Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
news.sky.com
Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
#2While intent of dissemination is no doubt weighed this bodes nothing well for those who monitor/track fighting groups and their actions.
Those ancillary to the targeted group are no doubt targeted due to being ancillary to a targeted group that can potentially pass on the inflammatory media to someone else who may possibly give it some ear.
Or maybe one of them is a sysadmin, someone is getting targeted for prosecution here. Maybe not prosecution perhaps just hacking to potentially prosecute others for possible terrorist actions. Lord this hurts.
Re: Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
#3"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.
Re: Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
#4Since 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?
Re: Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
#5The comments on the article are much more interesting than the article itself.
Re: Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
#6"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.
>I'm guessing classified information can get you in trouble somehow.
It can't. It's not illegal to read classified material in the US unless you work for the government. Leaking it is a different story.
Re: Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
#7Censorship 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
Re: Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
#8"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.
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.
Re: Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
#9Orwell wept.
Re: Radical Islam Website Readers May Be Prosecuted
#10IANAL, 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: