You can legally own an arsenal of machine guns and ammo
Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
81–90 of 102 posts
Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
#82While 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…
We don’t have D-notices, and most of the restrictions you listed exist in a more abusive sense in the UK (plus stronger defamation laws and hate speech).
Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
#83Holy 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).
Come to Chile. It's stable and safe, people are warm, and nature is gorgeous. I moved here 3 years ago instead of Canada and can't be happier.
The government barely cares about any kind of surveillance and there's no cultural trait to obsessively control everything. Chile also was the first country to sign a net neutrality law.
Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 spe…
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.
Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
We don’t have D-notices, and most of the restrictions you listed exist in a more abusive sense in the UK (plus stronger defamation laws and hate speech).
What about the 39 nations above the UK in the RSF listings? My point was that the First Amendment is not the only legal control on freedom of speech in the US; merely adopting that one line of law doesn't make the rest disappear.
Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 spe…
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…
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.
Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
#87Would 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...
Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
#88Would 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...
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.
Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
#89Words cannot describe now worrisome this is.
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.
This was 17 years ago, there is an entire generation of people who gained the right to vote in between now and when this law was passed.
Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please see my comment in response to TheSpiceIsLife. Of course you are correct that any one individual person could not effectively defend their home against a more well armed government dedicated to defeating them, but that in no way refutes my point.
If there will be a group of armed people actively opposing government agents, then it will become a band of criminals. And if there will be larger united group of people (a whole state or region for example) then there will be a civil war.
[deleted]