
Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted - cgtyoder
http://news.sky.com/story/1230743/radical-islam-website-readers-may-be-prosecuted
======
jeremysmyth
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
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
_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 ;)

------
zorse
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
How do you feel about hate speech (anti-Islam, anti-semetic ) being banned and
punishable by jail and fines in European countries?

~~~
Crito
<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
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.

------
pessimizer
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?

------
logfromblammo
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
Censorship is nothing new at all.

------
jevinskie
"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.

~~~
CWuestefeld
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
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
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)

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

~~~
jeremysmyth
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_Ri...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)
and
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_o...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union)
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
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/State...](http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/States2011/Finland.pdf)

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#LinkT...](http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=190914#LinkTarget_700)

Netherlands:
[http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/TweedeBoek/TitelV/Arti...](http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/TweedeBoek/TitelV/Artikel137c/geldigheidsdatum_25-03-2014)

Norway: (135 a)
[http://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1902-05-22-10/KAPITTEL_2-6...](http://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1902-05-22-10/KAPITTEL_2-6#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.

~~~
sentenza
(Warning: Post contains expletives as part of an anecdote.)

About 15 years ago I turned on the TV one day, zapped to the music channel and
was faced, all of a sudden, with the face of Kid Rock.

He was talking to some sort of host on the German channel when the following
interchange happened:

Kid Rock: You mean I can say anything?!?

Host: Yes!

Kid Rock: Anything at all?

Host: Yes!

Kid Rock: Ok, here it goes. Pussy-licking finger-fucking ho-ass cunt.

And then he smiles as if it's his fifth birthday. Indeed, in the US, you can't
say these things on TV if it is a live transmission and they will be beeped in
a recording. Even today, it's always funny to see American celebrities on
British panel-comedy shows being startled by the nonchalant usage of coarse
language.

That's also a regulation of speech on the airwaves. Granted, it's organized by
private entities (or is there a law?) but the effect is the same.

Now contrast that with the limitations of free speech here in Germany: While
I'm no friend of hate-speech laws in general, I must say that the one we have
in Germany served us very well. The only thing that is banned are the Nazi
party symbols and the general patterns connected with it (Holocaust-denialism,
preaching against a minority, that sort of thing) and it has been an effective
tool to counter any resurgence of "The Nazis 2".

Because, as most non-Germans are most likely unaware, Neo-Nazi groups have
been actively trying to gain a foothold in youth culture here for a very long
time. I can distinctly remember the knuckleheads that tried to distribute
"those" tapes/CDs back in school.

Of course having the "illegal" tapes was enough to radicalize some, but they
never could organize on any scale, since any organization or music group that
attracted too big a following was rapidly banned.

Weighing the good and the bad consequences of our German law comes IMO very
much out on the positive side. And no, there has been no feature creep, even
though the law is decades old.

Beeping the potty-mouth on the other hand is just off-balance.

~~~
jmct
I think you have good points, I do think you're introducing a false dichotomy
though.

I'd prefer if there were no censorship on TV _and_ there was guaranteed
freedom of speech.

I can definitely understand where you're coming from (in as much as any non-
German can understand), but I do wonder if it's possible to allow hate speech
and to fight it in other ways.

Maybe not, but I do think it's an ideal to strive for.

Also, when it comes to US TV, it depends on the channel and whether it's using
public bandwidth. Channels like HBO and Showtime don't have to censor
anything. But overall I think you're right, the US does have this strange
Puritan culture that seems to be in conflict with its idea of personal
freedoms.

You say that you aren't a fan of hate-speech laws in general. May I ask where
_you_ think the line is? I feel like it's incredibly difficult to define
what's appropriate without leeway for abuse.

I am often envious of how good Germany (as a country/government) is about
keeping things within the spirit of the law and being reasonable about how
things are implemented. The efficiency of the German bureaucracy is a good
example: You tend to see less waste and corruption than in other western
countries.

So with that in mind, it's sometimes hard to use Germany as the standard since
they set the bar too high for the rest of us!

~~~
sentenza
I must assure you that there are wasteful and overly bureaucratic processes
here too, but thanks for the compliment.

The key, I think, is that one has to picture "the state" as non-static and
plan accordingly. For instance, we have a court system, with the energetic and
powerful Federal Court at the top, which is set up in such a way that it
inherently favors human rights and freedoms above other concerns. So while the
hard core of the Volksverhetzungs-laws remains un-touched, eventual feature
creep is rapidly cut back by the court system.

This was designed into the German state, since there was acute awareness at
the time that the laws of the Weimar Republic which could be used to curtail
freedoms were instrumental in the rapid rise of the Nazi party.

It might well be that, without this process in place, free speech would slowly
erode throught this law.

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

------
MrZongle2
Orwell wept.

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

------
FredericJ
And for watching FoxNews?

