Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: UK to Levy 15-Year Sentences Merely for Viewing 'Far-Right'
 Material
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2024 06:35:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <vihhlv$2ej3a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <i_2dnQCbmLRnh9H6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <hegokjpch0s9ff94jb8g27csejl9g5cq6e@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2024 12:35:28 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b6eb69e03d7fc3edf9b185b1d85bf634";
	logging-data="2575466"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RQygEz6uW35VFwXzpRfl1paNg9peK1fA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6k8qUx5rCP7+kUoAyBH6Tg73dLc=
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <hegokjpch0s9ff94jb8g27csejl9g5cq6e@4ax.com>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 241201-2, 12/1/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 4108

On 2024-12-01 6:06 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Dec 2024 08:14:50 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> They can't censor the rest of the world and attempting to block anything
>> that doesn't fit the progressive' leftist narrative would be next to
>> impossible, so they've decided to make looking at anything 'not leftist' a
>> crime that can get you a 15-year bid in the can.
>>
>> This is what happens when the moviePigs of the world get their way with
>> regard to free speech.
>>
>> ----------------------
>> People in the United Kingdom could face up to fifteen years in prison for
>> repeatedly viewing "far-right propaganda" or "terrorist material" online,
>> according to a report.
>>
>> Users who view the forbidden content only once by mistake, or out of
>> curiosity, will not be charged, and it is reported that there will also be
>> protections for journalists, academics, and "others who may have a
>> legitimate reason to view such material".
>>
>> "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," declared British Home
>> Secretary Amber Rudd. "There is currently a gap in the law around material
>> [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently
>> downloaded."
> 
> I get the worry about jihadi websites, but if all they are doing is
> viewing I'm not sure how that becomes a legal matter. I've had a
> Ranger handbook that covers basic bomb and trap making for decades and
> yet I've yet to set out to hurt someone with that knowledge.
> 
> Seems to me there's a big difference between knowing something and
> applying it. Yet this law would make it illegal to know how to create
> something that could hurt others and assumes that if you are viewing
> certain material then you must be a threat to others. So there's an
> assumption of guilt built into this bill/law/whatever actually come
> into force. Hopefully it's just one more crazy idea that gets brought
> up by a law maker and then tossed into the dust bin of history.I

I agree with your point. Even more concerning to me is the definition of 
"far right". A whole lot of things get labelled "far right" by the 
progressive/Marxist crowd. Would Orwell's 1984 be deemed "far right" if 
streamed? Would videos featuring the likes of Douglas Murray, Thomas 
Sowell, or Megyn Kelly be deemed "far right"? Would videos by or about 
the Conservative Party of Canada, poised to be the next government of 
Canada, be "far right"? Who would decide what constituted "far right" 
material?

Given the activist judges and the dominance of leftist thought among the 
elites, I don't think it would be wise to just assume that everything 
would be okay if you looked at such materials.



-- 
Rhino