Rudd changing law regarding internet radicalisation to convict more bedroom Islamists

Not very happy about this at all.

Merely watching something should be illegal? Indulging in curiosity is illegal? Putting aside people that might watch it that arent Extremists, is the best solution really to just arrest them? A better solution would be assessing whether they might be a danger and acting accordingly.

I cant go too much into the second part, but I disagree.

Reply 2

Chakede

OP

15

Original post by Farm_Ecology

Not very happy about this at all.

Merely watching something should be illegal? Indulging in curiosity is illegal? Putting aside people that might watch it that arent Extremists, is the best solution really to just arrest them? A better solution would be assessing whether they might be a danger and acting accordingly.

I cant go too much into the second part, but I disagree.

you could same the same about child porn? i dont see why islamist propaganda cant be outlawed in same way

Reply 3

Plantagenet Crown

20

Those spouting backward, discriminatory and extreme aspects of Islamic dogma should rightfully be monitored.

Reply 4

Original post by Chakede

you could same the same about child porn?

This is true. The primary argument against watching child porn is that it financially supports the creators of the content. Which certainly could apply to terrorist organizations as well.

To me though, they are comparable, and in the case of child porn the watcher should be watched and not necessarily arrested (unless they pay for it)

Original post by Chakede

i dont see why islamist propaganda cant be outlawed in same way

Maybe it should. But when it comes to the distribution of illegal content, the charge should lie with the supplier not the consumer.

Reply 5

Chakede

OP

15

Original post by Farm_Ecology

This is true. The primary argument against watching child porn is that it financially supports the creators of the content. Which certainly could apply to terrorist organizations as well.

To me though, they are comparable, and in the case of child porn the watcher should be watched and not necessarily arrested (unless they pay for it)

Maybe it should. But when it comes to the distribution of illegal content, the charge should lie with the supplier not the consumer.

ture- but unfortunatly the supplier is often protected and untraceable.

Reply 6

Drewski

Original post by Chakede

Also 15 years for posting inflammatory and instigatory comments about uk armed forces and and police

That's plenty of people here who are **** out of luck then.

Reply 7

Chakede

OP

15

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Those spouting backward, discriminatory and extreme aspects of Islamic dogma should rightfully be monitored. And several TSR posters fit those criteria...

do you think TSR mods are taking note?

Reply 8

999tigger

Original post by Farm_Ecology

Not very happy about this at all.

Merely watching something should be illegal? Indulging in curiosity is illegal? Putting aside people that might watch it that arent Extremists, is the best solution really to just arrest them? A better solution would be assessing whether they might be a danger and acting accordingly.

I cant go too much into the second part, but I disagree.

You should wait until you see the laws first It will be evidence beyond curiosity.

Reply 9

Original post by Farm_Ecology

Maybe it should. But when it comes to the distribution of illegal content, the charge should lie with the supplier not the consumer.

This is naive in the extreme. The supplier is, most likely, tucked away behind a cloud of impenetrable internet secrecy or physically in an Islamist stronghold - completely invulnerable to our national laws.

The only way such materials can be policed is with the consumer. There is no doubt they should be policed, just as child pornography and materials likely to be of use in terrorism (like bomb-making instructions) are, as they seek to create new terrorists and are a direct threat to national security.

The primary argument about possession of child pornography is that it encourages the exploitation of children. The financial aspects are secondary. The same applies to the material under discussion here: it fosters sedition (as it is designed to do).

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 10

Original post by Good bloke

The only way such materials can be policed is with the consumer.

But my point is I dont think they should be policed. Going back to my point that viewing something shouldn't be illegal. The concern is that such materials might lead to them becoming radicalized.

Im not a fan of minority-report style policing where we arrest people for looking at something that might lead to them to commit an actual crime at some point in the future depending on various other factors.

Reply 11

Ninja Squirrel

20

Original post by Farm_Ecology

Not very happy about this at all.

Merely watching something should be illegal? Indulging in curiosity is illegal? Putting aside people that might watch it that arent Extremists, is the best solution really to just arrest them? A better solution would be assessing whether they might be a danger and acting accordingly.

I cant go too much into the second part, but I disagree.

As far as I know the law applies to those who regularly download and store the content. Not for simply watching it online.

Reply 12

Drewski

Original post by Farm_Ecology

But my point is I dont think they should be policed. Going back to my point that viewing something shouldn't be illegal. The concern is that such materials might lead to them becoming radicalized.

Im not a fan of minority-report style policing where we arrest people for looking at something that might lead to them to commit an actual crime at some point in the future depending on various other factors.

The original quote says repeated viewing. That's an important distinction.

Reply 13

Original post by Farm_Ecology

But my point is I dont think they should be policed.

I suspect most of the country disagrees with you. Extreme liberalism is not actually very liberal or practical: it leads to very undesirable outcomes.

Reply 14

Original post by Drewski

The original quote says repeated viewing. That's an important distinction.

Its still merely watching it.

I repeatedly read the Independent, I don't agree with most of it.

Original post by Good bloke

I suspect most of the country disagrees with you.

I suspect you're wrong about that. While not everyone might agree with me in this case, many would if it came to banning watching documentaries critical of Islam.

Reply 15

the beer

14

Sounds like this is mainly about getting the streamers as well as the downloaders which is reasonable, still harping on about encryption though. :frown:

Reply 16

Drewski

Original post by Farm_Ecology

Its still merely watching it.

How about you wait and actually read the proposed law, rather than jumping to conclusions.

Reply 17

Original post by Farm_Ecology

many would if it came to banning watching documentaries critical of Islam.

Of course. One piece of literature seeks to turn our citizens into fighters against us, the other merely seeks to expose the flaws of an ideology. A critique of the UK state would also be fair enough. Inciting our citizens to insurrection would not.

Reply 18