28 ms·

Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted

39 points by cgtyoder 13y ago

DelightfulScone 13y ago
While intent of dissemination is no doubt weighed this bodes nothing well for those who monitor/track fighting groups and their actions. Those ancillary to the targeted group are no doubt targeted due to being ancillary to a targeted group that can potentially pass on the inflammatory media to someone else who may possibly give it some ear. Or maybe one of them is a sysadmin, someone is getting targeted for prosecution here. Maybe not prosecution perhaps just hacking to potentially prosecute others for possible terrorist actions. Lord this hurts.
jevinskie 13y ago
"The public is reminded that viewing downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under Section 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006." Wow. They really are saying that it can be illegal to read something! Is there any similar law in the US? I'm guessing classified information can get you in trouble somehow.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >I'm guessing classified information can get you in trouble somehow. It can't. It's not illegal to read classified material in the US unless you work for the government. Leaking it is a different story.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Is it illegal, or some kind of code violation?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      The entire classified information program is derived from an Executive Order. I.e. it is directive on the government, but not on the populace as a class. The one big exception that I know of is the Espionage Act, but that doesn't even speak to "classified" information as we understand it from the E.O. but more generically to something along the lines of information harmful to the defense of the U.S. (which can theoretically include unclassified information, I suppose). Maybe there's other statute law referencing compliance with the E.O.-driven classified information program which would make the E.O. also statutory law, but I'm not aware of any (but then, nor am I a lawyer).
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  It really is troubling. Is there any similar law in the US? I think a conclusion you'd have to draw from the Pentagon Papers controversy is that if the gov't want to keep something secret, it's their own responsibility to do so. Once the information leaked, it was then legal to print the documents. And if that's true, then it must also be legal to read them.
  - BuildTheRobots 13y ago
    Actually, I'm relatively certain that within current legal frameworks, public, published documents can be retroactively classified making you a criminal if you refuse to hand back your copy.
    - hga 13y ago
      Something like that can be true for nuclear weapons related stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret
pessimizer 13y ago
Since Greenwald, Miranda, Poitras, and Snowden are officially terrorists that can be detained under terrorist legislation in the UK, is there any legal reason to think (if this is successfully sustained) that reading The Intercept wouldn't fall under the same rubric?
hubtree 13y ago
The comments on the article are much more interesting than the article itself.
zorse 13y ago
Censorship is the worst way to fight an idea - It lays credence to that point of view ("why would the government censor it if didn't have some truth to it?") - It undermines the importance of having discussions about challenging issues - It makes those who hold the aforementioned views even more sure that they are correct, and that someone is unjustly out to get them let people freely discuss these issues and we will all come out on top
- ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
  How do you feel about hate speech (anti-Islam, anti-semetic ) being banned and punishable by jail and fines in European countries?
  - Crito 13y ago
    <strike>Because they disagree with zorse. That does not mean that they are wrong, nor does it mean that zorse is wrong. It just means that they disagree.</strike> (Sorry, misread your comment.) Personally, I agree with zorse. One of the best ways to combat extremism is to give extremist groups enough rope to hang themselves. Nail them when they actually solicit or request specific illegal actions (calling for hits on people, calling for somebodies home or business to be vandalized, etc) but otherwise allow them to make fools of themselves in public. See how the WBC or the KKK marginalize themselves in the US by being permitted to publicly say what they think. Radical Islam does not seem to be a sizable threat in the US (because of, or despite of, the US's loose hate speech laws... you decide) and domestic "homegrown" terrorism is a wildly overblown threat. People like "sovereign citizen" are widely mocked using material that they upload to social media. Would sovereign citizens still be widely recognized as nutters if they were not allowed to upload youtube videos of them making fools of themselves? Despite (or because of) the US's lax speech laws, we don't have a Golden Dawn equivalent political party that is actually winning elections.
    - zorse 13y ago
      Those are great examples of 'hate' groups that have marginalized themselves just by saying what's on their mind. In the United States where speech is heavily protected by the constitution, those who hate have much less power. Moreover, lets say that there is a person with a particularly sophisticated hatred of Jews, Muslims, gays or whoever. In fact, so sophisticated that its hard for you or I to counter his argument. This would be a fantastic situation! Why? Because we would either concede that his unfortunate views are correct, or seek a better understanding of the issue, perhaps by seeking someone who is an expert in philosophy, law or whatever and having a discussion/debate In that circumstance we all win. You and I win because we have a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the issue, and everyone else wins because they can weigh the arguments themselves and make up their own minds.
MrZongle2 13y ago
Orwell wept.
jeremysmyth 13y ago
IANAL, but it seems like the wording in the article ("viewing downloading or disseminating... may constitute an offence") is being very deliberately broad and careful to cover its behind. The laws in question cover: - Material that encourages directly or reasonably (or recklessly) the commission of terrorism - Dissemination and publishing, or possession of such information with intent to do so (this includes transmitting electronically) - Causing someone else to do so However, it is a defence to show that the material is not consistent with your own personal views, so while viewing something could in theory be a form of electronic transmission, they'd need to prove you intended to disseminate it. The defence part is useful too (if you can show that you don't agree with their politics), but I don't like that it's on the accused to prove they have differing politics. Here are the relevant sections of UK law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/2
