Thought Crime: UK Leadership Wants To Ban Predicted 'Extremists' From Social Media, TV, Events

from the police-state dept

Theresa May, the current UK Home Secretary, has announced that, if re-elected, her party (the Conservatives) will push for "extremist disruption orders" which would effectively ban people declared "extremist" (using a very broad definition) from using social media or appearing on TV.
Extremists will have to get posts on Facebook and Twitter approved in advance by the police under sweeping rules planned by the Conservatives.

They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.
The broad definitions here matter. Part of the plan is to make such rules cover a wide variety of groups and individuals, based on what the government "reasonably believes" they may be up to:
Under the Tories' new proposals, groups that cannot currently be proscribed could be subject to banning orders should ministers "reasonably believe" that they intend to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy or if there is a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.
Yes, if the government "reasonably believes" you engage in harassment at some point in the future, it can have you declared an extremist, bar you from TV and public events, and make sure that all your social media posts are pre-reviewed for approval. Supporters flat out admit that this would be done to get people who are currently doing things that are perfectly legal:
The new orders will be part of the Government’s “Prevent” strategy, which tackles the ideology behind the terrorist threat. So-called hate preachers, who currently stay just within terrorism legislation, will be one of the targets of banning orders and Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs).
But, of course, things like that imply that it will only be used against "terrorists" or terrorist sympathizers. But, as the details make clear, this expands way beyond terrorism to those who may be involved in other offenses. Big Brother Watch details how environmental groups may be tied up by this:
The fact that these Extremist Disruption Orders won’t only apply to potential terrorists, but simply to those who present a threat to public disorder, clearly highlights that this policy is the thin end of the wedge.

We were told that the National Extremist Database would contain details of those who posed a nations security, yet we know members of the public who have done little more than organise meetings on environmental issues are on the database.
What's especially galling is the fact that May is claiming that this is being done in the name of "British values," which certainly suggests that freedom of speech and freedom to associate are, in fact, antithetical to British values. Also, all of this assumes that speech, alone, is somehow dangerous -- despite years of proof that speech by itself is rarely dangerous. However, the suppression of speech often creates more problems.

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Michael, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:03am

    They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.

    Well, the good news is that would certainly shut Theresa May up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Zonker, 30 Sep 2014 @ 2:11pm

      Re:

      She just gave the least untruthful statement here. Free speech and free association are actually a direct threat to authoritarian oligarchies operating under the guise of democracy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:05am

    it wont be long before the UK laws are worse than in N.Korea etc! the government was working towards this, as they have ignored all warnings on what would happen once censorship started. now they are trying to make freedom of speech and privacy illegal. this is just the next step after May got the spying law DRIP introduced! and even worse, it's just being turned into a 'little USA'! it's gonna be regretted big time!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    radarmonkey (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:08am

    Everyone is an 'extremest' to someone else. EVERYONE.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:09am

    Well, it's a good job the only social media outlet I use is called a pub, then.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Zonker, 30 Sep 2014 @ 2:16pm

      Re:

      Guess what then? Theresa May wants to ban you from the pub.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2014 @ 5:55am

        Re: Re:

        Theresa May wants to ban you from the pub.
        But James May wants you as co-host a new twelve part series "Thatch vs. Slate: A Retrospective of Medieval Public House Roofing Materials."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:11am

    Does she not see that she is an extremist, and is simply defining as extremists those that disagree with her.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:14am

    I'm not surprised. It was only a matter of time before they began stripping away even more rights of the people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Just Another Anonymous Troll, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:19am

    Extremism...

    This sounds very extremist. Theresa May should ban herself from social media and public speaking.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Chris Brand, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:19am

    Copyright reform

    There goes any chance of reforming copyright, then. People who oppose a maximalist position have been described as "extremists" for years.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ACasey (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:19am

    Not just 'Murica

    The UK is getting more and more draconian by the day.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 12:53pm

      Re: Not just 'Murica

      funny how many of the "free world" countries are becoming increasingly Dictatorial and fascist

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:23am

    I propose that anyone proposing proposals that ban anyone from proposing proposals be banned from proposing proposals!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:23am

    Can we all agree that it is unreasonable to use the term reasonable when defining laws and public policies?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:24am

    They don't know how democracy functions

    They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.


