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

well shit, my massive reference collection of home made guns & such stuff for making 3D art with will soon be illegal. Better delete that part of my brain that knows how to make a shotgun or I could be an entire terrorist

Yeah let all the actual extremists congregate in a real life situation, great idea. My Government has been the greatest yet, I love Theresa May and her Conservative party's logic! /s You do this and 10 years down the line they'll have already made plans to bomb somewhere. No doubt about it.

You can go to jail for viewing propaganda? Lmao

[QUOTE=Del91;52742697]You can go to jail for viewing propaganda? Lmao[/QUOTE] Not even like most of us take it literally, just that niche group they aim for. I laugh at them, almost like a pass-time with my partner. Trying to show off their 'weaponry' (wasn't made by them..) or their combat skills, that one video where the man drops a grenade in a vehicle so they all bail. It's mostly just shits and giggles

Welp there goes a number of viewerbase on liveleak

[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;52741535]might as well make thought crime illegal while your at it[/QUOTE] Careful... They haven't made Thinking illegal! (Yet) :v:

No thank you Amber Rudd. Pretty soon you'll be calling all political opposition terrorism.

[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] This takes this law from profoundly stupid to very confusing to me. If people who view out of curiosity are actually protected, then basically everyone who isn't currently building a bomb would be protected regardless of intent. And if it doesn't innocent people go to jail. The only reason for this law that I can think of is to tack on to conspiracy charges, or if they can get you for something else terror related. Then they could increase the sentence by 15 years. But then why not make that a prerequisite for this charge? Even then, this is essentially a thought crime. I'd give the UK shit for hurting free speech, but my country is being shitty about that too.

[QUOTE=GamerKiwi;52743657]This takes this law from profoundly stupid to very confusing to me. If people who view out of curiosity are actually protected, then basically everyone who isn't currently building a bomb would be protected regardless of intent. And if it doesn't innocent people go to jail. The only reason for this law that I can think of is to tack on to conspiracy charges, or if they can get you for something else terror related. Then they could increase the sentence by 15 years. But then why not make that a prerequisite for this charge? Even then, this is essentially a thought crime. [B]I'd give the UK shit for hurting free speech, but my country is being shitty about that too.[/B][/QUOTE] Don't wimp out on giving a shit. Don't withold shit that needs to be given. If you do, you'll just be backed up with a lot of shit with even more shit just dangling out of your arsehole and getting everything else covered in shit in the process.

[quote]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] Jesus christ. A "legitimate reason" to view an opinion? How about wanting to learn more about something? What is this, an Orwell novel?

I think everyone has a more justifiable reason to watch the state of the world and the ideas of terrorist organisations straight from their own sources more so than to watch Gogglebox. Why do people watch Gogglebox?

Fuck you these Nasheeds are lit.

Besides all of the typical fearmongering and "it's gonna be 1984 tomorrow folks shit", like most UK legislation I imagine it will be accompanied by a reasonable action clause. So if you look at the content for journalism, or curiosity you won't be banged up in a blacksite. However if there is evidence you are repeatedly reading and sharing that sort of content the government has power to do something about it.

[QUOTE=KillerLUA;52746315]Besides all of the typical fearmongering and "it's gonna be 1984 tomorrow folks shit", like most UK legislation I imagine it will be accompanied by a reasonable action clause. So if you look at the content for journalism, or curiosity you won't be banged up in a blacksite. However if there is evidence you are repeatedly reading and sharing that sort of content the government has power to do something about it.[/QUOTE] It just seems like an odd way to phrase it - why not ban the [I]dissemination[/I] of information that actively promotes violence in general, rather than ban [I]viewing[/I] that content in itself? Even with a reasonable action clause, it seems overly restrictive. If I'm not an academic, but I'm interested in terrorist propaganda tactics, I shouldn't have to worry about the government cracking down on me for simply viewing the content. If I spread it, sure, take action - but simply viewing it shouldn't be criminalized imo.

My dad, school and books taught me more about terrorism than the internet ever did and he's not even affiliated that way. He's just an ex-squaddie who served in Northern Ireland and I just read a broad range of novels and science books from the library as a kid. Thanks to that I know nitrate fertilizer+diesel+cheap electrical device=big boom. Or that polystyrene mixed with petrol makes napalm and so forth. This law seems overly broad but what does Amber Rudd know? She's got big ambitions and poor execution.

[QUOTE=grob;52741499]it's illegal to view a crime?[/QUOTE] Could you equate someones ip sitting in a thread on /pol/ for X amount of time, to holding a seat in an ancient roman Curia where important descisons are discussed and being made? Possibly. Regardless of whether you partake in decission making, or merely observe, your presence gives credance to the goings on within the room. "Dont look at it, looking at it gives it power!"

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;52747097]My dad, school and books taught me more about terrorism than the internet ever did and he's not even affiliated that way. He's just an ex-squaddie who served in Northern Ireland and I just read a broad range of novels and science books from the library as a kid. Thanks to that I know nitrate fertilizer+diesel+cheap electrical device=big boom. Or that polystyrene mixed with petrol makes napalm and so forth. This law seems overly broad but what does Amber Rudd know? She's got big ambitions and poor execution.[/QUOTE] Thanks, now I can't even look at this thread since it has bomb making instructions.