
Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online - phr4ts
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620
======
wcarron
Oh...shit. That is both stupefying and petrifying. More and more I feel that
there is a new class war coming; and it is not rich vs poor so much as it is
governments vs civilians. Really wondering whether this will be shot down or
if other governments will follow suit down this road as quickly as possible.

Instinct tells me the latter is more likely. I've not been on this Earth long,
but where the fuck did all my freedoms go? It's like we're standing on a
sandbar watching the tide erode our liberties from under our feet. And shit,
it's the ocean. We can't do anything to save our little sandbar.

~~~
rjeli
This is why Americans have the 2nd amendment

~~~
ykler
No, this is why we have the first amendment. The second amendment is crap. I
have no very strong opinion on whether people should be allowed to have guns,
but the issue is not very relevant. Governments will always have way more
force than private individuals. The important thing is to contain that force.
And it is a very bad thing if just looking at what extremists have to say can
get you arrested.

~~~
mandelbrotwurst
It's possible that having even a small capacity to use force could create a
deterrent effect against those who would otherwise harm you, even if they are
stronger than you are.

To give an extreme but not unprecedented example, if the government wants to
wipe out all citizens of $ENEMY_TYPE_X, they might be at least slightly less
willing to do so if the agents contracted to enter the homes of the citizens
in question know that they are likely to face armed resistance.

EDIT for clarity: I of course do not mean that any one individual would be
able to defend their home against a powerful government dedicated to
destroying them.

I'm just saying that all else equal, a government considering whether to
attempt to wipe out some particular group is more likely to think twice if
there are likely to be costs involved in doing so.

~~~
codedokode
That's wrong. You can kill several cops who were only doing their job but you
cannot win against army forces. You cannot defend your rights from government
with a weapon.

The weapon in USA (especially long range weapon like rifles) is mostly useful
for mass shootings.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
The US army are nearly losing two wars to people with small arms and IEDs.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
So, ya, isn't this post about making terrorism illegal? I feel like we've come
full circle at this post.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
This whole subthread is about states being heavyhanded and our options in
responding.

Also, terrorism is kind of illegal already.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
In a thread about prosecuting people for watching terrorism videos, we have
gone on about how the 2nd amendment gives Americans the tools to fight against
the therapy of their government, and then it was pointed out the USA military
is much better armed than civilians can be. Finally, the comment was made that
the military could be faught with ambushes and IEDs, probably just as
explained in those terrorism videos.

I just think it is really ironic.

------
negativity
Holy shit. I'd leave the country and renounce citizenship over something like
this.

Reading words? Looking at pictures? Watching a video? Felony jail time?
_Really?_

This is policy that any sane person would resist.

~~~
liquidise
While i have no intention of drawing moral equivalencies: in the US, watching
child pornography videos can earn you felony jail time and permanent
registration on a sex offenders list. Agree or disagree with the punishment,
watching a video resulting in jail time is not without precedent, even
stateside.

~~~
savanaly
Aren't there employees at facebook and NSA and the like who have to spend all
day looking at material that might be child pornography to verify it is indeed
such? Do they have to get special clearance or something so it's guaranteed
they'll never be prosecuted for it?

------
pythonaut_16
This article is pretty click-baity. It claims to be about reading banned
literature in the title, then when you navigate to the site it immediately
says the announcement/law is actually about watching videos promoting
terrorism.

The main body of the article is pretty incoherent and rambling; it never
really clearly states what the law is actually about.

If you actually go read the linked BBC article[0], you'll find that what's
happening is somewhat less alarming than the article would lead you to
believe. From what I gather, a politician is attempting to increase the
maximum sentence of an existing law from 10 to 15 years, and to apply it to
streaming content rather than just downloaded content.

There are definitely free speech implications and concerns here, but it's not
nearly as dire as the article would imply.

[0]
[https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620](https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620)

*Also, the subtext of the BBC article > People who repeatedly view terrorist content online will face up to 15 years in prison, the home secretary has told the Conservative Party conference.

~~~
astrodust
Is owning a copy of the _Anarchist 's Cookbook_ or _Mein Kampf_ going to be a
criminal offense? What about a video version of same?

~~~
vilhelm_s
Anarchist's Cookbook, yes, probably. There has already been several
convictions under this law for owning descriptions of how to make bombs. (The
law dates from 2000, although the maximum sentence is now being increased from
10 to 15 years).

