London cops shut down anti-police website; mirrors spring up all over the net

London police demanded that the website Fitwatch's hosting company shut it down, despite the lack of any court order or proof of wrongdoing. Fitwatch publishes advice for demonstrators, including a post on avoiding arrest. In the wake of the takedown, over 78 other websites republished the information:

In a blogpost published hours earlier, Fitwatch gave advice about avoiding arrest to students involved in last week's protest at the Millbank headquarters of the Conservative party. Fitwatch was removed soon afterwards, but tonight the offending blogpost, which recommended that students "get rid" of clothes they wore at the demonstration and change their appearance, had been republished on an additional 78 websites, including Facebook.

Many of the websites republishing the material were run by political activists, who disseminated the material via Twitter in what they described as a campaign to show the futility of police censorship.

Fitwatch campaigners said they planned to get their original website rehosted within 36 hours, adding that it was also likely that they would republish the offending article.

Websites publish advice to student protesters on how to avoid arrest

• [andygates]

  The #fitwatch tag has since been bubbling nicely; how, I wonder, will they close *that* down?

• [Anonymous]

  Well the police aren’t exactly the smartest bunch.

  Which I find more worrying than this piss-in-the-face-of free speech – and don;t get me wrong, I find that worrying too.

  How about you spend your time doing some police work chaps? As in protecting the masses, not stop-and-order searches.

• [Anonymous]

  See the problem here is, they forgot to burn the stump after they cut off the head. Very common mistake.

• [Anonymous]

  What’s that quote about the Internet perceiving control or censorship or something as damage and routing around it?

• [Anonymous]

  If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

• [Sparrow]

  The comments in the article are quite chilling as well. Few people question the authority to take down a web site on ‘say-so’ without recourse to legal process, they’re too busy suggesting that students shouldn’t protest because it hurts the economy and costs too much to police them.

• [Anonymous]

  message to authoritarians:
  You can’t tell us what to do on the internet. Fuck off.

• [Anonymous]

  I have seen quite a few of the fitwatch videos. In one, two ladies were arrested for garbage reasons. I also saw one, not fitwatch, where two journalists were manhandled by UK police (does someone have a link?). The police actions shown on video, so I gather off video is worse, are horrendous.

  If the state can’t deal with fitwatch then what to say? This is what I live in, how depressing.

  ps: I suggest you find and watch the videos.

  • [Anonymous]

    The link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyR6UKnA3mo

    Anyone else noticed how that information was added to all of the darknets too? That is what this kind of authoritarian action is causing.

• [Zhiva]

  Have they never heard about Streisand effect?

• [prentiz]

  The website should have been taken down. It set out how people could destroy evidence to prevent them being convicted of crimes they committed. If this was advocating how BNP thugs could cover up evidence of vandalism on a mosque (for example), there would be widespread condemnation of the site. The fact it is for a cause that many agree with instead should make no difference. All the police did was say “we think the content on the website is illegal” and the host took it down. That’s not something I have a massive problem with.

  • [Ugly Canuck]

    Who determines what content is “illegal”?
    Or can that be determined by simple inspection?

    • [Goblin]

      In the eyes of the law, at least in America, information itself is not illegal unless that information relevant to the commission of a crime. This information and the holding of it is called “conspiracy to commit” (insert crime here). Though I am unfamiliar with the UK criminal laws I am sure they have a similar statue. If you conspire to commit an illegal act, then the information you possess relevant to the commission of that crime is “illegal information.”

      Perhaps there was probable cause that the website was conspiring with those who were actually committing crime, and if that were the case then there is legal standing to take down the website.

  • [Severius]

    Information is never illegal. Regardless of whether you like or agree with the information, it is not illegal. It is not illegal to have information on how to make explosives, or guns, or alcohol, etc. Don’t ever claim authority to tell me or anyone else what information we should or shouldn’t know.

    • [Ugly Canuck]

      The possession of information may indeed be illegal, and subject to very heavy penalty: consider the laws forbidding the possession of child pornography.

      Oddly, such laws were not felt to be necessary, until just slightly before the time of the advent of the internet.

      Any illegal content on your computer?

  • [Ugly Canuck]

    I think it’s time to shut down all those “mystery” and “true crime” web sites as well, what with all their illegal content describing how people could break (or how they have broken) the law!

  • [Anonymous]

    You want to interfere with someone’s right to share information, you go ahead and convince a jury. If this was a block pending a trial, that might be justifiable. But this system of having the police menace who they damn well please does not have the necessary checks and balances to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the information is unprotected speech and that it is dangerous.