Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620
101 comments
That is very serious punishment for just watching the videos. Does it mean that government cannot cope with growing terrorist activity and wants to make it easier to put people they don't like to jail without having to prove that they were actually planning something or otherwise related to terrorism?
> A defence of "reasonable excuse" would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.
Reminds me of the bit from Family Guy when the police bust in to stop an act of prostitution, and the John points to the camera and says that he's filming it, so it's a porno.
The cop responds: "As long as you're filming and selling it, it's legal. Enjoy your day."
So bizarre.
Reminds me of the bit from Family Guy when the police bust in to stop an act of prostitution, and the John points to the camera and says that he's filming it, so it's a porno.
The cop responds: "As long as you're filming and selling it, it's legal. Enjoy your day."
So bizarre.
> A defence of "reasonable excuse" would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.
Subjective definitions in laws and policies is very dangerous. What makes someone an academic? What about a journalist? Somehow I doubt that a self-declaration is sufficient.
Subjective definitions in laws and policies is very dangerous. What makes someone an academic? What about a journalist? Somehow I doubt that a self-declaration is sufficient.
This seems like a bad law. I know the government doesn't plan to use it for average Joes surfing the web but even so. I quite often have a look to see what the other side is arguing in conflicts including downloading dabiq (an ISIS mag) and reading Breitbart. It shouldn't be an offence unless you get involved doing or at least supporting terrorism.
The government seems to be overreacting to the earlier days when some of the ISIS founders did their organizing and preaching in London.
The government seems to be overreacting to the earlier days when some of the ISIS founders did their organizing and preaching in London.
So, if I view footage of Amber Rudd, I'm going to jail?
Because that's what we're really talking about, here.
Because that's what we're really talking about, here.
I know... is this actually leading to scenario, where Alex Jones and Infowars are stamped to be terrorist organisation .. and if you watch any they videos you could be jailed ?
- hard to trust our governments really. We as normal poor people seems to be always the loosers and abused.
- hard to trust our governments really. We as normal poor people seems to be always the loosers and abused.
Would 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.
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.
So is it now CIA have to spy everybody then ?
In this crazy world, everybody could be terrorist ?
How about search engines, do they have any responsibility in this ?
Question: What about the false flags by government.. who's watching them ?
How about search engines, do they have any responsibility in this ?
Question: What about the false flags by government.. who's watching them ?
You can legally own an arsenal of machine guns and ammo
I do hope that companies like Twitter and Youtube take their responsibility.
How about 15 years of jailtime for the CEO of a company that facilitates streaming of terrorist propaganda and child-erotic material?
How about 15 years of jailtime for the CEO of a company that facilitates streaming of terrorist propaganda and child-erotic material?
Yeah, that would totally stop terrorists.
Words cannot describe now worrisome this is.
Actually that is precisely what words are for, which is why this announcement is a big deal.
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.
Same place I am now. Clutching my head between my hands and wondering how the world went to hell so quickly.
People were sufficiently terrorized by terrorists.
While I agree that the best time to speak up is when the precedent is being encoded into law, the phrase "better late than never" does come to mind.
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.
This is an informative article let down by a deliberately misleading statement: 'As to the government’s definition of terrorism, it has lost all meaning: remember that a peaceful protests are formally classified as “Low-level terrorism” in government training material.'
The 'government' early in the sentence refers to the UK government (the subject of the article) but the training material was published by the _US_ government, so it's irrelevant here.
It _is_ worrying, though, to see content being banned, and putting the burden of proof ('reasonable excuse') on the viewer, rather than the prosecution.
The 'government' early in the sentence refers to the UK government (the subject of the article) but the training material was published by the _US_ government, so it's irrelevant here.
It _is_ worrying, though, to see content being banned, and putting the burden of proof ('reasonable excuse') on the viewer, rather than the prosecution.
> putting the burden of proof ('reasonable excuse') on the viewer
A parent who lost his son due to terrorism would be put in jail for doing online research into the killers.
A parent who lost his son due to terrorism would be put in jail for doing online research into the killers.
Oh...shit. That is both stupefying and petrifying. More and more I feel that there is a new class war coming; and it is not rich vs poor so much as it is governments vs civilians. Really wondering whether this will be shot down or if other governments will follow suit down this road as quickly as possible.