Mein Kampf, I'm less sure, there have been people charged with owning ISIS
propaganda, but I'm not sure exactly how it worked out on appeal. (They were
also convicted on other counts.)

~~~
PoachedSausage
Most of the convictions have happened due to the defendant being caught for
something else/more serious.

The question is, where do you draw the line, are books on basic chemistry and
physics, from which can be derived illegal knowledge, also to be banned?

------
ISL
While this is a British concern, a reminder of what the United-States rebels
enshrined into their new Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.

~~~
vacri
And yet Reporters Without Borders rates the US down at #43 when it comes to
press freedom, marginally below the UK at #40.

[https://rsf.org/en/united-states](https://rsf.org/en/united-states)

An example of why it rates so low: [https://rsf.org/en/news/us-rsf-concerned-
second-wave-journal...](https://rsf.org/en/news/us-rsf-concerned-second-wave-
journalist-arrests-st-louis)

Also, while the First Amendment is good to have, it's not as absolute as its
fans make out. There are plenty of restrictions on free speech in the US -
libel/slander, obscenity, official and military secrets, insider trading,
incitement, 'fighting words', intellectual property violations (a big one,
thanks Disney), National Security Letters (yay 'warrant canaries')... and then
there's things like 'free speech zones' (aka "time, place, and manner
restrictions"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Time.2C_place.2C_and_manner_restrictions)).
Some of those are good things to have, but nevertheless, not all of them are,
and they're still 'government restrictions on speech'.

Again, the First Amendment is good to have, but people need to stop quoting it
like it's a vaccine against loss of freedom of speech. The actual situation is
a lot more complex.

~~~
freedomben
AFA libel/slander laws, I think there is a difference between having the
freedom to speak it, and the freedom from consequences of speaking it. Causing
real damage to a person by lying or misrepresenting them isn't quite the same
as simply voicing opposition to ruling party policy.

Regarding consequences, I have the right to tell my boss to go to hell, and
him firing me for that isn't a violation of my freedom of speech. The
government throwing me in jail for it would be though.

Military secrets and the like are also different, because you sign an
agreement saying you will keep the secrets. Prosecution therefore isn't done
under restriction of speech, it's for breach of contract.

You have a good point on things like incitement and "fighting words" tho. And
I agree that we in the US are far from the ideal of truly free speech. There's
a lot of ways around it that the government has come up with over the years.

~~~
vacri
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the First Amendment. I'm just pointing
out that the situation is more complex that people usually appreciate. The
First Amendment is just a plank in the arena of 'free spech', it's not the
source of it (after all, free speech exists in countries that don't have the
US constitution).

I mean, take your example of the boss firing you for saying 'go to hell'. It
doesn't make sense; it doesn't make any real-world differentiation to other
countries. In what western democracy do people get jailed for telling their
boss to go to hell? You have to go to some pretty extreme authoritarian states
before you start to get to behaviour like that.

My point is that merely quoting the First Amendment is not sufficient to carry
an argument on free speech. There are lots of indirect ways to suppress
speech, and I gave an example link. That's why the US isn't up at #1.

I mean, look at the rest of the US Bill of Rights. Amendments 1 and 2 are the
poster-children, though 1 isn't perfect as we're discussing. The third
amendment is now utterly irrelevant. The fourth amendment is routinely
ignored, given things like 'civil forfeiture' and SWATting. Fifth amendment is
mostly intact, excluding again things like 'civil forfeiture'. The sixth
amendment is sick and dying, with plea bargaining replacing the vast bulk of
trials, and trials hardly being called 'speedy' these days. Seventh I don't
know much about. Eighth is long gone, with extremely long sentences given out
to poor people for non-violent crimes, and frequently ridiculous sums given
for bail. The ninth is a curio pertaining to law. The tenth is a source of
lots of controversy, with all sorts of arguments about what is states rights
and what is not.

What I'm trying to get at with all that waffle is that despite these things
being "enshrined" in the constitution, it doesn't mean that that's the way
society behaves. "It's in the constitution, therefore it must be so!" is not
always the case.

~~~
freedomben
I totally agree with your analysis :-)

I wish there were a way to get people to care more about their rights, but I
have no ideas.

------
rgbrenner
The blog post above adds little to the bbc article that it links to.. in fact
the bbc article is clearer about what has changed -- it's not a new law
(Terrorism Act 2000), and the change is from 10 years to 15 years, and it now
applies to streaming terrorist videos (instead of just downloaded videos).

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

This article is also good:

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-
rudd-v...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-
of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jail)

~~~
sctb
Thanks, we've updated the link from
[https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/10/britain-c...](https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/10/britain-
considers-15-years-in-prison-for-reading-banned-literature/), which points to
this.

