Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: UK to Levy 15-Year Sentences Merely for Viewing 'Far-Right' Material
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2024 22:09:38 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <viimr2$2qto1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <i_2dnQCbmLRnh9H6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <hegokjpch0s9ff94jb8g27csejl9g5cq6e@4ax.com> <vihhlv$2ej3a$1@dont-email.me> <viigae$2oh5k$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2024 23:09:39 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1dc36c89fba1c48766e2de42ea8a186d";
	logging-data="2979585"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+BOPQYynHVp4wFjr5ByukaLkTlxvc92KY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:237/TRqLyB2p4NDdddm52jpGuLs=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 6816

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>Dec 1, 2024 at 3:35:27 AM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
>>2024-12-01 6:06 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>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.

>If you go back and look at some of Hillary Clinton's speeches from her 2008
>primary campaign against Barack Obama, the things she was saying at that time
>would have her labeled a "far-right Nazi fascist" if she said them today.

>https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1851040287713316864/vid/avc1/968x720
/YAzQZ6FccJfwe-lk.mp4?tag=16

>Regarding illegal aliens:

>HILLZ: So I think we need to have tough conditions. Bring people out of the
>shadows and if they've committed a crime, deport them. No questions asked,
>they're gone. If they've been working and are law-abiding, we should say here
>are the conditions for you staying. You have to pay a stiff fine because you
>came here illegally. You have to pay back taxes. You have to learn English.
>And you have to wait your turn in line.

>And she said these things to great applause to a crowd of Democrat voters.

>Now the Democrats want to throw open our borders and not even ask anyone who
>they are as they flood across illegally. And pay a fine? Fuck no, *we* the
>American taxpayer get to pay the fine in the form of handing them debit cards
>full of *our* money and we get to pay the bills for hundreds of thousands of
>them to stay for free in hotels around the country.

>People don't understand exactly how far the Democrat Party has lurched to the
>left in the last 20 years. Certainly if JFK were running for office today on
>the same platform he espoused in the 1960s, he'd be booted out of the Democrat
>Party altogether. He'd be a moderate Republican on today's political
>spectrum.

Similarly, both parties had BOTH liberals and conservatives in them, and
the pre-Goldwater Republican Party had a higher share of liberals than
the Democratic Party had.

The traditional Republican coalition was labor, blacks, small
businesses.

>>Would Orwell's 1984 be deemed "far right" if streamed?

>According to the leftist punditsphere, reading things like Orwell and books
>like LORD OF THE RINGS makes you a dangerous far-right extremist.

>https://youtu.be/_4EjDyK15_A?t=112

Reading Animal Farm will get you shot. Don't even think about Lord of
the Flies.

>And the Research Information and Communications Unit of the UK's
>counter-terrorism agency "Prevent" has listed LOTR and various other classic
>works of literature and various authors both modern and historical as red
>flags for "right-wing extremism":

>     Murray further noted that Prevents' Research Information
>     and Communications Unit (RICU) has previously listed
>     historical texts as red flags. Essentially, if someone is
>     reading 1984, or works by Lewis, Tolkien, Aldous Huxley,
>     or Joseph Conrad, they should be suspected of being
>     a far-right extremist terrorist. Murray's own books were
>     on the list.

>https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/16/reading-lord-of-the-rings-1984-could-lead-right-wing-extremism-govt-report-warns-douglas-murray/

>So the answer to your question is, yes, steeping yourself in Orwell's works
>would indeed put you in danger of prosecution under this law.

>Notice that Prevent has not come out with any scary list of books that
>indicate someone is a dangerous far-left extremist. Most likely because to the
>people who work at Prevent, there's no such thing as a dangerous far-left
>extremist.