Instinct tells me the latter is more likely. I've not been on this Earth long, but where the fuck did all my freedoms go? It's like we're standing on a sandbar watching the tide erode our liberties from under our feet. And shit, it's the ocean. We can't do anything to save our little sandbar.
Instinct tells me the latter is more likely. I've not been on this Earth long, but where the fuck did all my freedoms go? It's like we're standing on a sandbar watching the tide erode our liberties from under our feet. And shit, it's the ocean. We can't do anything to save our little sandbar.
Government as a proxy for corporations. Even the "bastion of liberal democracy" the European Union (taking over from the USA) is run by lobbyists. Secret meetings to force TTIP, ministries of transports lobbying to keep lax emission testing rules so car manufacturers can cheat, the guy who was president of the tax haven of Luxembourg being president of the European Commission.
Seems like we're returning to feudalism with the little people being serfs, while in the palaces the 1% enjoy their riches. Terror in Europe (and the export of fighters from that continent to the middle east) is borne out of little people not seeing any future and being easily influenced by talk of joining some "great" cause of Jihad...
Seems like we're returning to feudalism with the little people being serfs, while in the palaces the 1% enjoy their riches. Terror in Europe (and the export of fighters from that continent to the middle east) is borne out of little people not seeing any future and being easily influenced by talk of joining some "great" cause of Jihad...
Jihad or Nationalism. The centrists (e.g. May/Macron/Merkel) fear and yet benefit from both - they can sacrifice freedoms to sell corporatist agendas.
Meanwhile populists across the spectrum are tarred and feathered as helping the extremists (or "not being strong enough against them").
Meanwhile populists across the spectrum are tarred and feathered as helping the extremists (or "not being strong enough against them").
I have watched ISIS recruitment videos. They have pretty catchy music and are well produced, actually.
I've watched GPY stuff, older Taliban stuff, all that.
I'm not even religious and it wasn't even scholarly. I was just curious about the debate and like to see things for myself.
I'm not sure I'm going to do well in a dystopian future.p
Anyhow, freedom is not something given once. It's something constantly defended. How you do that is up to you, I suppose.
I've watched GPY stuff, older Taliban stuff, all that.
I'm not even religious and it wasn't even scholarly. I was just curious about the debate and like to see things for myself.
I'm not sure I'm going to do well in a dystopian future.p
Anyhow, freedom is not something given once. It's something constantly defended. How you do that is up to you, I suppose.
This is why Americans have the 2nd amendment
As a European I am jealous of your Bill of Rights (specially the 2nd). If only it wasn't being trampled on and used as toilet paper...
Addendum: Regarding the inevitable issue of gun violence, it has actually decreased since the early 90's https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-...
Addendum: Regarding the inevitable issue of gun violence, it has actually decreased since the early 90's https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-...
Don't say "European". The rights may be bad in the UK, but here in Germany we have rights as strong as the Bill of Rights.
No, this is why we have the first amendment. The second amendment is crap. I have no very strong opinion on whether people should be allowed to have guns, but the issue is not very relevant. Governments will always have way more force than private individuals. The important thing is to contain that force. And it is a very bad thing if just looking at what extremists have to say can get you arrested.
It's possible that having even a small capacity to use force could create a deterrent effect against those who would otherwise harm you, even if they are stronger than you are.
To give an extreme but not unprecedented example, if the government wants to wipe out all citizens of $ENEMY_TYPE_X, they might be at least slightly less willing to do so if the agents contracted to enter the homes of the citizens in question know that they are likely to face armed resistance.
EDIT for clarity: I of course do not mean that any one individual would be able to defend their home against a powerful government dedicated to destroying them.
I'm just saying that all else equal, a government considering whether to attempt to wipe out some particular group is more likely to think twice if there are likely to be costs involved in doing so.
To give an extreme but not unprecedented example, if the government wants to wipe out all citizens of $ENEMY_TYPE_X, they might be at least slightly less willing to do so if the agents contracted to enter the homes of the citizens in question know that they are likely to face armed resistance.
EDIT for clarity: I of course do not mean that any one individual would be able to defend their home against a powerful government dedicated to destroying them.
I'm just saying that all else equal, a government considering whether to attempt to wipe out some particular group is more likely to think twice if there are likely to be costs involved in doing so.