    Funny, that. As soon as you are barring people from speaking -- no matter how unpleasant you find the speech -- you are a threat to "the functioning of democracy" yourself. The functioning of democracy requires the ability for people to speak freely, especially unpopular speech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      peter, 30 Sep 2014 @ 2:18pm

      Re: They don't know how democracy functions

      barring people from speaking is a threat to "the functioning of democracy".

      This is what every person who comes into contact with Ms May should be telling her...and should be how we remember her political career.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:26am

    New term requred

    I'm sure everyone here knows what a Godwin is. I'd like to suggest a similar term: an Orwell.

    An Orwell occurs when a politician or a demagogue or anyone else in a position of putative leadership, someone who should be defending democracy, free speech, civil liberties, etc., issues a statement in which they purport to do so while actually attempting to eviscerate them. This duplicitous strategy is usually premised on a combination of fear (e.g., the Four Horsemen of the Internet) and blind patriotism ("British values", indeed) with the occasional side nod to xenophobia, racism, bigotry or misogyny.

    Ms. May has obligingly provided the example du jour, but no doubt others will come to our attention soon enough.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ACasey (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:30am

      Re: New term requred

      with the occasional side nod to xenophobia, racism, bigotry or misogyny.


      Don't forget child porn!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:50am

        Re: Re: New term requred

        And terrorism, replete with 9/11 references. Fifty years from now, governments will still try to justify their actions by crying 9/11.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Dogs do tell, Cats do well, 30 Sep 2014 @ 7:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: New term requred

          It has interested me for a number of years that the acts commissioned by the NSA/CIA/USA Government to occur on the 9/11 date used your 911 emergency code. It takes a pretty corrupt group to use an emergency contact number as the date that they will arrange for a group of mentally deficient and homicidal extremists to take down a couple of locations that will have major collateral damage done to the population that they are supposed to be protecting. All in the cause of raising awareness of extremists everywhere and allowing the government to justify its new draconian laws and methodologies.

          It is long overdue to weep for your nation and rise up against the corruption of your lawmakers and leaders and those who blindly follow in their path.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            WysiWyg (profile), 1 Oct 2014 @ 2:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: New term requred

            But it's not REALLY 9/11. In the rest of the world it was 11/9.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Tweak (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: New term requred

            Yes, it is long overdue. This is why they are working hard to get the people screaming to abolish the rights protected by our 2nd Amendment.

            The militia must be called forth to protect the union.

            Maybe this is what they meant by "The South will rise again."

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 11:24am

      Re: New term requred

      I wonder: would Orwell himself have been labeled an extremist?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 1:01pm

      Re: New term requred

      I'm sure everyone here knows what a Godwin is.
      Except you, it seems. (and many others, in my observations of how the law is typically used)

      Godwin's Law states a probability. It is not an event, a "gotcha" type of rhetorical trap, or a counterargument that applies some sort of penalty or disqualification to the opposing speaker. The law itself states:
      “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
      Mike Godwin himself later reworded the law changing "Usenet" to the more general term "online discussion". The purpose of the law[ibid] was to make people realize they were making comparison to the Nazis and Hitler not as a legitimate comparison, but because they had become a meme. People used the archetype of the bogeyman (or devil) as rhetorical hammer. The law was an experiment at making a counter-meme to try and make people see how they were riding the "bandwagon effect" and acting as a vector for bad and abusive methods of rhetoric.

      Unfortunately, Godwin's Law itself has become everthing it set out to prevent. It is used to shoot down arguments without really addressing them, and it is used to end discussions. It has shifted into a cheap way of claiming reductio ad Hitlerium (an informal fallacy that is often merely guilt-by-association) without having to actually show why.

      While I appreciate the motives in creating a simple way of describing Orwellian language, we should not sink to the levels of rhetoric that Mike Godwin was trying to prevent. Trivializing your opponent or making them into a slogan that can be repeated without thought are techniques used by tyrants to dehumanize their opponents. The fight against modern Orwellian abuses - by definition - must avoid these corruptions of language.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Zonker, 30 Sep 2014 @ 2:41pm

      Re: New term requred

      I think the term "Orwellian" already applies to this.

      But if you're proposing an "Orwell's Law", wouldn't the law itself mean the opposite of what it purports to be?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:26am

    What ever happened to commit the crime, do the time?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:39am

    "What's especially galling is the fact that May is claiming that this is being done in the name of "British values," which certainly suggests that freedom of speech and freedom to associate are, in fact, antithetical to British values."

    Uh, these ARE antithetical to British values. Otherwise they wouldn't have things like Speakers' Corners.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers'_Corner

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:40am

    Is not the act of suppressing speech against democratic values? I would say someone needs to silence Theresa May, but that would put me on the same level of extremism as her.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:43am

      Re:

      I would disagree.

      Wanting to silence someone for their beliefs like this bitch wants puts you on their level, but silencing someone that is trying to silence others is a justice. For this one the devil is definitely in the details.

      Kinda like killing someone before they kill you does not make you a murderer and would be the only situation people would approve of you killing someone!

      So in short silencing someone trying to silence others is an act of self defense, because they would only come for you next anyways!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 12:48pm

        Re: Re:

        Wanting to silence someone for their beliefs like this bitch wants puts you on their level, but silencing someone that is trying to silence others is a justice. For this one the devil is definitely in the details.

        The devil certainly is in the detail - especially when you bear in mind that one of the nasty aspects of those whom Mrs May wishes to silence is that they would also silence opposing views, given the chance. You try going to the territory controlled by ISIS and preaching any religion, world view or philosophy other than (their particular brand of) Islam and see if you even survive.

        Does that make Mrs May's plan " a justice"?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:40am

    Conservative

    There is NOTHING conservative about this.

    But then again... the terms liberal and conservative have traded hands a few times.

    I might be a big conservative, but consider myself more of an original liberal that has not sullied myself with socialist nanny state bull.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 12:39pm

      Re: Conservative

      You do realize that the terms and parties are completely different than what you're used to, seeing as they're based in the UK and all, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 2:41pm

        Re: Re: Conservative

        In Australia the "Liberal Party of Australia" is the "more right wing" one in the 2-party farce. Like in the other 4 eyes they are commonly referred to as "conservatives" while actually being radicals.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2014 @ 1:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Conservative

          They're liberal in the sense that Churchill used the term when he said "We're all Liberals now", they support free trade and mercantilism, with (supposedly) pragmatic and limited use of military force in foreign policy. They're following, more or less, in the Squiffite tradition. That distinguishes them from conservatives who supported protectionism and overt imperialism.

          You're talking about Liberalism in the sense of the Radicals, whose descendants in England were the followers of Lloyd George.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Vidiot (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 11:09am

    Strangely familiar

    "... those who present a threat to public disorder... members of the public who have done little more than organise meetings..."

    If memory serves, the last time the Brits did this sort of thing, people in Boston started getting crazy and throwin' tea around. Didn't end well, if I recall correctly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    art guerrilla (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 11:24am

    we're IN the end game, now, kampers...

    we oh-so-smart nekkid apes look back with scorn and disdain on our ancestors who lived through perilous times, and we shake our heads in condescending superiority, and say to ourselves and each other: "how could those idiots NOT see what was happening ? "...

    um, hate to break the news, but we're IN one of those times, *now*, and WE DON'T (won't) see it...

    *our* children's children will look back and say "how could those idiots NOT see what was happening ?"...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    gorehound (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 11:24am

    And always at the heart and thick of it are CONSERVATIVES.
    FUCK OFF to the Conservatives on Planet Earth !

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 30 Sep 2014 @ 12:16pm

      Re:

      The things providing cover for dickheads are called preservatives, not conservatives.

      And it's FUCK ON to the Preservatives on Planet Earth.

      Hope this helps.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 12:06pm

    England Prevails!

    So the USG seems to be basing their policy on 1984, while apparently someone in the UK government saw/read 'V for Vendetta' and in particular noticed the government they had there, and thought to themselves 'You know, that Susan guy has got some good ideas...'

    Normally I'd say that anyone incapable of reading doesn't deserve to serve in public office, but in this case, I think we'd all be better off if those in charge didn't read so much.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    OldGeezer (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 12:16pm

    This all worked out so well for Hitler!

    You would think that the nation that first bravely stood alone against the Nazis would not adopt the same kind of censorship that Hitler used. What's next, jailing reporters the government doesn't like? Who gets to determine who is extreme? There can be no democracy without freedom of speech. Are government agents going to be scouring every Facebook and twitter post?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    all the stupid poeple, 30 Sep 2014 @ 12:25pm

    brits govt are facist nazi pigs

    brits govt are fascist nazi pigs
    godwin it how you like its not devolving into hitler its BEING as much like him as they can be

    that is not godwin's intent to stiffle bad and as the rss says an orwellian dictatorial evil path this will lead.

    Pretty easy when its SOME OTHER NATION
    but your own

    the list grows and even the harper canada govt is trying to drag us into the fascism

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      rapnel, 30 Sep 2014 @ 5:02pm

      Re: brits govt are facist nazi pigs

      ..drag us into the fascism I like that. It reinforces the existence of the one gaining better and better footholds as it climbs into your living room, to take you, there.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 12:29pm

    How long before the leadership over there starts portraying Hitler as a saint. The way they are going it seems like a copy of fascist germany

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 1 Oct 2014 @ 2:35am

      Time for a history lesson

      It may be unpopular to remember, but the reason Germany was fought was not that they were too fascist, or that they spat on civil rights or that they rounded up and killed homosexuals and jews and communists: everyone else in Europe would have done the same (the Dreyfuss affair was not German, and take a look at what Henry Ford had to say about the Jewish World Conspiracy).

      The reason the allied forces fought and conquered Germany was simply because Hitler had declared war on all of them. They had no choice. So they figured out what to hate about the Germans and fascism and went into war for it.

      But by now, all that they are wary of any more is the swastika which is a bit abstract to focus one's hate on. Oh, and instead of the Jewish World Conspiracy we have Muslim Terrorists. Same skin color and also of Middle Eastern origin. And responsible for all evil.

      So in no way Hitler is going to be portrayed as a saint anytime soon. Too many swastikas for that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2014 @ 5:06am

        Re: Time for a history lesson

        That's a rather simplistic view.
        for example,
        1) everyone else in Europe was also insane
        2) gotta hate before you retaliate
        3) insane dictator might be portrayed as a saint if it weren't for all the hate

        Really?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 1:08pm

    So, will Theresa May be banned...

    From speaking at public events because the agenda she's pushing "represents a threat to “the functioning of democracy" ?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mark (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 1:46pm

    Masking the voice?

    I grew up in a time when voices of spokesman from Sinn Fein, the politcal wing of the IRA, were not allowed to be broadcast. Maybe we can just change the voices of any extremist organisation... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kronomex, 30 Sep 2014 @ 3:58pm

    I can just picture Leader Abbott and Little Brother Brandis here in Australia getting all hot, sweaty and excited by this piece of fascist garbage.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    toyotabedzrock (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 8:05pm

    Don't bother fixing the social and economic problems that creates many extremists.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 9:59pm

    The worst part of censorship is ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:56pm

    A social media ban will not work. All someone would have to do is use Tor or VPN to hide their activities.

    Second, Twitter and Facebook are in the United States, and are, therefore, not subject to British laws.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    me, 1 Oct 2014 @ 4:20am

    just when you think the US has gotten bad

    The Brits out do us and then threaten to give our douches in power ideas.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Case, 1 Oct 2014 @ 6:22am

    How unsurprising...

    We are talking about a jurisdiction where noncriminal acts considered likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" to someone (such as children playing football) can land you in jail.


