Students Downloading Jihadist Material Acquitted

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Five UK students who were charged under the UK's 2000 Terrorism Act for possession of jihadist materials were acquitted after the jury found that, while they had downloaded the materials, there was no evidence that they were planning any sort of crime. The Lord Chief Justice was quoted as saying, 'Difficult questions of interpretation have been raised in this case by the attempt by the prosecution to use [this law] for a purpose for which it was not intended.'"

Comments

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[kamapuaa]

If you're trying to use history to sound smart and add gravitas to your argument, you shouldn't be so entirely ignorant and incorrect about it. Athens didn't go bankrupt from wars before the Peloponnesian War (which I assume you were referring to), it led an economic league that was at the height of its powers and ruled Mediterranean trade. Wu didn't go bankrupt, perhaps you were thinking of the Shu kingdom but more likely you were talking out of your ass, anyway the country was invaded many years after repeatedly defending itself from invasion, and was clearly the least offensive of the three kingdoms, and probably the most economically successful.

Alexander the Great & Genghis Khan didn't just have delusions of power that poetically "slipped through their fingers"- they each ruled huge, expanding empires at the time of their deaths. Genghis Khan's descendants went on to rule what would become the largest empire ever.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jdfox]

>This reads to me that any violent act meant to coerce a populous or government would be considered terrorism. That sounds like a reasonable definition.

I respectfully submit that while your intentions may be the very best in arriving at this concise definition, in practice the terms "violent act" and "coerce" are too ambiguous and subject to political manipulation in the public media to be of use here.

>The colonial rebels did nothing of the sort. They declared their independence from the crown by writing a letter, and Britain responded in force, as they deemed it was their right to do. War was waged, and the colonies were victorious.

It didn't stop at letter writing. The letter writing itself may not have been considered "terrorism" under present definitions, but the armed resistance certainly would have. The Zapatistas in Mexico also wrote letters to the Mexican state declaring their independence, after which they took up arms against the state. The Bush government has declared them to be "terrorists". Would you agree? If the Zapatistas are victorious, and obtain their autonomy, will they no longer be terrorists?

Menachem Begin was a member of the Irgun resistance group in pre-1948 Palestine. But after Israel's statehood was recognised and he signed a peace treaty with a neighboring country, he was granted the Nobel Peace Prize. Was he a terrorist? Did he stop being a terrorist once Israel was granted independence?

The distinction between terrorism and freedom-fighting is not semantics and word games. It's one of the most important political issues of our time, and defies all attempts to wave it away.