http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/au...edia-clampdown

Freedom og speech or control with criminals and rioters?

The violent riots after police shot a person in Tottenhamd last Saturday has meant that premiere minister Cameron has called for censorship of various media.

"The prime minister told parliament on Thursday that Facebook, Twitter and Research in Motion (Rim), the maker of BlackBerry devices, should take more responsibility for content posted on their networks, warning the government would look to ban people from major social networks if they were suspected of inciting violence online."

"The police have promised to track down those suspected of inciting the violence on Twitter, but much of the planning for the disturbances took place in the relatively private world of the BlackBerry Messenger service."

"Mike Conradi, partner and telecoms specialist at the London law firm DLA Piper, said that emergency measures to stop rioters communicating on social media sites would require legislation and threaten free speech."

"Conradi said: "What David Cameron appears to be wanting is a police power to trawl through millions of messages – ideally in real time – to prevent possible criminal activity. I don't believe that any such power exists and nor would I want there to be one. Parliament would have to pass new legislation and I would certainly warn against that. That gets the balance wrong in terms of free speech and security.It would certainly put the UK in a difficult position in terms of talking to authoritarian regimes and trying to convince them not to turn off their networks.""

"Current powers allow Rim and others to identify people who may be worth further investigation and potential prosecution without looking at the contents of their messages."


Where is the line between security and freedom of speech?

Rioters as well as professional lot gangs are using these media. So are ordinary people, so are freedom fighter in North Africa. Where should the line be drawn?