Take to the streets with leaflets and posters. Internet activism is no longer enough |

Take to the streets with leaflets and posters. Internet activism is no longer enough

Mon 3:54 pm +00:00, 30 Jun 2014 3

posted by Tapestry

Have you ever wondered why we’re allowed to say what we want on the Internet? It’s quite simply because it takes time to take control, erecting fences, passing laws. The Internet has been the equivalent of the Wild, Wild West, but bit by bit, we’re being reined in.

Maybe I, and thousands (millions?) of others, won’t even be able to write articles like this for much longer. Both the UK and the US are busy cracking down on whistleblowers, and journalism. The Leveson Inquiry into the ‘phone hacking scandal’ is being steered into regulation of the press. Likewise with the Media Shield law proposed by Feinstein in the US, and attempts to define ‘real journalists’ as only those in the paid employ of a regulated press.

The future for ‘the news’, it seems, will be vetted and embedded journalists, combined with automated AI-produced news stories, and an even more tightly controlled mainstream media. So far, we activists have had the ‘luxury’ of being able to read and speak relatively freely. But now, the stranglehold is getting serious, and it’s time to take action; instead of just reading and speaking, we need to step away from the Internet and come together.

Start work on a placard or two, ready to walk the streets with those who also got off their seats.

But wait – could it be that all protestors are classed as domestic extremists? Jenny Jones, who is a Peer (House of Lords), and a member of the Green Party, has been put on the domestic extremist list, and surveilled. All she did was stick up for a pensioner who didn’t want to be on the list just for being a protestor! The Domestic Extremism Unit here in the UK has compiled a huge watchlist, but what constitutes a domestic extremist?

“Domestic Extremism relates to the activity of groups or individuals who commit or plan serious criminal activity motivated by a political or ideological viewpoint”

(Viewpoints which include opposition to FRACKING, capitalism, and austerity! – Source)

Was it something I said? … ‘cos I certainly hope so!

NetPol, the Network for Police Monitoring, has identified the problem with this definition of domestic extremism; it comes down to the way ‘serious crime’ is defined:

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), which regulates the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance, says that one of the tests of a ‘serious crime’ is whether someone with no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more.”

However section 81(2b) of RIPA also includes this alternate test:

That the conduct involves the use of violence, results in substantialfinancial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose.(Source)

It’s that last bit that gives serious cause for concern, does it not? And a wry nod to the twist on the term ‘common purpose’….

Can you believe it has come to this?

The voice of the resistance cannot be quelled, for dissent cannot be regulated.

It’s high time we all became active activists, by getting away from the Internet! NetPol are “encouraging activists to submit subject access requests “to find out who is on the secret police databases, and Brian and Mike suggest phoning ATVOD to seek clarification on the definition of ‘television like’, and to raise awareness of the issue generally.

Internet activism is not enough.

Spread the word and do something!

About the Author:

Julie Beal, independent researcher trying to raise awareness of identity management who will be appearing as a guest on a future Episode of ‘Humanity vs Insanity‘

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

30 Jun 2014 4:50 pm

Anonymous says:

I put up a reply I received from ATVOD with a clarification of ‘TV-like’ in the comments section for this article. Why have you deleted the comment?

1 Jul 2014 9:20 am

Sabine K McNeill says:

To understand ATVOD, we may have to re-read page 306 in the Penguin edition of 10 1984: the essence of POWER is to make someone else SUFFER.

The assumption that ATVOD knows about the language of ‘hate’ by requesting money, without providing a SERVICE, opens doors to editorial censorship.

Of course, it is to be expected: D-Notices for the Mainstream Media and now ATVOD for internet videos.

The question is: how to we fight / undermine / expose ATVOD most effectively?

How do we ‘outsmart’ their hackers who are paid to delete comments?

1 Jul 2014 10:26 am

Nollidge says:

If you go the leaflet route,then under British law,the name & address of the publisher/printer must be on the leaflet.If not,the filth can give you trouble.