British Ministry Of Truth Wants To Prosecute American Bloggers
If our Government doesn't like your news you may be a criminal, Next things to be banned on planes may be newspapers
August 31, 2006
The decision made by the New York Times to block British readers from seeing an article detailing the liquid terror plot suspects has raised vital questions regarding freedom of information in this country and within cyberspace.
The New York Times said on Tuesday it had blocked British Internet readers from seeing a story detailing elements of the investigation into a suspected plot to blow up airliners between Britain and the United States.
However, this raises the question, what action could be taken against anyone else in America who posts details of the information on their own blog or website?
Well it turns out that you could be prosecuted by the redcoat government.
"There has not been a prosecution for contempt over anybody publishing outside this jurisdiction (Britain), but logically there is no reason why there should not be," said Caroline Kean, partner at UK media law firm Wiggin.
This means that should Alex Jones or Jeff Rense, or anyone in the alternative media in America, post the New York Times story online for all to see then they could face criminal proceedings.
The official reason the story was banned is because it may influence jurors and prevent suspects receiving a "fair trial."
The story reportedly raised questions over the authenticity of the entire plot and suggested that an attempt to blow up the airliners was not as imminent as authorities had suggested.
Any juror in this case that would be influenced by such information would no doubt also be influenced by the furor that the government has made out the alleged plot and its own milking to death of it in an attempt to fear-monger the British public into total subservience and acquiescence.
Whilst many people in this country seem to be scared to death and accepting of whatever the authorities tell them is going to happen, many more seem to have finally woken up and are able to see straight through the mist of lies and spin, doubting that any plot ever existed in the first place.
A Guardian/ICM poll last week revealed that just 20% of British voters believe the government is telling the truth about the threat to bomb transatlantic airliners using liquid explosives - meaning 80% of the country do not trust Blair and the war on terror agenda.
This means that it's OK for the government to make public whatever information it sees fit and influence the trials of the suspects as well as shaping public opinion, but for anyone else to do so, either in the UK or in other countries, is a criminal offence.
British newspapers the Times and the Daily Mail also published details from the New York Times article. According to a Reuters report, a government source said no injunctions had been taken out against the British papers, but action could not be ruled out.
So what happens if you attempt to bring a copy of the New York Times in on a plane? Is that terrorism now? Should newspapers be banned on all flights as well as baby milk and i-pods?
This highlights how much of a threat our governments now see the internet as. The free flow of information between people around the world is breaking down and dissipating the lies and spin that they have come to rely on to plough ahead with their chosen foreign and domestic agendas.
This week it has also been revealed that Government spending on spin has almost quadrupled since Labour came to power nine years ago. The Government spent £154 million on advertising over the past 12 months – making it the third biggest advertising outlet in the country in front of almost every major global corporation that has a UK base.
It is telling that the government feels that only by keeping people entirely in the dark and suffocating them with their own brand of propaganda can they operate without hindrance. This blackout media, a tactic regularly used in Communist China, is transgressing borders now and targeting the individual citizen, regardless of the sovereign laws of their country. Is any of this indicative of a free society?
:: Article nr. 26297 sent on 01-sep-2006 02:53 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=26297
:: The incoming address of this article is :
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .