Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    • Offline

      20
      (Original post by Drewski)
      The original quote says repeated viewing. That's an important distinction.
      What do you think journalists, researchers, and historians do when reporting on or writing about Islamic State's propaganda?
      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.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Arran90)
      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.
      Yet he completed his research and gained a doctorate.
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      I follow the war in Syria and Iraq through sites like reddit, and to do this I have watched a hell of a lot of combat footage released by the groups themselves, including groups like ISIS and HTS/JFS/Nusra and others. i.e. It is basically "terrorist propaganda". Some of it is quite graphic, and a lot of it set to Islamic nasheeds or has Islamist messages in it. This footage is absolutely vital for documenting the conflict there, the tactics groups use, how they operate, what motivates them, and the human rights abuses that take place. In the future it will be an important historical resource. Take that away and we have very little footage of what goes on.

      So by following the conflict this way, I am actually breaking this law, or would be if and when this law is introduced. So I challenge anyone who supports this authoritarian nonsense to justify it from that angle. I'm not a journalist or a researcher officially, I'm just an ordinary citizen, but even actual journalists are going to have issues if certain material ends up being off limits if the police say so. This law is going to hinder the documentation of conflicts like Syria.

      That's aside from the fact that it looks very much like one of those laws a government could use against almost anyone if they wanted to, given how famously vague the word "terrorist" can be.
      Online

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Chakede)
      do you think TSR mods are taking note?
      Lol!
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
      So by following the conflict this way, I am actually breaking this law.
      Pedant mode on, but no you're not, as the law doesn't yet exist.
      Online

      16
      ReputationRep:
      I think it would be pretty difficult to get a conviction for merely "repeated watching", or uphold it through appeal, without any further contextual evidence.
      I can't see how a court could convict someone who, as well as repeated viewing of such material, also publicly opposes and criticises the ideology and groups that promote it. On the other hand, if the suspect had an online history of support for said ideology and defence of their actions, a conviction would seem more reasonable.
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Drewski)
      Pedant mode on, but no you're not, as the law doesn't yet exist.
      You know what I mean. I will be breaking this law if and when it is introduced.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
      I follow the war in Syria and Iraq through sites like reddit, and to do this I have watched a hell of a lot of combat footage released by the groups themselves, including groups like ISIS and HTS/JFS/Nusra and others. i.e. It is basically "terrorist propaganda". Some of it is quite graphic, and a lot of it set to Islamic nasheeds or has Islamist messages in it. This footage is absolutely vital for documenting the conflict there, the tactics groups use, how they operate, what motivates them, and the human rights abuses that take place. In the future it will be an important historical resource. Take that away and we have very little footage of what goes on.

      So by following the conflict this way, I am actually breaking this law. So I challenge anyone who supports this authoritarian nonsense to justify it from that angle. I'm not a journalist or a researcher officially, I'm just an ordinary citizen, but even actual journalists are going to have issues if certain material ends up being off limits if the police say so. This law is going to hinder the documentation of conflicts like Syria.

      That's aside from the fact that it looks very much like one of those laws a government could use against almost anyone if they wanted to, given how famously vague the word "terrorist" can be.
      Rudd said this is filling the gap in the law which currently makes it illegal to download Islamist material but not to stream it. The law currently is only breached if the material is possessed in order to further terrorist activities. If this really is only filling the gap, there is no reason to think it would cause people to be prosecuted for merely having viewed the material.