That's wrong. You can kill several cops who were only doing their job but you cannot win against army forces. You cannot defend your rights from government with a weapon.
The weapon in USA (especially long range weapon like rifles) is mostly useful for mass shootings.
The weapon in USA (especially long range weapon like rifles) is mostly useful for mass shootings.
The US army are nearly losing two wars to people with small arms and IEDs.
So, ya, isn't this post about making terrorism illegal? I feel like we've come full circle at this post.
This whole subthread is about states being heavyhanded and our options in responding.
Also, terrorism is kind of illegal already.
Also, terrorism is kind of illegal already.
In a thread about prosecuting people for watching terrorism videos, we have gone on about how the 2nd amendment gives Americans the tools to fight against the therapy of their government, and then it was pointed out the USA military is much better armed than civilians can be. Finally, the comment was made that the military could be faught with ambushes and IEDs, probably just as explained in those terrorism videos.
I just think it is really ironic.
I just think it is really ironic.
Exactly, do people even engage in critical thought or is all their thinking done for them via identity politics and media.
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.
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]
I can say even more: if an armed group of people can influence the decisions of the government or Congress or any other institution then something is very wrong (or you are living in Somalia). There cannot be two authorities.
You can remember American Civil War for example. There were people opposing the government, they had weapons but it didn't help them.
There may be cases when weapon can be necessary: for example if you live in a remote uninhabited area. But I don't think people should have a long range weapon when they are in a densely populated city.
You can remember American Civil War for example. There were people opposing the government, they had weapons but it didn't help them.
There may be cases when weapon can be necessary: for example if you live in a remote uninhabited area. But I don't think people should have a long range weapon when they are in a densely populated city.
Nope. They'll just set up around the building, peer in through the windows with binoculars, and if you appear armed snipe you from afar.
Regardless, they don't care: if you take out a few agents they'll just send in more.
Regardless, they don't care: if you take out a few agents they'll just send in more.
I didn't say or imply that an individual person would be able to fend off a government dedicating its entire resources to invading their home.
Having more force is irrelevant if it can't be properly applied. Easy when a few yahoos take over an abandoned building on federal land, a little harder when an insurgency of thousands has metastasized throughout a society.
See the outcomes of asymmetrical warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
See the outcomes of asymmetrical warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
pp is not on the wrong track. The first is clearly under assault from several quarters. Without the first we cannot even question authority much less dig in and speak about it. The second seems meant to shore up the first. I guess you have to try to think a little like a man that has only just gained his freedom and whose aim is hold and maintain that freedom for all of his and on equal footing. How would you proceed?
Either way, the costs are only ours to bear and Ms. Rudd's fantastically dystopic sales pitch seems to be selling tickets like hotcakes for a fast moving train.
The blatant assaults have become vicious. There is no authority over minds. We mustn't allow the mere access to information the means to determine or contain the freedom of the mind much less our bodies.
First they came for the children and then they came for the drugs. They are currently coming for "terror" and ache to expand that access without burdens or bounds. They will not stop until they have everything, which we must not permit.
Either way, the costs are only ours to bear and Ms. Rudd's fantastically dystopic sales pitch seems to be selling tickets like hotcakes for a fast moving train.
The blatant assaults have become vicious. There is no authority over minds. We mustn't allow the mere access to information the means to determine or contain the freedom of the mind much less our bodies.
First they came for the children and then they came for the drugs. They are currently coming for "terror" and ache to expand that access without burdens or bounds. They will not stop until they have everything, which we must not permit.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
-- probably Isoroku Yamamoto
-- probably Isoroku Yamamoto
So we can participate in Swiss-style militias in defense of our country?
No, so we can resist and overthrow a totalitarian government
Ah, so the 2nd amendement is not about militias at all?
Please be straightforward so we can communicate without ill will
James Madison says in the Federalist Papers no. 46:
"To [the standing federal army composed of 1/100 of citizens at most] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
Unfortunately, we don't have standing militias. I think we should. But the intent is obviously that an armed population can resist an oppressive government if need be.
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
Guns shouldn't be used at one's discretion. They are for private self defense and to vest ultimate power in the people. They should be tracked and approved by local governments.
I replied in the negative because the 2a was never meant to be a swiss-style defense against foreign invasion.
James Madison says in the Federalist Papers no. 46:
"To [the standing federal army composed of 1/100 of citizens at most] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
Unfortunately, we don't have standing militias. I think we should. But the intent is obviously that an armed population can resist an oppressive government if need be.
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
Guns shouldn't be used at one's discretion. They are for private self defense and to vest ultimate power in the people. They should be tracked and approved by local governments.
I replied in the negative because the 2a was never meant to be a swiss-style defense against foreign invasion.
The 2nd amendment is worthless without the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th, 7th and 8th.
I would say they are all necessary, and none sufficient without the others. The fifth and fourth prevent the government from arbitrary prosecution, which they may be inclined to do if you exercise your rights under the first in some manner they don't like, and so on.
And yes, I'm one of those that believe the 2nd is the ultimate fail-safe when the government throws the rest out the window. The technology of connectedness that has enabled the world's unprecedented run of peace and prosperity in the last century has also allowed governments an even more unprecedented power to surveil and control their populations, and it may well take a credible threat of retaliation to make them back down.
And yes, I'm one of those that believe the 2nd is the ultimate fail-safe when the government throws the rest out the window. The technology of connectedness that has enabled the world's unprecedented run of peace and prosperity in the last century has also allowed governments an even more unprecedented power to surveil and control their populations, and it may well take a credible threat of retaliation to make them back down.
This article is pretty click-baity. It claims to be about reading banned literature in the title, then when you navigate to the site it immediately says the announcement/law is actually about watching videos promoting terrorism.
The main body of the article is pretty incoherent and rambling; it never really clearly states what the law is actually about.
If you actually go read the linked BBC article[0], you'll find that what's happening is somewhat less alarming than the article would lead you to believe. From what I gather, a politician is attempting to increase the maximum sentence of an existing law from 10 to 15 years, and to apply it to streaming content rather than just downloaded content.
There are definitely free speech implications and concerns here, but it's not nearly as dire as the article would imply.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620
*Also, the subtext of the BBC article > People who repeatedly view terrorist content online will face up to 15 years in prison, the home secretary has told the Conservative Party conference.
The main body of the article is pretty incoherent and rambling; it never really clearly states what the law is actually about.
If you actually go read the linked BBC article[0], you'll find that what's happening is somewhat less alarming than the article would lead you to believe. From what I gather, a politician is attempting to increase the maximum sentence of an existing law from 10 to 15 years, and to apply it to streaming content rather than just downloaded content.
There are definitely free speech implications and concerns here, but it's not nearly as dire as the article would imply.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620
*Also, the subtext of the BBC article > People who repeatedly view terrorist content online will face up to 15 years in prison, the home secretary has told the Conservative Party conference.
> then when you navigate to the site it immediately says the announcement/law is actually about watching videos promoting terrorism.
Huh, is that somehow better? Can I not watch promotion videos for whatever reason and not go to jail? Research and journalism are obvious examples, where the politicians will say "of course those people will not get prosecuted" (until there is a journalist publishing negative stuff about said politician), but even for plain old curiosity's sake, trying to understand those people better, or whatever else you can come up with, it should be totally legal.
Huh, is that somehow better? Can I not watch promotion videos for whatever reason and not go to jail? Research and journalism are obvious examples, where the politicians will say "of course those people will not get prosecuted" (until there is a journalist publishing negative stuff about said politician), but even for plain old curiosity's sake, trying to understand those people better, or whatever else you can come up with, it should be totally legal.
Not better necessarily, but outrageously different from the article's (and original HN title's) claim that people were going to be sent to jail for 15 years for reading banned literature.
I still don't see any difference between the severity of reading banned literature or banned terrorism videos. Neither should be illegal or, failing that, punishable by a severe sentence (10 years jail is already ridiculous, let alone 15).
Is owning a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook or Mein Kampf going to be a criminal offense? What about a video version of same?
Anarchist's Cookbook, yes, probably. There has already been several convictions under this law for owning descriptions of how to make bombs. (The law dates from 2000, although the maximum sentence is now being increased from 10 to 15 years).
Mein Kampf, I'm less sure, there have been people charged with owning ISIS propaganda, but I'm not sure exactly how it worked out on appeal. (They were also convicted on other counts.)
Mein Kampf, I'm less sure, there have been people charged with owning ISIS propaganda, but I'm not sure exactly how it worked out on appeal. (They were also convicted on other counts.)
Most of the convictions have happened due to the defendant being caught for something else/more serious.
The question is, where do you draw the line, are books on basic chemistry and physics, from which can be derived illegal knowledge, also to be banned?
The question is, where do you draw the line, are books on basic chemistry and physics, from which can be derived illegal knowledge, also to be banned?
As soon as it's politically advantageous for those in power to make it so, yes.
The article is not click-baity. It uses analogy to make a point.
The blog post above adds little to the bbc article that it links to.. in fact the bbc article is clearer about what has changed -- it's not a new law (Terrorism Act 2000), and the change is from 10 years to 15 years, and it now applies to streaming terrorist videos (instead of just downloaded videos).
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620
This article is also good:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-v...
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620
This article is also good:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-v...
Thanks, we've updated the link from https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/10/britain-c..., which points to this.
Mein Kampf was banned banned banned, no ?
Later watered down and now you can buy it.
Various Hizb ut-Tahrir / Wahabi literature is banned banned banned.
Plenty of books have been banned, contrary to what the author is implying
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_gove...
Later watered down and now you can buy it.
Various Hizb ut-Tahrir / Wahabi literature is banned banned banned.
Plenty of books have been banned, contrary to what the author is implying
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_gove...
Does banning something make it go away?
No but those who ban it gain political capital for "being strong against X" where X the bogeyman of the day.
Succinctly summarises the modus-operandi of the UK Home Office's policymaking: Reactionary and fear-driven, where "fear" is defined as the current black-top newspaper headlines.
Nope, just pushes it out of public view.
It worked for drugs! /s
It makes it significantly harder.
Ie: try getting a firearm in most of Europe. Possible, but extremely hard, which is a major reason why there is so little gun violence compared to US.
Ie: try getting a firearm in most of Europe. Possible, but extremely hard, which is a major reason why there is so little gun violence compared to US.
Way to make something cool - make it illegal. Teens don't care that much about future consequences, but they get to feel tough for doing something illegal.
While 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.
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.
Right. You just need to redefine what "freedom of speech" or "freedom of press" means.
For example, "freedom of press" doesn't cover publishing whats defined as "information of non-public interest" (see Gawker). I'm not defending or accusing Gawker, just providing an example that "freedom of press" comes with a lot of exceptions and new ones are continuously added.
For example, "freedom of press" doesn't cover publishing whats defined as "information of non-public interest" (see Gawker). I'm not defending or accusing Gawker, just providing an example that "freedom of press" comes with a lot of exceptions and new ones are continuously added.
Sure. But given recent events and the increasingly blatant escalation of government power over its people it starts to become more clear that, at the root of it, "freedom of speech and of the press" means exactly that which our current governments fear the most and desperately aim to control - the freedom for all to research, dig and question the authority that governs them. It has almost become a simple interpretation. Which brings us to the second.
Complicate that with the fact that through generous corporate sponsorship we now seem to find our collective selves being led by all manner of wolves.
Complicate that with the fact that through generous corporate sponsorship we now seem to find our collective selves being led by all manner of wolves.
And an unfortunate reminder of the president's urging for a Senate investigation of the free press for publishing news he does not like.
Tweeted Oct. 5th 5:59am :
"Why Isn't the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!"
Tweeted Oct. 5th 5:59am :
"Why Isn't the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!"
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, obscenity, official and military secrets, insider trading, incitement, 'fighting words', intellectual property violations (a big one, thanks Disney), National Security Letters (yay 'warrant canaries')... and then there's things like 'free speech zones' (aka "time, place, and manner restrictions" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...). Some of those are good things to have, but nevertheless, not all of them are, and they're still 'government restrictions on speech'.
Again, the First Amendment is good to have, but people need to stop quoting it like it's a vaccine against loss of freedom of speech. The actual situation is a lot more complex.
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, obscenity, official and military secrets, insider trading, incitement, 'fighting words', intellectual property violations (a big one, thanks Disney), National Security Letters (yay 'warrant canaries')... and then there's things like 'free speech zones' (aka "time, place, and manner restrictions" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...). Some of those are good things to have, but nevertheless, not all of them are, and they're still 'government restrictions on speech'.
Again, the First Amendment is good to have, but people need to stop quoting it like it's a vaccine against loss of freedom of speech. The actual situation is a lot more complex.
