10 ms·
Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
- dmitrygr 9y agoWords cannot describe now worrisome this is.
- yodon 9y agoActually that is precisely what words are for, which is why this announcement is a big deal.
- pfarnsworth 9y agoAll this does is extend the jail terms. Where were you when the law was initially created? It's been on the books for years.
- dmitrygr 9y agoSame place I am now. Clutching my head between my hands and wondering how the world went to hell so quickly.
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoPeople were sufficiently terrorized by terrorists.
- freedomben 9y agoWhile I agree that the best time to speak up is when the precedent is being encoded into law, the phrase "better late than never" does come to mind.
- lovich 9y agoThis was 17 years ago, there is an entire generation of people who gained the right to vote in between now and when this law was passed.
- rahimnathwani 9y agoThis is an informative article let down by a deliberately misleading statement: 'As to the government’s definition of terrorism, it has lost all meaning: remember that a peaceful protests are formally classified as “Low-level terrorism” in government training material.' The 'government' early in the sentence refers to the UK government (the subject of the article) but the training material was published by the _US_ government, so it's irrelevant here. It _is_ worrying, though, to see content being banned, and putting the burden of proof ('reasonable excuse') on the viewer, rather than the prosecution.
- visarga 9y ago> putting the burden of proof ('reasonable excuse') on the viewer A parent who lost his son due to terrorism would be put in jail for doing online research into the killers.
- wcarron 9y agoOh...shit. That is both stupefying and petrifying. More and more I feel that there is a new class war coming; and it is not rich vs poor so much as it is governments vs civilians. Really wondering whether this will be shot down or if other governments will follow suit down this road as quickly as possible. Instinct tells me the latter is more likely. I've not been on this Earth long, but where the fuck did all my freedoms go? It's like we're standing on a sandbar watching the tide erode our liberties from under our feet. And shit, it's the ocean. We can't do anything to save our little sandbar.
- morogop 9y agoThey will be followed. In the US, this will be supported by "small government" Republicans, so long as they're promised tax cuts. There are already aspects of this happening, with Republicans and other so-called conservatives increasingly demanding support for governmental authority, and vilifying those who care about their personal freedom.
- netsharc 9y agoGovernment as a proxy for corporations. Even the "bastion of liberal democracy" the European Union (taking over from the USA) is run by lobbyists. Secret meetings to force TTIP, ministries of transports lobbying to keep lax emission testing rules so car manufacturers can cheat, the guy who was president of the tax haven of Luxembourg being president of the European Commission. Seems like we're returning to feudalism with the little people being serfs, while in the palaces the 1% enjoy their riches. Terror in Europe (and the export of fighters from that continent to the middle east) is borne out of little people not seeing any future and being easily influenced by talk of joining some "great" cause of Jihad...
- r00fus 9y agoJihad or Nationalism. The centrists (e.g. May/Macron/Merkel) fear and yet benefit from both - they can sacrifice freedoms to sell corporatist agendas. Meanwhile populists across the spectrum are tarred and feathered as helping the extremists (or "not being strong enough against them").
- 9y ago
- pythonaut_16 9y agoThis article is pretty click-baity. It claims to be about reading banned literature in the title, then when you navigate to the site it immediately says the announcement/law is actually about watching videos promoting terrorism. The main body of the article is pretty incoherent and rambling; it never really clearly states what the law is actually about. If you actually go read the linked BBC article[0], you'll find that what's happening is somewhat less alarming than the article would lead you to believe. From what I gather, a politician is attempting to increase the maximum sentence of an existing law from 10 to 15 years, and to apply it to streaming content rather than just downloaded content. There are definitely free speech implications and concerns here, but it's not nearly as dire as the article would imply. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620 https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620 *Also, the subtext of the BBC article > People who repeatedly view terrorist content online will face up to 15 years in prison, the home secretary has told the Conservative Party conference.
- astrodust 9y agoIs owning a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook or Mein Kampf going to be a criminal offense? What about a video version of same?
- vilhelm_s 9y agoAnarchist's Cookbook, yes, probably. There has already been several convictions under this law for owning descriptions of how to make bombs. (The law dates from 2000, although the maximum sentence is now being increased from 10 to 15 years). Mein Kampf, I'm less sure, there have been people charged with owning ISIS propaganda, but I'm not sure exactly how it worked out on appeal. (They were also convicted on other counts.)
- PoachedSausage 9y agoMost of the convictions have happened due to the defendant being caught for something else/more serious. The question is, where do you draw the line, are books on basic chemistry and physics, from which can be derived illegal knowledge, also to be banned?
- rgbrenner 9y agoThe blog post above adds little to the bbc article that it links to.. in fact the bbc article is clearer about what has changed -- it's not a new law (Terrorism Act 2000), and the change is from 10 years to 15 years, and it now applies to streaming terrorist videos (instead of just downloaded videos). https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620 https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620 This article is also good: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jail https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-v...
- sctb 9y agoThanks, we've updated the link from https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/10/britain-considers-15-years-in-prison-for-reading-banned-literature/ https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/10/britain-c..., which points to this.
- tezza 9y agoMein Kampf was banned banned banned, no ? Later watered down and now you can buy it. Various Hizb ut-Tahrir / Wahabi literature is banned banned banned. Plenty of books have been banned, contrary to what the author is implying https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_gove...
- LinuxBender 9y agoDoes banning something make it go away?
- castis 9y agoNope, just pushes it out of public view.
- 21 9y agoIt makes it significantly harder. Ie: try getting a firearm in most of Europe. Possible, but extremely hard, which is a major reason why there is so little gun violence compared to US.
- r00fus 9y agoNo but those who ban it gain political capital for "being strong against X" where X the bogeyman of the day.
