Are UK science fiction authors Glorifying Terrorism ?
[via Charlie Stross - Charlie's Diary]
It's an anthology of science fiction stories dedicated to demonstrating the asinine nature of this piece of reactionary and censorious rubbish by breaking the law.
Terrorism Act 2006 Part 1 Encouragement etc. of terrorism
PART 1
OFFENCES
Encouragement etc. of terrorism
Section
- Encouragement of terrorism
- Dissemination of terrorist publications
- Application of ss. 1 and 2 to internet activity etc.
- Giving of notices under s. 3
Featuring illegal stories by Kathryn Allen, Chaz Brenchley, Marie Brennan, Hal Duncan, Suzette Haden Elgin, Kira Franz, Van Aaron Hughes, Davin Ireland, Gwyneth Jones, Vylar Kaftan, Lucy Kemnitzer, H. H. Løyche, Ken MacLeod, Una McCormack, Adam Roberts, Elizabeth Sourbut, Katherine Sparrow, Kari Sperring, myself [Charlie Stross], Rachel Swirsky, Lavie Tidhar, James Trimarco, Jo Walton, Ian Watson, and Ian Whates, this is the most political SF anthology published in the UK for a very long time.
At £15 including post and packing, from the publishers Rackstraw Press via PayPal, this is a lot cheaper than via, say, Amazon.co.uk
Glorifying Terrorism, Manufacturing Contempt: An Anthology (Paperback) by Farah Mendlesohn (Editor)Paperback: 261 pages
Publisher: Rackstraw Press (Nov 2006)
Language English
ISBN-10: 0955468809
ISBN-13: 978-0955468803
Product Dimensions: 5.1 x 7.8 inches
How long before the publishers Rackstraw, or Amazon.co.uk , or Charlie Stross, or even this blog get served with a Section 3 takedown notice for "Encouraging terrorism", something which only requires the "opinion of a police constable", and which can be applied to websites anywhere in the world and which could lead to imprisonment for up to 7 years and / or an unlimited fine ?
This is a serious enough offence to allow for extradition to the United Kingdom if so desired by the Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
See our previous blog article: "Lawyerbots" and "takedown notices" - what about notices under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006 ?
Comments
I should read this page more often!
One for the bookshelf I think. Along with banned works like the pre-Blair dictionary etc...
Interestingly, Zorro was shown on tv not long after the 'glorification' arguments hit the headlines, and I had wondered if this would also qualify, since Zorro is clearly a terrorist with his evil deeds against the rightful establishment. The tv company and all its employees are clearly conspirators in this insidious plot to glorify terrorism and should be locked up right away. All and any viewers who did not switch off immediately should report to their local police station to collect their fixed-penalty notices but should bear in mind that the duty officer will be unable to help since he locked himself up the day before, having watched the whole thing.
Posted by: doctor_wibble | February 14, 2007 11:57 AM
You limey bastards! Keep up the bloody good work, Wot! :)
Posted by: RR Anderson | February 15, 2007 8:30 PM
"Manufacturing Contempt" - what a great title!!
My problem - of course - is that in researching the idea of the "New Cold War" - I come across a lot of material that could be argued to be "glorifying terrorism".
If I copy it to my hard drive to ensure there is an archive for future research (i.e. because the website is taken down) - then owning my research material becomes a crime in itself ..
How can anyone research and write under these conditions?
It is impossible to research "terrorism" and the "war on terror" without access to the primary documents ...
... but if I have the primary documents on my hard drive - I am breaking the law ...
In effect - the very ownership of documents related to the "war on terror" becomes a crime in itself - so I can never comment, report, analyse or otherwise copy these documents ...
So all of my analysis becomes "third party", "unsubstantiated" and "off the record" ...
Posted by: drk | February 21, 2007 6:42 PM