Amber Rudd to announce longer jail terms for viewing terrorist content online

[Morgen]

[QUOTE]People who repeatedly view terrorist content online will face up to 15 years in prison, the home secretary is to tell the Conservative Party conference.

Amber Rudd will set out her intention to change the law to increase the maximum penalty from 10 years.

The offence of possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist will also apply to material viewedrepeatedly or streamed online.
...
The terms of the new offence will be designed 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.
...
"I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructionsface the full force of the law," Ms Rudd said.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41479620[/url]

[ScottyWired]

Didn't I read an article oh say a MINUTE AGO where she accused tech giants of sneering at politicians

[SquidsEye]

Does /pol/ count as far-right propaganda?

[Download]

Wait what? It's illegal to read that stuff in the UK? That's pretty moronic.

[Burro]

[QUOTE=squids_eye;52741451]Does /pol/ count as far-right propaganda?[/QUOTE]

Or the Daily Mail?

Goddamn this government is stupid.

[fruxodaily]

This is gonna hurt journalist who need to view this material to write stories

[grob]

it's illegal to view a crime?

[Rocâ„¢]

Does this apply to those cases where you accidentally stumble upon it for 2 seconds?

[matt000024]

I'd argue more people need to start seeing them. It's the world we live in and people should know exactly what happens in the worst parts.

[RedDagger]

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52741487]This is gonna hurt journalist who need to view this material to write stories[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52741512]Does this apply to those cases where you accidentally stumble upon it for 2 seconds?[/QUOTE]

[quote]The terms of the new offence will be designed 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.[/quote]

That said, this is clearly just the Tories looking up to China instead of taking the necessary steps to counter terrorism. Gutting mental health services and generally fucking with the poor? Yeah, that'll help.

[Lollipoopdeck]

might as well make thought crime illegal while your at it

[GordonZombie]

Good luck enforcing this you vile cunt. Hopefully any extremists out there take note and turn their attentions on Rudd and her like instead of the general public.

[Instant Mix]

gotta love the tories

does amber rudd exist on another reality to most normal people?

[Curls]

So under that you would be arrested for someone sending you it as a prank

You would be arrested for having a RAT and it being opened on your PC by force

[wasteyboi]

As usual no actual discussion or planning on how to implement it, just a bold statement that she's going to

if they weren't so massively out of touch I'd be worried

[Curls]

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;52741540]Good luck enforcing this you vile cunt. Hopefully any extremists out there take note and turn their attentions on Rudd and her like instead of the general public.[/QUOTE]

Rudd works for the extremists in the sense that they seek to destabilize the country, and she does that for them

never going to happen

[ZombieDawgs]

Literally thought crime.

[Curls]

[QUOTE]It comes a day after Ms Rudd accused technology experts of "patronising" and "sneering" at politicians who tried to regulate their industry.[/QUOTE]

they're patronizing you because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand that your ideas are impractical and not only that, [b]DON'T EVEN WORK[/B]

they're patronizing you because you literally could not be more unrealistic and stupid.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52741487]This is gonna hurt journalist who need to view this material to write stories[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]A defence of "reasonable excuse" would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such materia[/QUOTE]

[GoingPostal13]

[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;52741535]might as well make thought crime illegal while your at it[/QUOTE]

One could argue, given the wording of the UK's 2006 Terrorism Act, in which "engaging in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to a terroristic intention" is a criminal act, that it already is.

[Kotov]

Haha come get me now Rudd, I can listen to as much ISIS nasheeds as I want over here.

[Nahash]

Wtf is considered terrorist content? If I listen to Hamas nasheeds or read the Hamas charter, is that considered terrorist content? Is watching memri considered watching terrorist content when they translate pro hezbollah content?

It's dangerously broad.

[Tamschi]

This law's ridiculous.

For comparison, Germany has one that makes the possession of 'hacking tools' illegal (under similar intent stipulations).
It's overly broad, led a lot of tech professionals to alert the authorities about themselves in protest, and as far as I know is completely unenforced.

[thisguy123]

Start rehearsing your doublethink boys, just thinking about something exploding will be next on the list!

[Cloak_Raider]

[QUOTE=thisguy123;52741802]Start rehearsing your doublethink boys, just thinking about something exploding will be next on the list![/QUOTE]

amber rudd is no where near intelligent enough for doublethink

let me know when the conservatives have worked out singlethink and then i'll be worried

[Techno Grub]

Oh fuck, I have online pdf of Dabiq issue #15 bookmarked on my browser because it had an article about Finland.

I swear I'm not affiliated I was just curious, I hope I'm not screwed.

[Mifil]

Terrorist content?
So by your definition anything related for example to Ireland is considered a terrorist content because IRA?
I do not fucking understand this shitty gov.

[Miya]

can't wait for the new rickrolling technique.

[E1025]

So going to live leak can get you jailed now?

[Ronin]

[quote]The terms of the new offence will be designed 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.[/quote]

:why: What do you gain by doing this in the first place? I highly doubt you can put all the blame on internet videos for why a terrorist organization is so effective. Could they really not find any better alternative to handling this kind of media than to arrest people for merely watching it? Not only that, but come back again later and [i]extend[/i] the length of jail time? How do you even [i]prove[/i] watching a video on the internet is [i]criminal intent[/i] unless it's something intrinsic like child porn?

[QUOTE=Wii60;52742296]can't wait for the new rickrolling technique.[/QUOTE]

Johnny Johnny, Yes Papa but instead it's a nasheed beheading video? Supposedly you'd be protected in those cases, but still.

[CP-26]

[QUOTE=grob;52741499]it's illegal to view a crime?[/QUOTE]

Sounds exactly like American School's Zero Tolerance Policies. For example, in my high school you couldn't be anywhere near a fight or you got punished: Happen to walk by as a fight is going on/getting started? You get the same punishment as the fighters. Happen to be attacked by someone? Guess who's getting the same punishment as the aggressor?

This sounds like either a poor attempt at restricting access to radicalization tools or a poorly guarded attempt at restricting people's rights to make them "Safer", either way its going to be abused I would imagine.