
UK makes it an offence to view terrorist propaganda even once - sohkamyung
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/13/uk_counter_terror_act_royal_assent/
======
hirundo
"Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and
censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say
to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not know," the end
result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty
little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this
fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind
is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can't conquer
a free man; the most you can do is kill him." \-- Robert Heinlein, Revolt in
2100

~~~
aliswe
"The rack" ?

~~~
dictum
I thought it was something like a parrilla
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrilla_(torture)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrilla_\(torture\))
but it's another form of torture:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_(torture)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_\(torture\))

------
tristanperry
Over a decade ago a university student got held for six days[0] after viewing
(and printing) some terrorist tactics which were apparently directly relevant
to his research.

It's concerning that the sentences have now got even stricter and a hacked
website could potentially land people in jail? Very bizarre.

[0] -
[https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/may/24/highereduc...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/may/24/highereducation.uk)

~~~
setquk
I don't agree with the whole thing but there is a section saying this is fair
use:

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted)

3.4.3a.b.ii

------
Libbum
Lunacy. Want your rival out of business? Spoof an email and get them to click
on an untoward link. This burden of proof clause will no doubt be abused.

What about researchers attempting to understand the mechanisms of extremism?
Can you get a permit to commit thought crime?

~~~
Voloskaya
Pretty sure the goal is to strengthen their cases against known radicalized
individuals, not to send in jail someone that clicked a bad link...

~~~
NeedMoreTea
The goal matters little if the law, as written, does not discriminate or limit
overly expansive wording.

The goal of background checks was to protect the most vulnerable, not create a
license to work required for a quarter of all jobs, etc, etc.

~~~
orf
Judges in the UK don't always follow the letter of the law, it's at their
discretion. Precedent and the spirit of the law is pretty important. If
someone avoids tax by exploiting a loophole due to a badly worded phrase, then
no, they are not complying with the spirit of the law. That works both ways.

It's also completely at the juries discretion to override any order given by a
judge, and they apply common sense to the whole situation. If you can't
convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be arrested for clicking
a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the judge says.

~~~
ceejayoz
> If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be
> arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the
> judge says.

They'll have already been arrested, detained for months, and likely spent
thousands on legal costs by the time it's before a jury.

~~~
zaroth
Agreed! And besides financial bankruptcy, you can also expect personal and
reputation ruin from being charged with being a terrorist.

And good luck working after being acquitted, with the Internet history that no
doubt will have accumulated.

A jury of your peers is the last line of defense for justice, but in no
measure whatsoever does it serve to balance the cruelty of an unjust law.

------
moomin
The UK has a serious problem with the term "terrorism". It's effectively
defined as "stuff the government doesn't like". So the Stansted 15 get
convictions [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/07/un-tells-uk-
st...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/07/un-tells-uk-stop-using-
terror-charges-against-peaceful-protesters) but far-right bovver boys
harassing government rebels outside of parliament gets a blind eye.

~~~
dmos62
There's a whole debate about the term being a hindrance more than anything. So
called terrorists are just criminals elevated to a boogyman status. This layer
of indirection obfuscates the problem, or at least so the argument goes.

It gives you an interesting perspective, because then the obvious question is
why are those criminals elevated to that status. You get to everything from
fearmongering and manipulation tactics, to our society's fragile sense of
security.

------
mc32
This is one of those laws which will facilitate “selective enforcement” in the
most negative and abusive way.

Whatever your politics, this is bad. China censorship bad.

------
baxter001
Wow, this must be some convincing propaganda to restrict even the viewing of
it!

~~~
dustinmoris
So very true. Also I think this is extremely dangerous, because I didn't give
a darn thing about watching propaganda material before, but NOW I REALLY WANT
TO SEE IT, knowing that it is apparently so bad/convincing that even viewing
it is forbidden.

Soon we will have more people watching it like we have more people smoking
weed when it is illegal.

~~~
shittyadmin
If you're that interested, putting "Inspire magazine" into Google will reveal
PDFs of a big terrorist propaganda magazine that's readily available in
English.

Heavy.com and gore sites often have copies of the ISIS videos too - I went
hunting for their grenade drone video once out of morbid curiosity...

Both the magazine and videos are surprisingly well edited from a technical
standpoint, they have some people who at least know the basics pretty well.
Higher production values than local news at least.

The weirdest part of this to me is that this is worse than thought crime in
some ways - I've viewed this material for reasons other than planning to
commit crime, yet my actions would be made illegal.

------
rapind
So basically "crimethink"... How does this shit get passed? They must be aware
of the slippery cliff. Are we just out of ideas on how to sanely deal with
terrorism?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime)

~~~
amaccuish
Because the slippery cliff/slope almost never happens. It's always threatened,
but I really don't see the UK becoming a totalitarian state.

~~~
rapind
I really didn't see it becoming a crime to read something...

------
andrey_utkin
Expecting a wave of pranks rickrolling victims into terrorist propaganda
content.