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 speech. The government throwing me in jail for it would be though.
Military secrets and the like are also different, because you sign an agreement saying you will keep the secrets. Prosecution therefore isn't done under restriction of speech, it's for breach of contract.
You have a good point on things like incitement and "fighting words" tho. And I agree that we in the US are far from the ideal of truly free speech. There's a lot of ways around it that the government has come up with over the years.
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 speech. The government throwing me in jail for it would be though.
Military secrets and the like are also different, because you sign an agreement saying you will keep the secrets. Prosecution therefore isn't done under restriction of speech, it's for breach of contract.
You have a good point on things like incitement and "fighting words" tho. And I agree that we in the US are far from the ideal of truly free speech. There's a lot of ways around it that the government has come up with over the years.
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.
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.
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.
I wish there were a way to get people to care more about their rights, but I have no ideas.
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.
Yeah... unless you're protesting. Or in a group deemed "radical". Or, or, or...
Holy 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.
Reading words? Looking at pictures? Watching a video? Felony jail time? Really?
This is policy that any sane person would resist.
While i have no intention of drawing moral equivalencies: in the US, watching child pornography videos can earn you felony jail time and permanent registration on a sex offenders list. Agree or disagree with the punishment, watching a video resulting in jail time is not without precedent, even stateside.
[deleted]
Aren't there employees at facebook and NSA and the like who have to spend all day looking at material that might be child pornography to verify it is indeed such? Do they have to get special clearance or something so it's guaranteed they'll never be prosecuted for it?
which law?
"... And then the child proceeded to give the man a hand job"
Welcome to 15 years in jail.
Oh is that unreasonable? Thought crime 101.
Welcome to 15 years in jail.
Oh is that unreasonable? Thought crime 101.
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.
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.
Costa Rica? (I don't know, just putting it out there. I hear there are lots of U.S. expats there.)
https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=216...
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS ASSESSED SAN JOSE AS BEING A HIGH-THREAT LOCATION FOR CRIME DIRECTED AT OR AFFECTING OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT INTERESTS.
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS ASSESSED SAN JOSE AS BEING A HIGH-THREAT LOCATION FOR CRIME DIRECTED AT OR AFFECTING OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT INTERESTS.
The rest of Europe is still an option.
Given that the video is, at the end of the day, a Binary number; this is going to be quite interesting.
Is it about downloading the wrong number? Or watching the video? If I downloaded, it doesn't mean I watched.
Is it about downloading the wrong number? Or watching the video? If I downloaded, it doesn't mean I watched.
sigh again with the "files are numbers" thing.
Above the generous threshold of about 128 bits, any given number is vanishingly unlikely to have been derived through any other process. If your 134-byte file turns out to be valid SVG for the Cartoon Network logo, then functionally speaking it is the Cartoon Network logo because it's incredibly unlikely you just pulled those particular 1072 bits out of your ass.
Similarly, if you are in possession of a 30-million digit binary number that happens to be valid h264 for an ISIS recruitment video, "oh what a stunning coincidence" isn't going to wash.
So "files are just binary numbers" doesn't get you anywhere, at all.
https://qntm.org/number
Above the generous threshold of about 128 bits, any given number is vanishingly unlikely to have been derived through any other process. If your 134-byte file turns out to be valid SVG for the Cartoon Network logo, then functionally speaking it is the Cartoon Network logo because it's incredibly unlikely you just pulled those particular 1072 bits out of your ass.
Similarly, if you are in possession of a 30-million digit binary number that happens to be valid h264 for an ISIS recruitment video, "oh what a stunning coincidence" isn't going to wash.
So "files are just binary numbers" doesn't get you anywhere, at all.
https://qntm.org/number
To be more specific, it is a number used as an argument to a function. The bit stream input into a video decoding algorithm is what makes the video. The video binary itself is mostly nonsense.
But the other way to look at is that it would be possible to have a set of data that is essentially illegal to use one function on and legal for another function to be used. Could someone unknowingly generate or acquire a set of data that is illegal to access and own? There has already been cases of terrorists hiding information within legal media.
But the other way to look at is that it would be possible to have a set of data that is essentially illegal to use one function on and legal for another function to be used. Could someone unknowingly generate or acquire a set of data that is illegal to access and own? There has already been cases of terrorists hiding information within legal media.