- Crito 13y ago
  Is differing personal politics a defense against just viewing it, or is it also a valid defense for dissemination? For example, suppose I write a rationalwiki.org article on some specific brand of radical Islam which includes a large amount of citations and links to the relevant source material. I think that linking could reasonably be called "disseminating" (at least in the modern legal climate..), but I would be doing that with the intent of dissuading people.
  - jeremysmyth 13y ago
    viewing isn't an explicit offence under those laws. I expect the reason the website suggests is may be is because the act of viewing on the Internet is itself transmitting (or causing another to so transmit) the document electronically, which is an offence under the legislation (with additional considerations, such as whether it was done with intent to carry out or encourage someone else to carry out terrorism; it's quite hard to prove—or disprove for that matter—intent without supporting evidence, which may or may not include an overwhelming quantity of similar documents). The legislation provides that the accused can offer their politics as a defence against any charges under those sections, by proving that the document "neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement". What bothers me is that it's not the other way around: I'd prefer if it was up to the court to prove that the documents expressed one's views or had one's endorsement rather than placing the burden of such proof on the accused. Of course these are my interpretations and IANAL ;)
qwerta 13y ago
Someone asked me recently on Hacker News, what is wrong with free speech in Europe. Well...
- hga 13y ago
  I read quite some time ago, would be in the '80s, that if you wanted to start a print magazine in Austria you had to get government permission. Don't know if it was true, and now somewhat irrelevant depending on how much of the population has switched to the web, but.... Anyway, I'll close with a relevant 1976 quote from Tom Wolfe: "He sounded like Jean-François Revel, a French socialist writer who talks about one of the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."
- jeremysmyth 13y ago
  It's important to recognise that Europe (as a political entity) has only generally positive things to say about freedom of speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Ri... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_o... are the main legal structures that deal with freedom of speech at the European level. The vast majority of "federal" laws (i.e. laws passed centrally) are to do with the mechanisms of the central government; there are very few social or fiscal laws passed centrally. The European Parliament simply does not claim competence or authority over such matters. Pretty much all laws dealing with freedoms (or removal thereof) are handled at the state level. This is very different to the U.S. where there are many Federal and state laws that limit a person's freedoms. In this case, the law is entirely that of the UK, and has little to do with whatever you might call "Europe".
  - jmct 13y ago
    Yes, we get it. 'Europe' and countries within Europe are not the same thing. You are missing the point. Yes, this article only talks about the UK, but Europe generally has a problem with free speech. The following countries have laws against hate speech: Belgium@: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Anti-Racism_Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Anti-Racism_Law Denmark: http://www.inach.net/content/denmark.html http://www.inach.net/content/denmark.html Finland: (sorry, could only find PDF) http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/States2011/Finland.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/State... France@: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France Germany@: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#130 http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#130 Iceland: (Art 233) http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=190914#LinkTarget_700 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=190914#LinkT... Netherlands: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/TweedeBoek/TitelV/Artikel137c/geldigheidsdatum_25-03-2014 http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/TweedeBoek/TitelV/Arti... Norway: (135 a) http://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1902-05-22-10/KAPITTEL_2-6#KAPITTEL_2-6 http://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1902-05-22-10/KAPITTEL_2-6... Sweden: (PDF Ch. 16 sec. 8) http://www.government.se/content/1/c4/15/36/d74ceabc.pdf http://www.government.se/content/1/c4/15/36/d74ceabc.pdf In case you don't want to read that far "sentenced for agitation against a national or ethnic group to imprisonment for at most two years" UK: See article. The countries with an '@' are ones that also ban certain kinds of denial (usually Holocaust denial). Note it is very likely that more countries in Europe have bans on free speech, these are just the ones I know of and could get sources for quickly. On top of that, your point "Europe (as a political entity) has only generally positive things to say about freedom of speech" is only accurate if you don't take freedom of speech seriously. The European Convention on Human Rights AND the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union says it is up to the countries whether hate speech counts as free speech! Which misses the entire point of free speech, that no one is able to say what is and is not okay speech! I live in the UK and the things that upsets me most is the lack of free speech here. There seem to be far too few countries that take it seriously. So yes, I think it is fair to say Europe has a problem with free speech.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- waps 13y ago
  Because anti-islamic comments may lead to rather large riots obviously. Because of the mohammed cartoons. Which is of course exactly what terror is trying to achieve. I wouldn't say they've succeeded very well, but I doubt we've seen the last of it.
  - hga 13y ago
    The heckler's veto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto
logfromblammo 13y ago
Crimestop! Only you can prevent tripleplusungood thoughtcrime, citizen! How can I recognize and avoid having potentially incriminating ideas? Your viewscreens are there to help. All content broadcast through the viewscreen is pre-approved and certified to produce no dangerous thoughts in most citizens. If you still find yourself having doubts about your own mind, proceed immediately to the nearest MiniTrue psychological health assessment station for evaluation. Time is critical! Do your best to not think or speak to other citizens while en route! Big Brother loves you, and wants you to be happy.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Censorship is nothing new at all.
falconfunction 13y ago
Well as long as they start to focus on sites promoting extreme chav behavior
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
FredericJ 13y ago
And for watching FoxNews?