------
dmitrygr
Words cannot describe now worrisome this is.

~~~
pfarnsworth
All this does is extend the jail terms. Where were you when the law was
initially created? It's been on the books for years.

~~~
dmitrygr
Same place I am now. Clutching my head between my hands and wondering how the
world went to hell so quickly.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
People were sufficiently terrorized by terrorists.

------
tezza
Mein Kampf was banned banned banned, no ?

Later watered down and now you can buy it.

Various Hizb ut-Tahrir / Wahabi literature is banned banned banned.

Plenty of books have been banned, contrary to what the author is implying

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

------
visarga
Way to make something cool - make it illegal. Teens don't care that much about
future consequences, but they get to feel tough for doing something illegal.

------
codedokode
That is very serious punishment for just watching the videos. Does it mean
that government cannot cope with growing terrorist activity and wants to make
it easier to put people they don't like to jail without having to prove that
they were actually planning something or otherwise related to terrorism?

------
rm_-rf_slash
> A defence of "reasonable excuse" would still be available to academics,
> journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such
> material.

Reminds me of the bit from Family Guy when the police bust in to stop an act
of prostitution, and the John points to the camera and says that he's filming
it, so it's a porno.

The cop responds: "As long as you're filming and selling it, it's legal. Enjoy
your day."

So bizarre.

------
rahimnathwani
This is an informative article let down by a deliberately misleading
statement: 'As to the government’s definition of terrorism, it has lost all
meaning: remember that a peaceful protests are formally classified as “Low-
level terrorism” in government training material.'

The 'government' early in the sentence refers to the UK government (the
subject of the article) but the training material was published by the _US_
government, so it's irrelevant here.

It _is_ worrying, though, to see content being banned, and putting the burden
of proof ('reasonable excuse') on the viewer, rather than the prosecution.

~~~
visarga
> putting the burden of proof ('reasonable excuse') on the viewer

A parent who lost his son due to terrorism would be put in jail for doing
online research into the killers.

------
freedomben
> A defence of "reasonable excuse" would still be available to academics,
> journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such
> material.

Subjective definitions in laws and policies is very dangerous. What makes
someone an academic? What about a journalist? Somehow I doubt that a self-
declaration is sufficient.

------
Sir_Cmpwn
Wow, this is _literally_ thoughtcrime.

~~~
dTal
"Viewcrime".

------
LinuxBender
Does banning something make it go away?

~~~
r00fus
No but those who ban it gain political capital for "being strong against X"
where X the bogeyman of the day.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
Succinctly summarises the modus-operandi of the UK Home Office's policymaking:
Reactionary and fear-driven, where "fear" is defined as the current black-top
newspaper headlines.

------
tim333
This seems like a bad law. I know the government doesn't plan to use it for
average Joes surfing the web but even so. I quite often have a look to see
what the other side is arguing in conflicts including downloading dabiq (an
ISIS mag) and reading Breitbart. It shouldn't be an offence unless you get
involved doing or at least supporting terrorism.

The government seems to be overreacting to the earlier days when some of the
ISIS founders did their organizing and preaching in London.

------
pasbesoin
So, if I view footage of Amber Rudd, I'm going to jail?

Because that's what we're really talking about, here.

------
applecorruption
I know... is this actually leading to scenario, where Alex Jones and Infowars
are stamped to be terrorist organisation .. and if you watch any they videos
you could be jailed ?

\- hard to trust our governments really. We as normal poor people seems to be
always the loosers and abused.

------
shostack
Would a valid cyber attack be to infect someone's machine, get these videos to
play with logs that they played, and then report the person? Seems like the
kind of thing that can be done relatively easily at mass scale...

~~~
confounded
Couldn’t you just get them to read a Wikipedia article? Send a shortened link?

Or say “I wonder what Islamic State’s policy objectives are?” to them, and
wait for them to search?

In a way, it’s a little nastier than book burning — casual readers go in the
fire too.

------
applecorruption
So is it now CIA have to spy everybody then ? In this crazy world, everybody
could be terrorist ?

How about search engines, do they have any responsibility in this ?

Question: What about the false flags by government.. who's watching them ?

------
Dowwie
You can legally own an arsenal of machine guns and ammo

------
carvalho
I do hope that companies like Twitter and Youtube take their responsibility.

How about 15 years of jailtime for the CEO of a company that facilitates
streaming of terrorist propaganda and child-erotic material?

------
petre
Yeah, that would totally stop terrorists.

