UK Prime Minister Wants To Ban Suspected Rioters From Facebook & Twitter

from the oh-come-on dept

After initially blaming the Blackberry and suggesting that Blackberry's messaging service be shut down to try to quell the UK riots, it seems that UK politicians are trying to up the level of "bad ideas in reaction to riots" with Prime Minister David Cameron suggesting that those who are suspected of rioting be banned from social networks like Twitter and Facebook.
David Cameron has told parliament that in the wake of this week's riots the government is looking at banning people from using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook if they are thought to be plotting criminal activity.

The prime minister said the government will review whether it is possible to stop suspected rioters spreading online messages, in his opening statement during a Commons debate on Thursday on the widespread civil disorder for which MPs were recalled from their summer recess.
I'm at a loss to see how anyone believes that cutting off communication for people who feel disenfranchised will suddenly make them less interested in rioting. There's this rush by people in charge to think that "if only we could stop them from spreading messages, that will calm them down." That seems likely to be a giant miscalculation. It's not hard to get around any such ban, and instituting such a ban is just likely to piss off the very people they're trying to calm down.

Filed Under: david cameron, free speech, london, pre-crime, riots, social networks, uk
Companies: facebook, rim, twitter

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Nicedoggy, 11 Aug 2011 @ 4:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah, disenfranchised

    Did you do anything when people got murdered by the police on the streets of London?

    Are you the guy that do something when people get bullied by law enforcement?

    If no, why are you complaining when people get really mad about it and show it?

    Did you really think that once a riot started opportunists wouldn't be part of it?

    In every riot people loot and destroy things.
    There is not one case of a riot not involving loot and destruction of property.

    Besides a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.
    It is a measure by which people can understand how good a government is or is not, how policies need to change or not, it is a way for the commons to vent and have their grievances heard and not just dismissed as something inconsequential, it forces governments to take people seriously.

    Shays' Rebellion a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786 prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.

    Source: Thomas Jefferson

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.