- DaiPlusPlus 9y agoSuccinctly summarises the modus-operandi of the UK Home Office's policymaking: Reactionary and fear-driven, where "fear" is defined as the current black-top newspaper headlines.
- KGIII 9y agoIt worked for drugs! /s
- visarga 9y agoWay to make something cool - make it illegal. Teens don't care that much about future consequences, but they get to feel tough for doing something illegal.
- ISL 9y agoWhile this is a British concern, a reminder of what the United-States rebels enshrined into their new Constitution: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
- Kenji 9y agoOne of the biggest qualities of the US, hands down.
- daveguy 9y agoAnd an unfortunate reminder of the president's urging for a Senate investigation of the free press for publishing news he does not like. Tweeted Oct. 5th 5:59am : "Why Isn't the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!"
- whipoodle 9y agoYeah... unless you're protesting. Or in a group deemed "radical". Or, or, or...
- 21 9y agoRight. You just need to redefine what "freedom of speech" or "freedom of press" means. For example, "freedom of press" doesn't cover publishing whats defined as "information of non-public interest" (see Gawker). I'm not defending or accusing Gawker, just providing an example that "freedom of press" comes with a lot of exceptions and new ones are continuously added.
- seorphates 9y agoSure. But given recent events and the increasingly blatant escalation of government power over its people it starts to become more clear that, at the root of it, "freedom of speech and of the press" means exactly that which our current governments fear the most and desperately aim to control - the freedom for all to research, dig and question the authority that governs them. It has almost become a simple interpretation. Which brings us to the second. Complicate that with the fact that through generous corporate sponsorship we now seem to find our collective selves being led by all manner of wolves.
- negativity 9y agoHoly shit. I'd leave the country and renounce citizenship over something like this. Reading words? Looking at pictures? Watching a video? Felony jail time? Really? This is policy that any sane person would resist.
- liquidise 9y agoWhile i have no intention of drawing moral equivalencies: in the US, watching child pornography videos can earn you felony jail time and permanent registration on a sex offenders list. Agree or disagree with the punishment, watching a video resulting in jail time is not without precedent, even stateside.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- misterHN 9y agowhich law?
- ijisjisjjd 9y ago"... And then the child proceeded to give the man a hand job" Welcome to 15 years in jail. Oh is that unreasonable? Thought crime 101.
- savanaly 9y agoAren't there employees at facebook and NSA and the like who have to spend all day looking at material that might be child pornography to verify it is indeed such? Do they have to get special clearance or something so it's guaranteed they'll never be prosecuted for it?
- freedomben 9y agoWhere would you go? (serious question, not a troll. I'd love to have some basic idea of where to go should things get bad enough in the US).
- 9y ago
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y agoWow, this is literally thoughtcrime.
- dTal 9y ago"Viewcrime".
- petre 9y agoYeah, that would totally stop terrorists.
- pasbesoin 9y agoSo, if I view footage of Amber Rudd, I'm going to jail? Because that's what we're really talking about, here.
- freedomben 9y ago> A defence of "reasonable excuse" would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material. Subjective definitions in laws and policies is very dangerous. What makes someone an academic? What about a journalist? Somehow I doubt that a self-declaration is sufficient.
- carvalho 9y agoI do hope that companies like Twitter and Youtube take their responsibility. How about 15 years of jailtime for the CEO of a company that facilitates streaming of terrorist propaganda and child-erotic material?
- klatuveranictu 9y agoI thought the alt-wrong loved their frozen peaches. What happened to the 1st amendment?
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago> A defence of "reasonable excuse" would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material. Reminds me of the bit from Family Guy when the police bust in to stop an act of prostitution, and the John points to the camera and says that he's filming it, so it's a porno. The cop responds: "As long as you're filming and selling it, it's legal. Enjoy your day." So bizarre.
- codedokode 9y agoThat is very serious punishment for just watching the videos. Does it mean that government cannot cope with growing terrorist activity and wants to make it easier to put people they don't like to jail without having to prove that they were actually planning something or otherwise related to terrorism?
- Dowwie 9y agoYou can legally own an arsenal of machine guns and ammo
- shostack 9y agoWould a valid cyber attack be to infect someone's machine, get these videos to play with logs that they played, and then report the person? Seems like the kind of thing that can be done relatively easily at mass scale...
- confounded 9y agoCouldn’t you just get them to read a Wikipedia article? Send a shortened link? Or say “I wonder what Islamic State’s policy objectives are?” to them, and wait for them to search? In a way, it’s a little nastier than book burning — casual readers go in the fire too.
- tim333 9y agoThis seems like a bad law. I know the government doesn't plan to use it for average Joes surfing the web but even so. I quite often have a look to see what the other side is arguing in conflicts including downloading dabiq (an ISIS mag) and reading Breitbart. It shouldn't be an offence unless you get involved doing or at least supporting terrorism. The government seems to be overreacting to the earlier days when some of the ISIS founders did their organizing and preaching in London.
- applecorruption 9y agoSo is it now CIA have to spy everybody then ? In this crazy world, everybody could be terrorist ? How about search engines, do they have any responsibility in this ? Question: What about the false flags by government.. who's watching them ?
- applecorruption 9y agoI know... is this actually leading to scenario, where Alex Jones and Infowars are stamped to be terrorist organisation .. and if you watch any they videos you could be jailed ? - hard to trust our governments really. We as normal poor people seems to be always the loosers and abused.
- dbuder 9y agoDefend yourself by forcing the court to watch your entire internet history in full. By the time they are done most of the jury will be in therapy. Is it easier for me a white guy to argue curiosity than someone of an Arab background? Why can't they be curious to why so many young men go off to Syria to seemingly throw their lives away? Why can't they want to know who these people are and what they've done?