Radical groups should be banned to prevent them inspiring others to violence, even if they're not promoting violence themselves, according to Home Secretary Theresa May.

Currently the UK Home Secretary can ban any group overtly promoting violent rebellion, and has successfully done so in the past. A new task force led by the prime minister will consider extending that power to cover organisations "inciting hatred and division" just in case armchair extremists decide to take the next logical step.

The problem is that while violence is relatively easy to define, any extension to the Home Secretary's existing powers is going to face serious interpretive issues. Working out what constitutes "hatred and division" is going to be hazardous at best, but last week's events have lent considerable weight to those politicians of a more authoritarian bent.

Speaking on the BBC Theresa May confirmed that 5,500 postings calling for violent jihad had already been scrubbed from the internet by police, but – according to May – this isn't enough, as messages promoting hatred without actively inciting violence remain uncensored.

Certainly Ofcom has a hard time keeping broadcast TV channels clear of hatred-promoting material, regularly censuring channels which broadcast a call to arms. It appears that smaller channels broadcasting in minority languages feel safe in the apparent belief that if it's not in English, the regulator won't notice.

The comments came alongside the attempted revival of the Snoopers' Charter, which would require ISPs to log users' emails and web traffic just as mobile phone networks currently log calls, messages and the location of their customers.

Advocates of both measures will be hoping last week's horrific murder of an off-duty British soldier in Woolwich will have hardened public opinion.

Nobody is claiming that any of these snooping measures would have prevented those events, but it's too good an opportunity to miss for those wishing to push legislation through. ®

Related stories

• Idaho patriots tool up to battle Jihad with pork bullets (28 June 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/06/28/porcine_ammo/

• Woolwich beheading sparks call to REVIVE UK Snoopers' Charter (24 May 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/05/24/woolwich_data_communications/

• Brit spooks bugged Edward VIII's phones, records reveal (23 May 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/05/23/british_government_spied_on_own_king_cabinet_office_papers/

• UK.gov STILL wants to tout pupil data – don't use the word 'product' (20 May 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/05/20/national_pupil_database_government_response_on_gove_proposed_amendments/

• Half of youngsters would swap PRIVACY for... cheaper insurance (17 May 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/05/17/o2_tracking/

• UK biz baffled by Reding's planned data protection law rewrite: ICO (15 May 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/05/15/ico_data_protection_eu_reform/

• Snoopers' charter rests in shallow grave - likely to rise again (9 May 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/05/09/snoopers_charter_what_happens_now/

• Hunt on NHS data sharing: Obviously we HAVE TO let people opt out (26 April 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/04/26/jeremy_hunt_nhs_data_sharing/

• Privacy crusaders: ISPs in 'conspiracy of silence' over Snoop Charter (23 April 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/04/23/privacy_letter_hits_out_at_isps_over_communications_data_bill/

• ICO probes Home Office refusal to reveal Snooper's Charter details (22 April 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/04/22/home_office_faces_legal_action_over_refusal_to_disclose_information_about_communications_data_bill/

• GPs blow whistle to watchdog on patient record privacy threat (5 April 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/04/05/ico_doctors_patients_data_privacy/

• GCHQ attempts to downplay amazing plaintext password blunder (27 March 2013)

  https://www.theregister.com/2013/03/27/gchq_plain_text_password_reminder/