39 points by cgtyoder 13y ago

While intent of dissemination is no doubt weighed this bodes nothing well for those who monitor/track fighting groups and their actions. Those ancillary to the targeted group are no doubt targeted due to being ancillary to a targeted group that can potentially pass on the inflammatory media to someone else who may possibly give it some ear. Or maybe one of them is a sysadmin, someone is getting targeted for prosecution here. Maybe not prosecution perhaps just hacking to potentially prosecute others for possible terrorist actions. Lord this hurts.

jevinskie 13y ago

"The public is reminded that viewing downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under Section 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006." Wow. They really are saying that it can be illegal to read something! Is there any similar law in the US? I'm guessing classified information can get you in trouble somehow.

pessimizer 13y ago
>I'm guessing classified information can get you in trouble somehow. It can't. It's not illegal to read classified material in the US unless you work for the government. Leaking it is a different story.
- scarmig 13y ago
  Is it illegal, or some kind of code violation?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The entire classified information program is derived from an Executive Order. I.e. it is directive on the government, but not on the populace as a class. The one big exception that I know of is the Espionage Act, but that doesn't even speak to "classified" information as we understand it from the E.O. but more generically to something along the lines of information harmful to the defense of the U.S. (which can theoretically include unclassified information, I suppose). Maybe there's other statute law referencing compliance with the E.O.-driven classified information program which would make the E.O. also statutory law, but I'm not aware of any (but then, nor am I a lawyer).
CWuestefeld 13y ago
It really is troubling. Is there any similar law in the US? I think a conclusion you'd have to draw from the Pentagon Papers controversy is that if the gov't want to keep something secret, it's their own responsibility to do so. Once the information leaked, it was then legal to print the documents. And if that's true, then it must also be legal to read them.
- BuildTheRobots 13y ago
  Actually, I'm relatively certain that within current legal frameworks, public, published documents can be retroactively classified making you a criminal if you refuse to hand back your copy.
  - hga 13y ago
    Something like that can be true for nuclear weapons related stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret

pessimizer 13y ago

Since Greenwald, Miranda, Poitras, and Snowden are officially terrorists that can be detained under terrorist legislation in the UK, is there any legal reason to think (if this is successfully sustained) that reading The Intercept wouldn't fall under the same rubric?

