Countering terrorism or criminalizing curiosity? The troubled history of UK responses to right-wing and other extremism

Lucia Zedner
{"title":"Countering terrorism or criminalizing curiosity? The troubled history of UK responses to right-wing and other extremism","authors":"Lucia Zedner","doi":"10.1177/1473779521989349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The growth of right-wing extremism, especially where it segues into hate crime and terrorism, poses new challenges for governments, not least because its perpetrators are typically lone actors, often radicalized online. The United Kingdom has struggled to define, tackle or legitimate against extremism, though it already has an extensive array of terrorism-related offences that target expression, encouragement, publication and possession of terrorist material. In 2019, the United Kingdom went further to make viewing terrorist-related material online on a single occasion a crime carrying a 15-year maximum sentence. This article considers whether UK responses to extremism, particularly those that target non-violent extremism, are necessary, proportionate, effective and compliant with fundamental rights. It explores whether criminalizing the curiosity of those who explore radical political ideas constitutes legitimate criminalization or overextends state power and risks chilling effects on freedom of speech, association, academic freedom, journalistic enquiry and informed public debate—all of which are the lifeblood of a liberal democracy.","PeriodicalId":87174,"journal":{"name":"Common law world review","volume":"50 1","pages":"57 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779521989349","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common law world review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779521989349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The growth of right-wing extremism, especially where it segues into hate crime and terrorism, poses new challenges for governments, not least because its perpetrators are typically lone actors, often radicalized online. The United Kingdom has struggled to define, tackle or legitimate against extremism, though it already has an extensive array of terrorism-related offences that target expression, encouragement, publication and possession of terrorist material. In 2019, the United Kingdom went further to make viewing terrorist-related material online on a single occasion a crime carrying a 15-year maximum sentence. This article considers whether UK responses to extremism, particularly those that target non-violent extremism, are necessary, proportionate, effective and compliant with fundamental rights. It explores whether criminalizing the curiosity of those who explore radical political ideas constitutes legitimate criminalization or overextends state power and risks chilling effects on freedom of speech, association, academic freedom, journalistic enquiry and informed public debate—all of which are the lifeblood of a liberal democracy.
打击恐怖主义还是将好奇心定为犯罪?英国应对右翼和其他极端主义的历史坎坷
右翼极端主义的发展,尤其是在它演变成仇恨犯罪和恐怖主义的地方,给政府带来了新的挑战,尤其是因为其肇事者通常是孤独的行动者,经常在网上激进化。联合王国一直在努力界定、打击极端主义或使其合法化,尽管它已经有了一系列针对表达、鼓励、出版和持有恐怖材料的与恐怖主义有关的罪行。2019年,英国进一步将在网上观看与恐怖分子有关的材料定为犯罪,最高可判处15年监禁。本文考虑了英国对极端主义的回应,特别是针对非暴力极端主义的回应是否必要、适度、有效并符合基本权利。它探讨了将那些探索激进政治思想的人的好奇心定为犯罪是否构成合法的犯罪或过度扩张国家权力,并有可能对言论自由、结社自由、学术自由、新闻调查和知情公众辩论产生寒蝉效应——所有这些都是自由民主的命脉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信