London Riots, UK Prime Minster’s Plan to Impose Sanctions on Facebook, Twitter and Blackberry Messanger & Response from Major Publications! A Brief Overview

The major  high profile sponsor behind the theory that Social media especially Facebook, Twitter and Blackberry Messenger are the big reasons for making UK (London) riotsworse, is nobody except the UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who thinks technology is a curse and forcing to impose sanctions on Facebook, Twitter and Blackberry phones in the UK premises, at least. It is not the first time that social media is being victimized and blamed for organizing and managing riots against the governments; we have early experience the same scenario when riots broke out in Middle East, Egypt and Libya and their rulers adopted the same behavior against social media as Mr.Camaeron has adopt at the moment.

Today, in the UK parliament, Mr. Prime Minister came with an idea that actually the publications and comments on Facebook and Twitter, and communication via BlackBerry Messenger, helped to put fuel on the fire of the violence that arrested his countrymen for several days. He also endorsed a notion of a government-sanctioned crackdown against these social networks.

What Prime Minister actually said in his remarks about the Facebook, Twitter and Blackberry, here you can read;

Mr Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck by how they were organised via social media.

Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill.

And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.

Now, everyone has picked the point what does Mr. Prime Minister want to do for throttling the voice of social media in the UK premises. But it would be better to have a look on the responses made by major newspapers and publications on Cameron’s verdict.

Guardian Notes;

Jim Killock, the executive director of online advocacy organisation Open Rights Group, said Cameron risked attacking the “fundamental” right of free speech.

“Events like the recent riots are frequently used to attack civil liberties. Policing should be targeted at actual offenders, with the proper protection of the courts,” Killock added.

“How do people ‘know’ when someone is planning to riot? Who makes that judgment? The only realistic answer is the courts must judge. If court procedures are not used, then we will quickly see abuses by private companies and police. Companies like RIM must insist on court processes.

“Citizens also have the right to secure communications. Business, politics and free speech relies on security and privacy. David Cameron must be careful not to attack these fundamental needs because of concerns about the actions of a small minority.”

AllThingsD Comments;

Also worth bearing in mind: Freedom of speech is already much more limited in the U.K. than in the U.S.; recall the farcical but somewhat effective effort to prevent U.K. newspapers and Web sites from printing soccer star Ryan Giggs’ name this spring.

Here’s a response from Twitter spokeswoman Rachel Bremer: “Our only comment is that if the government would like to talk about this we’d be happy to listen.”

 Mashable asks to its readers;

Looking to prevent future catastrophes that could be stirred by social media, the government will reach out directly to the social media services believed to help catalyze the riots to discuss options for moving forward.

Banning individuals from social media seems like a difficult task, and the first question to answer is whether it is possible and feasible. Beyond that, is it legal to ban suspects who haven’t committed a crime?

Engadget cries;

There’s a fine line separating issues of national security from the rights to free speech, but it’s a line that Cameron seems willing to toe. And, though he and his Conservative government are only mulling the idea, it’s difficult to ignore the irony in his statements. Keep in mind that this is the same man who roundly condemned Hosni Mubarak for shutting down Egypt’s internet at the height of its revolution, calling for the now-ousted leader to fully respect the “freedom of expression and communication, including use of telephones and the internet.” Cameron, of course, isn’t calling for anything nearly as drastic as what Mubarak orchestrated, nor is he facing anywhere near the same level of domestic turmoil. But the fundamental narrative remains the same: in the face of social upheaval, a national leader instinctively reaches for a digital muzzle as a stop-gap measure, while (perhaps) ignoring the larger, longer-term ramifications of his actions. Fortunately for the UK, though, Cameron is already doing one thing that Mubarak apparently never did — he’s thinking about right and wrong.

CNN overviews the whole matter;

“It may be tempting to smother that kind of speech when a government feels it is under siege, as Britain seems to feel that it is,” wrote Matthew Ingram of tech blog GigaOm. “But doing this represents nothing less than an attack on the entire concept of freedom of speech, and that has some frightening consequences for any democracy.”

Ingram questioned whether the government would be cracking down on telephone use or people talking about the unrest at their local pub if social media didn’t exist. “That seems unlikely (although not impossible). But the British government’s apparent willingness to consider shutting down or blocking access to Twitter and BlackBerry’s BBM falls into the same category.”

On ReadWriteWeb, writer Curt Hopkins said Cameron “joins the long line of powerful men who totally miss the point of social media.”

“Banning those convicted of crimes from accessing social networks (the idea being that they used such access to organize criminal activities) is no different than banning the same criminals from accessing goose quills and ink pots,” Hopkins wrote. “It will have zero effect on crime, aside from criminalizing social media itself.”

Let’s watch what the UK Prime Minster spoke today in the parliament;