
Britain announces 15 years in prison for reading banned literature - doener
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/10/britain-considers-15-years-in-prison-for-reading-banned-literature/
======
chasing
This is a terrible click-bait title. It is, as far as I can tell, completely
factually inaccurate.

"Amber Rudd set out her intention to change the law to increase the maximum
penalty from 10 years."

[https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620](https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620)

Someone in the British government has proposed increasing the penalty for what
seems to be streaming terroristic material online. That's the story.

~~~
gjjrfcbugxbhf
There is no penalty for these 'crimes' in most western countries because the
activities are covered by freedom of speech etc and are not crimes.

The fact that the UK has been stumbling towards totalitarianism for a long
time doesn't change the direction it is going in.

------
alistproducer2
I'm amazed at how totalitarian the u.k is and, more surprising, how the
population provides such little resistance.

~~~
Synaesthesia
One could say the same about the US, but there are large groups of resistance
in both countries. The mainstream media doesn’t always cover it. The UK Labour
Party is the largest and most radical party in Europe for instance. And there
are many protests all over the US.

------
noelwelsh
The linked article misrepresents the BBC report it is based on. The article
suggests this is already the law. The BBC reports it is a proposal made at the
Conservative Party conference.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Yes it’s not a law, but still quite an astonishing proposal.

~~~
noelwelsh
Agreed!

------
dvdhnt
> British lawmakers have announced 15 years in prison for taking part of
> banned literature. However, the threat of prison only covers new story
> formats that lawmakers think don’t deserve the same kind of protection as
> old-fashioned books: it’s only people who watch video on the Internet who
> will be put in prison, and only when they watch something that promotes
> terrorism, whatever that means this week.

How do they discern intention? What about videos that auto-play? Like, what if
a nefarious website wanted to cause others harm or mock the law?

This seems preposterous.