hubtree 13y ago

The comments on the article are much more interesting than the article itself.

zorse 13y ago

Censorship is the worst way to fight an idea - It lays credence to that point of view ("why would the government censor it if didn't have some truth to it?") - It undermines the importance of having discussions about challenging issues - It makes those who hold the aforementioned views even more sure that they are correct, and that someone is unjustly out to get them let people freely discuss these issues and we will all come out on top

ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
How do you feel about hate speech (anti-Islam, anti-semetic ) being banned and punishable by jail and fines in European countries?
- Crito 13y ago
  <strike>Because they disagree with zorse. That does not mean that they are wrong, nor does it mean that zorse is wrong. It just means that they disagree.</strike> (Sorry, misread your comment.) Personally, I agree with zorse. One of the best ways to combat extremism is to give extremist groups enough rope to hang themselves. Nail them when they actually solicit or request specific illegal actions (calling for hits on people, calling for somebodies home or business to be vandalized, etc) but otherwise allow them to make fools of themselves in public. See how the WBC or the KKK marginalize themselves in the US by being permitted to publicly say what they think. Radical Islam does not seem to be a sizable threat in the US (because of, or despite of, the US's loose hate speech laws... you decide) and domestic "homegrown" terrorism is a wildly overblown threat. People like "sovereign citizen" are widely mocked using material that they upload to social media. Would sovereign citizens still be widely recognized as nutters if they were not allowed to upload youtube videos of them making fools of themselves? Despite (or because of) the US's lax speech laws, we don't have a Golden Dawn equivalent political party that is actually winning elections.
  - zorse 13y ago
    Those are great examples of 'hate' groups that have marginalized themselves just by saying what's on their mind. In the United States where speech is heavily protected by the constitution, those who hate have much less power. Moreover, lets say that there is a person with a particularly sophisticated hatred of Jews, Muslims, gays or whoever. In fact, so sophisticated that its hard for you or I to counter his argument. This would be a fantastic situation! Why? Because we would either concede that his unfortunate views are correct, or seek a better understanding of the issue, perhaps by seeking someone who is an expert in philosophy, law or whatever and having a discussion/debate In that circumstance we all win. You and I win because we have a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the issue, and everyone else wins because they can weigh the arguments themselves and make up their own minds.

MrZongle2 13y ago

Orwell wept.

jeremysmyth 13y ago

IANAL, but it seems like the wording in the article ("viewing downloading or disseminating... may constitute an offence") is being very deliberately broad and careful to cover its behind. The laws in question cover: - Material that encourages directly or reasonably (or recklessly) the commission of terrorism - Dissemination and publishing, or possession of such information with intent to do so (this includes transmitting electronically) - Causing someone else to do so However, it is a defence to show that the material is not consistent with your own personal views, so while viewing something could in theory be a form of electronic transmission, they'd need to prove you intended to disseminate it. The defence part is useful too (if you can show that you don't agree with their politics), but I don't like that it's on the accused to prove they have differing politics. Here are the relevant sections of UK law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/2

Crito 13y ago
Is differing personal politics a defense against just viewing it, or is it also a valid defense for dissemination? For example, suppose I write a rationalwiki.org article on some specific brand of radical Islam which includes a large amount of citations and links to the relevant source material. I think that linking could reasonably be called "disseminating" (at least in the modern legal climate..), but I would be doing that with the intent of dissuading people.
- jeremysmyth 13y ago
  viewing isn't an explicit offence under those laws. I expect the reason the website suggests is may be is because the act of viewing on the Internet is itself transmitting (or causing another to so transmit) the document electronically, which is an offence under the legislation (with additional considerations, such as whether it was done with intent to carry out or encourage someone else to carry out terrorism; it's quite hard to prove—or disprove for that matter—intent without supporting evidence, which may or may not include an overwhelming quantity of similar documents). The legislation provides that the accused can offer their politics as a defence against any charges under those sections, by proving that the document "neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement". What bothers me is that it's not the other way around: I'd prefer if it was up to the court to prove that the documents expressed one's views or had one's endorsement rather than placing the burden of such proof on the accused. Of course these are my interpretations and IANAL ;)

qwerta 13y ago

Someone asked me recently on Hacker News, what is wrong with free speech in Europe. Well...

