• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Fossildog

15 years in jail for viewing far right material online

Recommended Posts

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jail

 

Quote

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded. 

 

Amber Rudd has announced possible jail sentences of up to 15 years for viewing far right propaganda material online.

I wonder if it will be qualified what is classed as far right? Also, whilst I can completely understand repeated viewing of jihadi websites or bomb making instructions as being an offence worthy of jail, the punishing of people viewing far right material smacks of more of a thought crime. I don't think holding opinions, even contentious ones, is illegal yet Rudd appears to want to make this so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fossildog said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jail

 

 

Amber Rudd has announced possible jail sentences of up to 15 years for viewing far right propaganda material online.

I wonder if it will be qualified what is classed as far right? Also, whilst I can completely understand repeated viewing of jihadi websites or bomb making instructions as being an offence worthy of jail, the punishing of people viewing far right material smacks of more of a thought crime. I don't think holding opinions, even contentious ones, is illegal yet Rudd appears to want to make this so.

So what constitutes "Far right propaganda"? 

That Stormfront website that is often quoted in the media?  

Breitbart? Britain First / EDL Facebook pages? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WorkingPoor said:

So what constitutes "Far right propaganda"? 

That Stormfront website that is often quoted in the media?  

Breitbart? Britain First / EDL Facebook pages? 

Exactly. It can mean anything they want it to mean whilst it suits their agenda. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do it online, come to Pin Castle, and read the books my ex-GF got me on WW2 German ranks and regalia.

Edited by MrPin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fossildog said:

said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.

translate: plans to enforce against people using free tv/film streaming sites and also censor all internet content. Will dosbods be thought crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fully Detached said:

The way things have been heading I could honestly see Douglas Murray being classed as a hate speaker in the not too distant future. However, I do think we're approaching a fairly critical juncture which will ultimately define the public mentality for the next few decades, and I think it's by no means certain that the loony left are going to take the day. It only feels like it because they're yapping so loud.

I think in some circles, him and people like Sam Harris are already on some organisations 'hate lists'.

Which would genuinely worry me if I were them. Some of these people are complete mental cases who are just looking for an excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, This Time said:

I'd be happier about this if I was aware of any cases of someone being prosecuted for downloading Inspire magazine (ISIS) - it gets 50k downloads per quarter in the UK so they should have been able to do someone for it. This is just an excuse to prosecute islamorealists while allowing jihadis to walk our streets.

If that is the intent then it will just expose even more issues and attacks will continue.

No mention of far left extremism?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Fossildog said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jail

 

 

Amber Rudd has announced possible jail sentences of up to 15 years for viewing far right propaganda material online.

I wonder if it will be qualified what is classed as far right? Also, whilst I can completely understand repeated viewing of jihadi websites or bomb making instructions as being an offence worthy of jail, the punishing of people viewing far right material smacks of more of a thought crime. I don't think holding opinions, even contentious ones, is illegal yet Rudd appears to want to make this so.

What if, like Pete Townsend you've just gone on there for research?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fully Detached said:

The way things have been heading I could honestly see Douglas Murray being classed as a hate speaker in the not too distant future. However, I do think we're approaching a fairly critical juncture which will ultimately define the public mentality for the next few decades, and I think it's by no means certain that the loony left are going to take the day. It only feels like it because they're yapping so loud.

Get someone on who holds extremist views. Person will go unchallenged to claim victim status and slander anyone who disagrees with them as a 'hate preacher' by the lefty lobotomised, shit where's the autocue, BBC 'journalist' . A day later offer a quick apology. Repeat another day with another extremist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BLOOLOO said:

Amber Rudd is an idiot.  ANY viewing is a download...you cant view it without the download.

Well, to be fair to Rudd, it is the law that is an ass.

Or, rather, the people who wrote the law seem to be a bit like my dad, and use tech words as though they're familiar with them, but then get into trouble because they don't use the word properly / keep on using the wrong word, and make it even worse by going into (entirely wrong) specifics.

I could well imaging that instead of saying 'watched a video of extremist material' it said 'watched a video recording of extremist material' (so, live feed okay?) or 'watched a film (celluloid or a video tape recording or a video-disk technology)' (what is the internet?), or 'downloaded or viewed a file from a remote server which contained offensive video content' (what is this about 'file'?).

But of course, this is how the lawyers work -- you don't get paid so much if you don't write so much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, axolotl said:

Get someone on who holds extremist views. Person will go unchallenged to claim victim status and slander anyone who disagrees with them as a 'hate preacher' by the lefty lobotomised, shit where's the autocue, BBC 'journalist' . A day later offer a quick apology. Repeat another day with another extremist.

Yep, I include the So-Called BBC in my category of loony left. Others are jumping on the band wagon, but the the So-Called BBC are out there blazing the trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fossildog said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jail

 

 

Amber Rudd has announced possible jail sentences of up to 15 years for viewing far right propaganda material online.

I wonder if it will be qualified what is classed as far right? Also, whilst I can completely understand repeated viewing of jihadi websites or bomb making instructions as being an offence worthy of jail, the punishing of people viewing far right material smacks of more of a thought crime. I don't think holding opinions, even contentious ones, is illegal yet Rudd appears to want to make this so.

Yeah saw this and thought what a load of shit - issues already identified here. What constitutes whatever the government of the day decides is a thought crime.

Fuck. Right. Off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JFK said:

Yeah saw this and thought what a load of shit - issues already identified here. What constitutes whatever the government of the day decides is a thought crime.

Fuck. Right. Off.

 

Especially when Corbyn could get in in a few years and will massively increase the size and scope of hate crimes to be anything to the right of Harriet Harman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MrPin said:

Information is "available". You can't stop it. That is all. I have spoken again.:o

You can stop people looking for it though, this is bringing about some fucking awful future where thought is not even allowed. 

She can't be allowed to bring this, or any dangerous legislation in, even a watered down version of this!

 

Edited by Carl Fimble
though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.