text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Terrorism Bill - Clause 3 - Application of Ss. 1 and 2 to Internet Activity etc. - Giving notice
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Those voting Aye removed a Lords amendment to <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/06055.1-7.html#jS001"> Clause 3</a> of the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/06055.i-iii.html#top"> Terrorism Bill</a></p>
  
  <p>This clause outlines how the "Encouragement of terrorism" and the "Dissemination of terrorist publications" laws (in Clauses 1 and 2) will be applied to the Internet.</p> 
  
  <p>Subsection 3(3) explains how the police would be able to serve someone a <b>notice</b> which</p>
  
  <p class="indent"> (a) declares that, <i>in the opinion of the constable giving it,</i> the [webpage]... is unlawfully terrorism-related; (b) requires the relevant person to... [modify or make it unavailable] to the public; [and] (c) warns... that a failure to comply with the notice within 2 days will result in... [it] being regarded as having his endorsement [with all the legal consequences that this implies].  </p>
  
  <p>The amendment made by the Lords was to insert the phrase <i>"in the opinion of the constable giving it"</i>, which was removed by this vote in the Commons.  </p>
  
  <p>It's difficult to locate the thinking for this disagreement in the preceding debate (please try if you can), but <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2006-02-15a.1474.1"> one speech</a> by the minister mentions how there will be "properly accredited" special branch officers behind these notices.  The disagreement with the Lords appears to be whether those special branch officers will be able to send out a notice to remove a webpage which, to the policeman who actually delivers it, does not appear to be unlawfully terrorist-related.  </p>
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  