~~~
tzs
That might backfire. The section of the law someone else linked to seems to
require that you knew or had reason to know that the material you accessed
contained forbidden material.

Generally in rickrolling type pranks, it is the sender, and only the sender,
who knows what is really contained in the linked site, and so it would be the
prankster himself who would be at risk under this.

~~~
chopin
You could deliver the stuff as an ad via an ad network. And sending an email
which can't be traced isn't exactly difficult.

I wouldn't choose email as it presumably makes it easy for the victim to get
out. The ad route on the other hand could make it much more difficult for the
victim.

------
chopin
That shouldn't fly with ECHR. Oh, wait...

But it's very practical to deal with uncomfortable dissent.

~~~
arethuza
I suspect ou are thinking of the ECJ - which is the supreme court of the EU.
The ECHR isn't related to the EU (although I suspect a lot of people don't
realise that):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)

~~~
Maken
Maybe he did think of the ECHR. While it is not strictly part of the EU, being
in the EU means you are under ECHR jurisprudence.

Anyway it was the ECJ which shut down similar UK surveillance laws in the
past, and I remember getting rid of its "interference" being one of the
arguments in favour of the Brexit.

~~~
moomin
Significantly, though, the UK is not leaving the Council of Europe, so the
ECHR will continue to apply. The usual suspect object to the ECHR for the
usual suspect reasons, but the fact is that membership of it is a requirement
for most forms of security co-operation in Europe. So there's no good case for
leaving it.

Doesn't mean we won't one of these days.

------
pbhjpbhj
So, it's illegal to do a teardown on propaganda, that sounds like it couldn't
possibly go wrong.

Rather than finding (eg in SERPs) counterpoints and dissenters alongside
propaganda there will only be supporting voices.

I guess May's moving early on instigating greater totalitarianism in the UK
once ECJ is out of the way.

------
benj111
"likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"

Doesn't seem to include propaganda. Just looking up bus and train timetables,
diy electronics, chemistry......

~~~
Libbum
Yeah, wow. That clause can be warped in far too many ways. "The defendant used
the known terrorist network app Telegram to send encrypted information
pertaining to local public transportation and multiple images of public
landmarks to a Chinese national." <\-- My trip to London on the weekend to see
the British Museum, sending photos to my girlfriend.

------
octosphere
Okay so that's why things like the Radical Militant Library and ParaZite are
.onion hidden services (not linking to them here, as I don't want to get
downvoted to death). I always presumed they wouldn't last long on the
clearnet. They are exponentially more controversial than Stormfront or other
neo-nazi websites and actually have elaborate manuals on how to maim or kill
your enemy, and are a far cry from silly schoolyard things like The Anarchist
Cookbook.

------
cfv
Does this mean that if I blast an ISIS recruitment video or whatever in like
the House of Lords walls everyone sitting in there is automatically
prosecuted?

Sounds like an awfully easy thing to exploit into nothingness.

------
selimthegrim
If this is legal (this sort of law) under the ECHR and ECJ, then what’s the
point of being in the EU?

~~~
tristanperry
The UK isn't the only country to be getting quite strict in this regard:
Germany being a prime example.

~~~
TrueGeek
Do you have examples of people being charged for this in Germany?

------
haste410
I'm not familiar with The Register and haven't seen this anywhere else. Does
any know of another source that is reporting on this?

------
_bxg1
Cheers to the UK in recent weeks for helping the US not look as bad /s

------
flycaliguy
Does this mean over here in Canada it is legal to look at it once? Because
I’ve read otherwise and felt slightly spooked when I was researching that
weird magazine they put out years ago. Not as slick a print PDF production as
the media makes you think BTW, definitely just a few graphic design tutorials.

------
darajava
The downfall of Britain has been happening for some time. They are scared, and
they are only making it worse.

------
cmroanirgo
"in which a person collects or makes a record... by means of the internet
(whether by downloading the record or otherwise)"

Wow. From the surface, this would seem to include an email sent to you. And if
so, this would be a great way for a vengeful person to cause a lot of strife
for another (by sending inflammatory emails, repeatedly to them).

Hopefully, sane and merciful implementation of these "laws" are enacted.
Sadly, from other comments posted here, it's likely to be as bad as it looks!

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted)

------
samdoidge
The increasing censorship is genuinely making living in the UK less appealing.

------
rasengan
The UK has always had draconian policies ranging from an opt-in program for
adult content (you have to tell your ISP you want to view adult content) to
now this.

On Internet, there are trolls who will simply get you to click on something
for the fun of it. I’m sure many of you remember Last Measure by GNAA (NSFL).

This law is really poor, and I suspect the innocent will be caught up in the
crossfire.

~~~
the8472
_> The UK has always had draconian policies ranging from [...]_

We have also always been at war with oceania.

No, there was a time before those policies.

~~~
pjc50
Before draconian anti-terrorism policies? When? (Including Northern Ireland in
the UK!)

------
yters
I wonder why governments never openly address such propaganda, such as
debunking claims and whatnot? Are they worried that will legitimize the
claims? The alternative does seem to make the government have the weaker
argument, just as in a debate the first one to resort to ad hominem or lose
their temper seems to have the worse argument.

~~~
maffydub
Interesting thought - I'm not sure. My guess is it's a combination of

\- increasing publicity of the propaganda (which I guess is a bit like your
comment that it legitimises the claims) - if the propaganda is not already in
the open, how does the government target the "debunking" without increasing
exposure

\- whether debunking the propaganda would have the desired effect anyway -
"confirmation bias" causes people who evidence against a position to reinforce
that position in their minds?

------
nailer
As a Twitter user in the UK I've probably broken this law at least once in the
last week - many people interested in politics will retweet anti-western,
anti-gay, bizarre ('women on top makes you gay') etc views from Islamists,
mainly to laugh at them.

------
phogster
Does this include watching videos on
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/)?

------
perl4ever
It seems to me that the text of such law is literally terrorist propaganda,
and thus anyone who reads it should logically be prosecuted under it.

------
fallingfrog
Now the real fun comes when they start getting creative with the definition of
"terrorist".

------
neuralRiot
So in effect we're going back to the inquisition era.

------
maeln
France tried to push two time such a law (with the difference that it was for
viewing terrorist website "regularly")[0]. This law was banned two time by the
Conseil Constitutionnel (equivalent of the supreme court I think)[1].

But now EU is trying to put a "terrorist-filter"[2], which, I guess, our law-
maker are probably heavily pushing for. Such a proposition might be able to
pass through the Conseil Constitutionnel, since banning website (in France)
has already been approved and is in place (some website like The Pirate Bay
cannot be accessed "normally" in France).

This should really worry us. The definition of terrorism or extremism has
always been blurry (see for example the situation with the PKK). And, in any
case, it has been shown many time again that this kind of measure could be
misused, either intentionally, or by technical ignorance (banning a shared
IP). The Australian censorship is a good example of that[3].

All these laws have been also proven ineffective at best and are just a form
of power-grab by authorities. A prime example of that is, yet again, France,
where most of the "anti-terrorsime" laws passed after the Paris attack have
mostly been used against various political militant and, right now, against
the protest going on with the gilets jaunes (See for example, the use of
emergency state against the COP21 militant [4])

This will not stop, fear has always been used as an excuse to grab more power.
Thats why it's important that we keep supporting and funding association like
La Quadrature du Net[5] that fight against this kind of laws.

[0] (french) [https://www.legavox.fr/blog/murielle-cahen/nouveau-delit-
con...](https://www.legavox.fr/blog/murielle-cahen/nouveau-delit-consultation-
sites-djihadistes-23119.htm)

[1] (french) [https://www.conseil-
constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/a...](https://www.conseil-
constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/decisions/2017682qpc/2017682qpc_ccc.pdf)

[2] (english) [https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/terrorist-upload-
filters/](https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/terrorist-upload-filters/)

[3] (english)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Notable_examples)

[4] (french) [https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/11/27/les-
milita...](https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/11/27/les-militants-de-
la-cop21-cible-de-l-etat-d-urgence_4818885_3224.html)

[5] (english)
[https://www.laquadrature.net/en/](https://www.laquadrature.net/en/)

------
pts_
Even China is not that crazy, except when dealing with Uighurs.

~~~
wickerman
China used to jail teenage girls who wrote or read slash fiction for
"spreading propaganda that clashed with the morality of the party".

------
YUMad
This will get abused on a massive level.

Iirc the French presidential candidate Le Pen was sued for 'spreading
terrorist propaganda' for linking some ISIS material in negative context ("we
shouldnt allow this kind of people back to France" or something like that).