      Also there are generally journalist/researcher exceptions to these laws.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
      You know what I mean. I will be breaking this law if and when it is introduced.
      ...I did say it was pedantry.
      Offline

      8
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Drewski)
      ...I did say it was pedantry.
      I thought viewing extremist material was already illegal and that this just increases sentences and makes it easier to get streamers?
      Online

      21
      ReputationRep:
      Good, we need to keep the public safe and do everything we can to prevent radicalisation.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Chakede)
      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?
      I don't necessarily want a blanket ban. As someone who claims to be an advocate of free speech to its sensible limits, I am obligated to defend even viewpoints I dislike. Islamic dogma - provided it does not class for example non-Muslims as inferior, call for violence or otherwise have a direct causal link to violence or discrimination by arbitration (as in discrimination by PERSONAL factors is acceptable provided those factors are controllable by said individual or group thereof) - should be permitted. For example I know a part of Muslim dogma is to say 'all Westerners are alcoholics' which, whilst easily disprovable, is simply unpleasant and therefore permissible. The idea Sharia is superior? Fine. The idea it should be imposed and democracy shut down? Unacceptable, democracy is too fundamental to everyone's rights to risk it being removed. Advocating democratic Sharia? As much as I dislike it, acceptable. My point is I do not wish to allow the government the ability to shut down thought crimes merely on their interpretation of what should be acceptable - the highest standard of accountability and rights protection should be paramount. British governments have a history of trying to intrude far beyond these lines, so I think everyone should regard this with skepticism as it doesn't just outright state terrorist or incitement content, but rather merely that which is dogma. MRA's have dogma. Feminists have dogma. The government has dogma. Dogma is simply part of ideology.

      The glorifying terrorist groups is again a fine line, does it mean their aims or their methods? There are plenty of eco-terrorists. Do we therefore ban all discussions about preservation carried out by said group because they firebombed a factory or whatever? In principle I agree with this provided the definition of terrorist is applied properly, not just to everyone the government deems undesirable.

      Posting about the police I disagree with. Citizens have every right to say I f**king hate the police, they're racist, sexist, power tripping scumbags and we don't need them (even though my opinion is the opposite). That's free society. As aforementioned however calls to violence or incitement should be illegal but as far as I'm aware there are already laws. It is not the fault of someone who criticises the police as for example racist, provided they affirm the importance of changing the system through legal means and condemn any non legal methods (this was my criticism of BLM that they were silent on racist violence towards white people and the injuring of police officers, failing to condemn or disavow or even acknowledge the existence of such and NEVER, even despite the problems, affirmed the necessity for legality), that some idiot decides the way to fix that problem is to go blast a bunch of cops any more than it is the fault of a public figure who says 'I hate mars bars' that someone blows up a mars truck. There should however be an upgrade to any calls for violence, plans for violence or legitimate threats, treat it as for example attempted murder, we should be looking out for our officers.
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      Look at what other bills the Tories have pushed trhough wrt internet safety and cyber security...

      This is clearly going to be a total **** up.
      • Offline

        20
        (Original post by mojojojo101)
        Look at what other bills the Tories have pushed trhough wrt internet safety and cyber security...

        This is clearly going to be a total **** up.
        That is an inflammatory and instigatory comment.

        Enjoy your 15 years in jail!
        • Community Assistant
        Offline

        20
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
        That's aside from the fact that it looks very much like one of those laws a government could use against almost anyone if they wanted to, given how famously vague the word "terrorist" can be.
        Well that's probably the the entire point, isn't it? Another tool they can use to detain people awaiting further evidence. Or maybe to collar people they think are highly suspect before they actually do anything. Plus maybe a bit of a morale boost for those in the general public who are more fearful.
        Offline

        11
        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.
        https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-years-in-jail

        According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.
        So there you go. In practice I doubt this law will achieve much anyway. It's too easy to evade, and even if you are somehow caught viewing "extremist" content, unless you are caught along side bomb making materials or detailed terrorist plots, it would be very difficult to prove any criminal intent.

        Just faff and empty political posturing by the looks of it. One of those useless "Hey look, we're doing something" laws that weak governments love to pass.
        Offline

        8
        ReputationRep:
        The law is so vague I can be prosecuted for memes, i watch so many terrorist memes its not fair, WHAT ABOUT THE MEMES.
       
       
       
      Reply
      Submit reply
      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
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • 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

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