Turn on thread page Beta

Rudd changing law regarding internet radicalisation to convict more bedroom Islamists watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Speaking at Consvervative conference in manchester - proposing to make repeating viewing ( including streaming) of islamic dogma and glorifying terrorist groups punishable by 15 years.
    Also 15 years for posting inflammatory and instigatory comments about uk armed forces and and police


    About time?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Those spouting backward, discriminatory and extreme aspects of Islamic dogma should rightfully be monitored.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like this is mainly about getting the streamers as well as the downloaders which is reasonable, still harping on about encryption though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    What do you think journalists, researchers, and historians do when reporting on or writing about Islamic State's propaganda?
    They generally benefit from exceptions to similar laws, as do the police of course.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    What do you think journalists, researchers, and historians do when reporting on or writing about Islamic State's propaganda?
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    They generally benefit from exceptions to similar laws, as do the police of course.
    I suggest you discuss this with Dr Rizwaan Sabir. Hard experience has revealed that university academics need permission of the police to carry out research involving certain publications. Counter terrorism laws are a blow to academic freedom because certain materials are legally off-limits if the police say no.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 6, 2017
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.