    Laws be damned, anything which goes against some Eton boy's idea of how a good Christian should behave is a threat.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mrhuh (profile), 1 Oct 2014 @ 8:07am

    All the dead that fought for freedom are rolling over

    A light of freedom during world wars, a civilized nation when there were few. Now you have a group of people telling you what to think and say. Wouldn't any possible questioning of the government be considered a "threat to democracy"? How can you allow this government to continue? Are you all so subservient to the power at this point you just don't give a shit? At what point would you consider too far? Potential fetus "decriminalization", if they aren't born they can't commit "terrorist acts". The deaf can't hear commands from your masters, they will have to be "dealt with". Then of course "the children". Mr. Thought Control: "my mommy and daddy said the government sucks". Cart em away. Maybe the North Koreans can help you out, maybe putting 3 generations of familys in camps are not too bad an idea after all. You know Bin Laden was not so stupid after all, he started a process to destroy freedom and its working Vote them out of office, you may not get another chance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dave, 1 Oct 2014 @ 9:54am

    Censorship - again!

    That demented and misguided woman needs to be drummed out office at the earliest opportunity. She strikes me as being a worse extremist than the people she wants to ban. At this rate, free speech will be extinct in very short order.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Strelnikov, 1 Oct 2014 @ 11:46am

    Why not mark them, too.

    They should be made to wear something to distinguish them form normal society. Maybe a star of some sort.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    rocinante2, 1 Oct 2014 @ 12:11pm

    This kind of thing is why...

    ... a waggish friend of mine refers to the UK as "The Place Where Great Britain Used to Be (tm)"

    I'm also reminded of what Ruth-Anne Miller (the storekeeper on Northern Exposure) said to the visiting English noblewoman:

    "We had a revolution to get rid of people like you."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael W. Perry, 1 Oct 2014 @ 12:29pm

    Laughter is the best counter

    Quote: "...despite years of proof that speech by itself is rarely dangerous. However, the suppression of speech often creates more problems."

    How true! When I lived in Seattle, I forced myself to watch neo-Nazis on the city's public cable channel a few times. In addition to being disgusted, I learned something. For many of those involved, the very fact that countries in Europe (such as Germany) try to silence Nazi speech proves both that their movement is right and that Jews really do run the world. Those laws have the opposite effect to that intended.

    Ridicule—intelligent and genuinely funny ridicule—would do the genuine extremists far more harm than anything the UK's unimaginative political class might do to silence them with a ban.

    This video is a brilliant illustration of that:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfR49AuUsW0

    G. K. Chesterton offer the same advice. Deal those who want to frighten you, he said, by laughing at them.

    --Michael W. Perry, Chesterton on War and Peace: Fighting the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Alec Rawls, 4 Oct 2014 @ 4:37pm

    Great plan: keep the jihadists, just get rid of the free speech

    They aren't going to do anything to stop the jihadists from immigrating and living off welfare while they plot mass murder, and they certainly aren't going to do anything to get rid of the jihadists who have already immigrated and are living on welfare plotting mass murder, they are just going to try to sweep the problem under the rug by ending free speech. They will try to stop the mass-murder-plotters from plotting openly, as they have been, and they will come down particularly hard on those who point out the mass-murder plotting. Count on it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nathan Barton (profile), 6 Oct 2014 @ 12:38pm

    You must see this completely factual and free video on the end of the world. It gives the full truth about the beasts of the Apocalypse, the kings, the mark of the Beast, the true identity of the Antichrist, Anti-pope Francis and how or whether he fits in with these things and much more. It will change your life. Here’s the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn9t0m6eG4Q The website that produced this video: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com is the only place where people will find the essential information they need to know to save their eternal souls in these difficult times. Almost all of their material is completely free to view at all times and they have an enormous amount of the most important information you’ll ever see. They are the only place telling the complete and uncompromising Christian truth as well as the complete truth on the most important secular issues of our time such as 9/11, the prison/military/industrial complex, the Federal reserve and the international usury/banking system, natural health,etc. etc. The full collection of material they make available is the most powerful and compelling information in the whole world. Check it out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    mhkeehn, 18 Sep 2015 @ 8:39am

    Article Comment

    If it is the goal of Leadership to ban "extremists" from Social Media, it would appear that Leadership may be banning themselves!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

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

Close

Email This

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