hga 13y ago
I read quite some time ago, would be in the '80s, that if you wanted to start a print magazine in Austria you had to get government permission. Don't know if it was true, and now somewhat irrelevant depending on how much of the population has switched to the web, but.... Anyway, I'll close with a relevant 1976 quote from Tom Wolfe: "He sounded like Jean-François Revel, a French socialist writer who talks about one of the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."
jeremysmyth 13y ago
It's important to recognise that Europe (as a political entity) has only generally positive things to say about freedom of speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Ri... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_o... are the main legal structures that deal with freedom of speech at the European level. The vast majority of "federal" laws (i.e. laws passed centrally) are to do with the mechanisms of the central government; there are very few social or fiscal laws passed centrally. The European Parliament simply does not claim competence or authority over such matters. Pretty much all laws dealing with freedoms (or removal thereof) are handled at the state level. This is very different to the U.S. where there are many Federal and state laws that limit a person's freedoms. In this case, the law is entirely that of the UK, and has little to do with whatever you might call "Europe".
- jmct 13y ago
  Yes, we get it. 'Europe' and countries within Europe are not the same thing. You are missing the point. Yes, this article only talks about the UK, but Europe generally has a problem with free speech. The following countries have laws against hate speech: Belgium@: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Anti-Racism_Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Anti-Racism_Law Denmark: http://www.inach.net/content/denmark.html http://www.inach.net/content/denmark.html Finland: (sorry, could only find PDF) http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/States2011/Finland.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/State... France@: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France Germany@: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#130 http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#130 Iceland: (Art 233) http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=190914#LinkTarget_700 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=190914#LinkT... Netherlands: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/TweedeBoek/TitelV/Artikel137c/geldigheidsdatum_25-03-2014 http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/TweedeBoek/TitelV/Arti... Norway: (135 a) http://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1902-05-22-10/KAPITTEL_2-6#KAPITTEL_2-6 http://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1902-05-22-10/KAPITTEL_2-6... Sweden: (PDF Ch. 16 sec. 8) http://www.government.se/content/1/c4/15/36/d74ceabc.pdf http://www.government.se/content/1/c4/15/36/d74ceabc.pdf In case you don't want to read that far "sentenced for agitation against a national or ethnic group to imprisonment for at most two years" UK: See article. The countries with an '@' are ones that also ban certain kinds of denial (usually Holocaust denial). Note it is very likely that more countries in Europe have bans on free speech, these are just the ones I know of and could get sources for quickly. On top of that, your point "Europe (as a political entity) has only generally positive things to say about freedom of speech" is only accurate if you don't take freedom of speech seriously. The European Convention on Human Rights AND the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union says it is up to the countries whether hate speech counts as free speech! Which misses the entire point of free speech, that no one is able to say what is and is not okay speech! I live in the UK and the things that upsets me most is the lack of free speech here. There seem to be far too few countries that take it seriously. So yes, I think it is fair to say Europe has a problem with free speech.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

waps 13y ago
Because anti-islamic comments may lead to rather large riots obviously. Because of the mohammed cartoons. Which is of course exactly what terror is trying to achieve. I wouldn't say they've succeeded very well, but I doubt we've seen the last of it.
- hga 13y ago
  The heckler's veto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto

logfromblammo 13y ago

Crimestop! Only you can prevent tripleplusungood thoughtcrime, citizen! How can I recognize and avoid having potentially incriminating ideas? Your viewscreens are there to help. All content broadcast through the viewscreen is pre-approved and certified to produce no dangerous thoughts in most citizens. If you still find yourself having doubts about your own mind, proceed immediately to the nearest MiniTrue psychological health assessment station for evaluation. Time is critical! Do your best to not think or speak to other citizens while en route! Big Brother loves you, and wants you to be happy.

Houshalter 13y ago
Censorship is nothing new at all.

falconfunction 13y ago

Well as long as they start to focus on sites promoting extreme chav behavior

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

FredericJ 13y ago

And for watching FoxNews?