3 ms·

IANAL, but it seems like the wording in the article ("viewing downloading or disseminating... may constitute an offence") is being very deliberately broad and c

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 ;)

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 ;)