Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#41

Post by ykler »

rjeli wrote: post #40
wcarron wrote: post #4

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 fre…

This is why Americans have the 2nd amendment

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.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#42

Post by seorphates »

21 wrote: post #29
ISL wrote: post #20

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.

Right. You just need to redefine what "freedom of speech" or "freedom of press" means. For example, "freedom of press" doesn't cover publishing whats defined as "information of non-public interest" (see Gawker). I'm not defending or accusing Gawker, just providing an example that "freedom of press" comes with a lot of exceptions and new ones are continuously added.

Sure. But given recent events and the increasingly blatant escalation of government power over its people it starts to become more clear that, at the root of it, "freedom of speech and of the press" means exactly that which our current governments fear the most and desperately aim to control - the freedom for all to research, dig and question the authority that governs them. It has almost become a simple interpretation. Which brings us to the second.

Complicate that with the fact that through generous corporate sponsorship we now seem to find our collective selves being led by all manner of wolves.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#44

Post by freedomben »

negativity wrote: post #27

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.

Where would you go? (serious question, not a troll. I'd love to have some basic idea of where to go should things get bad enough in the US).

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#45

Post by mandelbrotwurst »

ykler wrote: post #41
rjeli wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why Americans have the 2nd amendment

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.

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.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#46

Post by csomar »

negativity wrote: post #27

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.

Given that the video is, at the end of the day, a Binary number; this is going to be quite interesting.

Is it about downloading the wrong number? Or watching the video? If I downloaded, it doesn't mean I watched.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#47

Post by 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.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#48

Post by weirdstuff »

freedomben wrote: post #44
negativity wrote: post #27

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.

Where would you go? (serious question, not a troll. I'd love to have some basic idea of where to go should things get bad enough in the US).

Costa Rica? (I don't know, just putting it out there. I hear there are lots of U.S. expats there.)

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#49

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #45
ykler wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Nope. They'll just set up around the building, peer in through the windows with binoculars, and if you appear armed snipe you from afar.

Regardless, they don't care: if you take out a few agents they'll just send in more.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#50

Post by freedomben »

vacri wrote: post #32
ISL wrote: post #20

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.

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 An example of why it rates so low: https://rsf.org/en/news/us-rsf-concerned-second-wave-journal... 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…

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.

Post reply on HN