] the Liberal Democrats being dribbling dipshits concerning the Digital Economy Bill? (it’s here, if you don’t). If you can’t be bothered clicking the link, basically, the kicker is [...]

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment