[Nettime-bold] terroism 101 part 2

["Lachlan Brown" <lachlan@london.com>]

The British have been uncharacteristically reticent over the question of  new 
Anti-Terrorist legislation (Feb 2001), which includes 'disruption of  electronic networks' 
among activities prohibited under the law where these activities 'influence government and popular opinion'. 

I note it took a post from a French email address, Harsh Kapoor's, in June 2001
before the implications of this Law were pointed out to Nettimers. We Brits had hoped 
to keep it quiet. Centuries of work to extend rights and responsibilities to our people 
have 'gone up like parchment in the fire.' The Police and courts are  
given remarkable powers of detention, surveillance, and arrest, and the actions of
court officers and police are answerable only to The Home Secretary. 

 It is important to be clear on the point that CONTENT in electronic networks, 
unless it is specifically aimed at gathering intelligence to help in the execution 
of an act of terror (bombing, assassination, flying planes into buildings) is not 
covered by this legislation. It is not illegal to criticise government and seek to 
influence popular opinion in electronic media, though there is a contingency in 
the Law for courts and police to act on suspicion where it is supposed that 
content intended to provide intelligence is being planned or produced. 
                                             

  Considerable interpretation of grounds for suspicion is granted to court 
officers and police. While an email, web page or ftp archive specifically 
designed to criticise government or seek to influence public opinion is 
not terrorism, an arts project is not terrorism and scholarship is not terrorism, 
the effect on the Brits, of the legislation has for a short time certainly inhibited criticism in and of the electronic form. 

This is of particular concern because 'conventional' analogue media and communications are affected too. 

Given that electronic media and communication are now so deeply 
embedded in many forms of cultural production and communication 
from journalism to arts practice, from governance and administration 
to education, any inhibition to electronic media and communications 
cannot help but compromise British media production and communication
 in any form. 

The effect of legislation aimed to govern electronic networks is that 
knowledge production in general, including research, teaching in universities, 
as well as courseware or texts in publishing are compromised. That is, 
knowledge-work in general, the production and reproduction as well as 
the dissemination of knowledge are implicated in a Law that is descended 
from colonial and imperial policing practice. The British are practising 
colonial and imperial policing on their home culture. Now 

This British problem may become your problem too, given that the British model of anti-terrorist legislation and by extension 'garrison' or colonial policing policies in general may become the one adapted by the European Union as a whole and by the government of the United States of America to combat 'terrorism' in the 'homeland'. It is important therefore that the history of the Law, its present legislative context as well as its implications for freedom is understood. This history, context and implications are particular to Britain. They may not be conditions of your countries. You may not need this Law. 

I will write further on the implications of this law for knowledge production.


Lachlan Brown

http:// !



-- 

____________________________________________________
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free! 
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143 



Powered by Outblaze


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold