UK Police Warn Sharing James Foley Killing Video Is a Crime

An anonymous reader points out that UK authorities have warned that sharing the video of the James Foley murder could lead to prosecution under anti-terror laws. Scotland Yard has warned internet users they could be arrested under terrorism legislation if they viewed or shared the video of James Foley's murder, as Twitter and YouTube attempted to remove all trace of the footage from the web. Twitter suspended dozens of accounts that published the graphic footage while YouTube tried to remove several copies of the video, which was first uploaded on Tuesday night. Twitter CEO Dick Costolo tweeted: "We have been and are actively suspending accounts as we discover them related to this graphic imagery. Thank you." The unprecedented social media clampdown came as the Metropolitan police warned that even viewing the video could constitute a criminal offence in the UK. The force said in a statement: "The MPS counter-terrorism command (SO15) is investigating the contents of the video that was posted online in relation to the alleged murder of James Foley. We would like to remind the public that viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under terrorism legislation."

Comments

Jurisdiction 101

[TitusC3v5]

Good luck with that.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Anonymous Coward]

See http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/08/21/is-viewing-a-video-a-criminal-offence-under-terrorism-law/?Authorised=false for a suggestion that the police press office is making at least the viewing part up.

Their press release should really say which law(s) apply..

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Anonymous Coward]

In summary, when asked the Met police couldn't explain why it was illegal or quote appropriate legislation but insisted it definitely was illegal, honest.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Anonymous Coward]

Might makes right: if someone with more power than you says you can't do something, then you cannot do it. There are no noble and high principles that can stand up to reality. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Get over it.

Re:Jurisdiction 101

[geogob]

If you believe jurisdiction questions are more important to the officials in the UK than in USA, you should go back and review some history lessons. Actually, the only people who care less about international law and jurisdiction than the those in the USA, are those in the UK.

Re:Jurisdiction 101

[AmiMoJo]

The point of saying this is so that if they decide they want to put pressure on someone for whatever reason they can datarape their computer and mobile phone looking for stuff like this, and then slap some terrorism charges on them. It's a common modus operandi here for the police.

For example, say they raid your house by mistake due to incompetence. They will take your computer and any other electronic devices they find anyway, just to "do a thorough investigation". They will look for anything, absolutely anything at all that they could charge you with, because now they are looking at a massive compensation bill and loss of face. Flimsy evidence of terrorism or paedophilia are their favourites, and even if the charges are dropped later by that time the Daily Mail has blackened your name and moved on to some other unfortunate victim. Time for a few Right to be Forgotten requests.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Thanshin]

There is no written law because writing laws about watching the video, is a crime.

The Police Press Officer couldn't explain that because explaining that writing laws about watching the video is a crime, is a crime.

Please don't mod this up, as modding up a post commenting the fact that explaining that writing laws about watching the video is a crime, is a crime.

(Yes I did miss one "is a crime" a the end of that sentence, but, yep, you guessed it, not missing the last "is a crime", is a crime, is a c... hmmm...)

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Wootery]

Errr... the UK still has an reasonable approximation of a well-functioning court system. That the police say something is illegal isn't enough to get you thrown in jail.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Wootery]

There is no written law because writing laws about watching the video, is a crime.

You joke, but that's not far off the thinking behind the First Amendment.

(To pre-empt any smart-assery: yes, I'm aware there's no First Amendment in the UK.)

Re:Jurisdiction 101

[pla]

Funny thing about banning something like this - It creates an audience that didn't previously exist.

I had zero interest in this whole situation, but now that some repressive backwater dipshits have banned it? Into the collection it goes!

'Course, I live in the US, not the UK, and we consider that sort of footage "Primetime TV", but the principle still stands. You ban it, I will find a copy.

/ No, that doesn't apply to CP, Mr. Hansen, move along ya old perv.

Re:Jurisdiction 101

[Anonymous Coward]

Those countries were not sovereign. It was quite simple for the UK to prove that ;)

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Thanshin]

(To pre-empt any smart-assery: yes, I'm aware there's no First Amendment in the UK.)

OR, there but it's a crime to talk about it.

Maybe the First Amendment of the United Kingdom is "you do not talk about the First Amendment of the United Kingdom".

Once you start forbidding expression, it all becomes pretty confusing; or a crime; or both.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[turgid]

Errr... the UK still has an reasonable approximation of a well-functioning court system. That the police say something is illegal isn't enough to get you thrown in jail.

It is under Tony Blair's Anti-Terror Laws. You only need to be suspected of something that could be vaguely related to terrorism to be locked up. No jury trial involved, just the police, some politicians and a few judges.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[DiamondGeezer]

We've never had freedom of expression in the UK. Or Freedom of Speech. Or Government by the consent of the people.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[sillybilly]

Maybe multiple 9mm shots are preferable to behading, on the beheadee's part, because, as during the French revolution they found out, people could keep blinking after their head was cut, for various lengths, but most around 35 seconds or so. So you don't die instantly, and experience horror for at least 35 seconds.

Btw the UK may not have a Freedom of Speech 1st amendment right for it's population, it's good to live in the USA, where you can say anything. At least I try to say anything on Slashdot, and I'm still not dead yet, nor in jail over it.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[sillybilly]

By the way most movies coming out of Hollywood are action movies, where something happens, somebody either gets killed, or something blows up, or there is a car chase, or in general it's about guns, sex, and violence. That's what sells, so if you can see that in a movie, why not this one? Wait, one is "fictional" grueling details of historical events, such as King Henry the VIII's wives' heads rolling, vs. this one that's "real" in the more near present history. don't really understand what's the big deal in watching the gruely details of a video - which I haven't watched, nor interested in it - when people who want to see nasty things can watch, for instance a surgery movie, to see guts. Or go work in a butcher shop, where you get to slice and dies cows or chickens for bloody body parts, and even just going to the supermarket, it's fully of bloody meat everywhere.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Wootery]

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Ol Olsoc]

We've never had freedom of expression in the UK. Or Freedom of Speech. Or Government by the consent of the people.

We noticed that.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[TitusGroan8856]

there is actually, but it's called Article 10 of the ECHR and it's wording it "Freedom of Expression" and it has more limitations than the First Amendment (but sensible exceptions like being able to outlaw racism)

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Pino Grigio]

I suppose it could be argued under existing anti-terrorism legislation, but then accidentally driving in a bus lane could be interpreted in that way too under these illiberal laws.

The point is though, that anyone who wanted to share or view this footage should be sectioned and locked away in a psychiatric hospital regardless.

Re:Jurisdiction 101

[buckfeta2014]

Your signature seems relevant...

Re:Jurisdiction 101

[UnknownSoldier]

Indeed.

The name you are looking for is:

Streisand effect

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[bigfinger76]

Yeah, sensible things. Like thought crime.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[MrKaos]

When your head has been blown apart by multiple 9mm hits or you're rendered brain-dead by a thorough beating, you won't hear any "wooosh" anymore. Try your armchair revolution tactics before a phalanx of well-armed cops, see what happens. But I strongly doubt you would dare.

There is hope for a violent man to not be violent, but there is no hope for a coward like you.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[MrKaos]

We've never had freedom of expression in the UK. Or Freedom of Speech. Or Government by the consent of the people.

Well, you can still plead the 5th if you can't plead the first in the UK.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[MrKaos]

Might makes right: if someone with more power than you says you can't do something, then you cannot do it. There are no noble and high principles that can stand up to reality. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Get over it.

Fuck off idiot AC. If you read your constitution you'll find most western constitutions are founded on the basis of freedom of the individual. If you haven't got the brains and balls to stand-up for your own rights then stop suggesting people shouldn't stand up for theirs as it puts you somewhere between a traitor and a coward, oh wait...

As for why anyone with the freedom to watch such a thing would want to put themselves through it, I can't say, but you have the freedom to be sickened if you want to. Personally, no thanks. Everytime the police say something like this the tewworwist win a little more, because the police are too stupid to see that saying that is exactly what the terrorists want. More so when sheeple, like you, beleive it.

People, if you want to stand up to terrorism then stand up for your rights, vigorously. Extremist islamism hate the very idea that we can take a picture of mohammed and wipes our steaming fresh feaces off our sweaty ass cracks with the image. They video these executions and use our freedoms to manipulate our moronic politicians, police and kilitary into wiping *their* ass with *our* freedom and moron cowards like you just wave them on because you lack the imagination or intelligence to do anything else.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Aaden42]

That the police say something is illegal isn’t enough to get you thrown in jail.

*Possibly* not enough to get you sentenced, but I’m assuming the UK criminal justice system works much the way the US does in that the police can arrest you for pretty much any old thing they want. You get to cool your heels in a cell until they get around to a bail hearing (he’s a ter’ist! No bail!) and then you need to prove your innocence(*) before they release you.

Yes, when it works out the way it’s supposed to, you do actually have to break a law before you end up in PMITA prison, but the distinction seems someone academic when you’re in jail trying to figure out how to afford a lawyer to get you out.

(*) “Innocent until proven guilty” has such a nice ring to it, but let’s be honest here, shall we? In reality the moment the cops decide they like you for something, you’re fighting to prove your innocence a lot harder than they have to fight to prove you’re guilty.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[shutdown -p now]

during the French revolution they found out, people could keep blinking after their head was cut, for various lengths, but most around 35 seconds or so. So you don't die instantly, and experience horror for at least 35 seconds.

It's a myth, and does not have any basis in the modern understanding of human anatomy and physiology. A drop in blood pressure so rapid will render the victim unconscious practically instantly.

Re:Jurisdiction 101

[Applehu Akbar]

Everything is a crime in the UK except actual crime.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Keyboard Rage]

So did the Scottish.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[ultranova]

Might makes right: if someone with more power than you says you can't do something, then you cannot do it. There are no noble and high principles that can stand up to reality. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Get over it.

Which is why Pirate Bay has been shut down, just like Ghandhi's resistance was quickly and efficiently suppressed by the British Empire. Not to mention the hard-line communists who stopped the dissolution of Soviet Union through military power, and the US stamping out drug use through its War on Drugs.

Perhaps you should take a look at reality, and consider how well your own principles stand up to it? Then again, posting as AC strongly implies you already know you're spouting bullshit.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[AtariEric]

I don't think his point was that he's not going to stand up for his rights; I think his point is is that there is always someone else that can stand taller - and crush you like a bug.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[cyberchondriac]

Extremist islamism hate the very idea that we can take a picture of mohammed and wipes our steaming fresh feaces off our sweaty ass cracks with the image.

You would have even the moderates up in arms if you did that publicly. Remember the Danish cartoonist a few years back, normally quiet muslims in Asia went apeshit, and the death threats came rolling in.
I don't know that I can agree with you on this particular item regarding censorship: I would think the extremists would love everyone to see that video, to strike fear in their hearts. They're terrorists. They want those images out there. If they can't get their message out, they aren't exactly winning.
Don't misunderstand me: they do win when other normal civil liberties are curtailed, but just this specific video, I don't think so much. Sometimes the worst thing you can do to a bully is ignore him.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Ol Olsoc]

So did the Scottish.

I'm completely off topic now, but mentioning the Scottish, and with Williams recent demise, I thought this might be fun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Hey, its Robin Williams - there's gonna be some strong language. Enjoy!

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[ultranova]

When your head has been blown apart by multiple 9mm hits or you're rendered brain-dead by a thorough beating, you won't hear any "wooosh" anymore.

Everyone dies, Anon.

Try your armchair revolution tactics before a phalanx of well-armed cops, see what happens.

What happens is that the cops must choose between doing nothing or attacking unarmed people. Former means their weapons do them no good, the latter means they expose their evil for all to see, thus deligitimizing their authority. It's an extremely efficient tactic that turns the very armed might of your opponents against themselves, but of course it requires you to be ready to die - or spend the rest of your life in jail - for your cause.

You do realize that this has been demonstrated multiple times in the past century alone?

But I strongly doubt you would dare.

Nobody knows until the moment of truth comes. But I think it's more likely you're afraid they just might dare, thus exposing your worldview as a delusion held due to fear.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[ganjadude]

is that really sensible however? no matter how messed up racism is, is outlawing it the right way to handle it? We can see how outlawing drugs, and outlawing napster worked so well at keeping people off drugs and no one downloads illegally shared songs anymore right?

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

We've never had freedom of expression in the UK. Or Freedom of Speech. Or Government by the consent of the people.

With no constiutional protection for things like freedom of speech, the only thing you have is consent of the people.

Constitutional protections were designed to balk against abuses by dictators, but are intended to hold back demagogues leading The Holy People.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[MrKaos]

You would have even the moderates up in arms if you did that publicly. Remember the Danish cartoonist a few years back, normally quiet muslims in Asia went apeshit, and the death threats came rolling in.

You are right, it's because there are moderate and average islam people out there that deserve consideration that I'd balance my decision to do anything distasteful. I'm not certain how to do anything other than ignore them and focus on things I can do in my own country. There is our governments moronic response, perhaps it is enough that the tewwowists think they acheived something and there are a few more geezers that end up learning about exercising their rights.

Our problem is that we are being manipulated as much by the media as we are by the tewwowists. I think comedy is a powerful weapon to use against these assholes because it shows them that they may be able to kill a journalist doing their job but they are largely irrelevant in our day to day lives.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[MrKaos]

Terrorists don't "win" every time you get a little inconvenienced in life.

Foley was inconvenienced as he won't be able to conduct the rest of his life. Smashing this form of oppression is the duty of anyone who actually values democracy because democracy suffers insults like this everyday. You may not be a tewwowist, but you seem to be the type of coward that would be dressed in black clobbing protesters for exercising their rights. You're a different kind of oppressor, you may live in western society and we may tolerate your slimey cowardly presence, however your as much as a threat to democracy as any tewwowist.

Look where these "little inconveniences" have got us, surveilance everywhere, checkpoints at airports, borders, a full Terror State based on fear. It's not a "little" inconvenience anymore.

Are you begging your government to pull troops or pay ransoms?

I don't beg. When I lobby government I express my will. If more people did it we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. Tewwowist attacks are as wrong as our governments and businesses not living up to the standards we set for ourselves whilst they "to protect our interests".

Are you converting to their flavor of Islam?

Fuck you. First, I don't beleive that a combination of religious and state law is a expression of democracy, it's another form of oppression. Second Islam has purpetrated gross human rights violations *before* tewwowism was even on the map, with their oppressive hadiths from ignorant mullahs.

There isn't a terrorist group on the PLANET who's goal is to merely afflict you with first world problems via acts or threats of violence.

Idiot. Tewwowism is *THE* first world problem because of oppresive, dickless, ballless cowards such as yourself who hide behind a gun. You don't even have the balls to attach your own name to what you say. You deserve contempt

what separates it from military action, criminal acts, etc., any of which can be equally or more terrifying at the hands of sadists.

Jeez, you are an ignorant idiot. The Nuremburg trials established that "Just following orders" is not an excuse for criminal acts. Crime is crime and we *already* have a framework established for dealing with it without turning ourselves into a police state by cowtowing to moronic, cowardly fools such as yourself. Our democracy is not only under attack by tewwowists, it's under attack by morons like you who will happily turn us into a police state. Papers please.

You are the oppressor and the same type of person that existed in Nazi-land so I'll use my constitutional rights to resist and defeat you and the tewwowists.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[bbsalem]

"Might Makes Right", eh? That sounds like the logic of ISIS, alright. So, the cops overstep their powers and shoot first and ask questions second, or they beat someone to a pulp for whatever reason, that too is "Might Makes Right", but fortunately it doesn't end there and it shouldn't. There should be an answer to that, always. Either the courts should review the exercise of power and terrorists should pay with a weapon down their throats; there have been over 100 bombings in ISIS territory since the crime depicted on the video, which I have avoided and am glad it is hard to see. The family has asked people not to see the video and has tried to get it erased. I agree with that. Now, if the message is that without the worst parts, that it is news, than the sanitized parts of it might be left available, but only as a historical artifact, not used for other reasons. I agree with what Twitter and Facebook have done about this. I don't think that I would go as far as the UK has done, talking about a terrorist act is not a crime.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[sillybilly]

I guess all theories are subject to experiment, and in absence of experiment, you have to go by anecdotes. Similar things apply to ball lightning, which has many anecdotes, but we have no way to recreated in the lab, so we don't understand it. All theories are subject to experimental verification, repeated and duplicated, before they can be accepted as some kind of a scientific truth.
There is a repeatable experiment with chickens though, where farmers cut the head off, and send the headless chicken running around the yard for the entertainment of the children. I don't know how to chicken head feels, but a simple sudden drop in blood pressure such as a missing head from the body is not an instantaneous death, as it takes time for the blood to flow out,even if squirting fast. So you do get at least a few seconds of medium blood pressure, and just because the blood pressure dropped, it does not mean the oxygen and energy storing and converting facilities of the braincells run empty right away, in fact they probably have minutes of reserve power left even in the complete absence of blood supplying the oxygen, and nutrients, and death most likely has something to do with pain overload and apoptosis like self suicide of let's all shut down, than running out of juice to keep working. A lot of the time the brain goes into coma under intense pain, even if the body stays alive and comatose for 40 years on life support. So there are these automatic shutdowns, though the brain is so oxygen and energy hungry, than when drowning, or a heart attack, you have 4 minutes to resuscitate somebody before there is permanent brain damage, though in ice cold waters and cooled head it's been much longer than 4 minutes with complete recovery and no brain damage. But 4 minutes is the reserve oxygen the brain carries, so a 35 second awareness before the comatose pain overdose shutdown happens is not that unimaginable. So it might be a myth, in absence of experiment, or properly conducted documentation of accidents where there is luck to have just such a recording. For instance, there in an anecdote of a car accident where somebody's buddy's head flew off the body, and landed on the car hood, and he lay there, blinking in horror, for about the same 30-40 seconds, before he stopped. Had this been a cops car with a front view camera recording the events on the hood, we'd have proper documentation and scientific evidence of some sort, as opposed to this whole thing being a mere anecdote, and having to take the other guy in the accident at his word.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Sciath]

And more costly as well. Lawyers make a lot of money defending " innocents". When they shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. I'm one that believes that law enforcement should not even be able to detain (indefinitely) anyone without at least some reasonable and factual "proof" of guilt. Why should a citizen be detained at all unless the police can demonstrate a person's involvement in some crime? Those detainment and arrests are expensive for the individuals accused. And that financial and civil right burden should not be encountered unless the law has good proof of one's guilt. Otherwise thousands of innocent people are arrested, imprisoned, financial burdens incurred and/or reputations ruined all based upon "suspicion". That's BS.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Sciath]

YEH, NO British 1st Amendment rights. I don't care how offensive someone might view a video, a written publication, etc. People should have the right to "know" and know the details. Of you don't want to avail yourself to such things then don't. But knowing is better than not knowing. The British like to think of themselves as being more "civilized" than Americans even still referring to Americans sometimes as "cowboys". I can't help but think their smugness actually entrap their culture on a dystopian world.

Re: Jurisdiction 101

[Sciath]

Can't say I would agree. Such videos may initially cause revulsion but ultimately I think they are hanging themselves. Why? Because global powers and peoples will recommit themselves to wiping out such atrocious behavior in the long run. Which ultimately spells the demise of such terrorists.

Benjamin Franklin said once

[fluch]

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's been parroted sans critical thought ever since. Unless you think that we should all be free to randomly assault one another, you are trading the freedom to assault for the security from assault. Society has decided that your freedom to disseminate terrorist propaganda is not worth the lives of the extra hostages terrorists would take if they knew their propaganda would be successful.

If you don't like that, you can either A: Petition your government to change its value calculus that led to this decision. B: Convince other people that your value calculus is more just than the current one and have them vote for you. C: Move to another country that more closely matches your values.

Notice how there is no: "D: Quote a founding father who didn't have the balls to commit to his ideals when it came to slavery and pretend that'll change anything"

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[91degrees]

But then he probably said a lot of other stupid things as well.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[philip.paradis]

Society has decided that your freedom to disseminate terrorist propaganda is not worth the lives of the extra hostages terrorists would take if they knew their propaganda would be successful.

Nonsense on two counts. (1) Who are you to dictate the ethical positions of those viewing this information? I find the information in question to be a remarkably effective tool for educating others about the realities of such savage acts, and to urge them directly defy those who directly sponsor such savagery. (2) Even assuming the material is considered to be in support of terrorism by officials in a particular portion of society, that their citizens have decided to permit silly and hazy laws to be enacted against distribution of such material instead devoting government resources to combating actual acts of terror, and that those citizens have decided to permit their elected officials to threaten their little corner of the planet with those laws, I don't give a damn. My portion of society isn't affected by those threats, and thus those who might consider attempting to threaten me under inapplicable jurisdictions are welcome to go fuck themselves. Apparently, you're invited to the latter party. Would you care for some lube?

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[philip.paradis]

I'll add one point to my last comment. Please attempt to have me brought up on charges; I'm not difficult to find. Given your position on these matters, I'd adore the opportunity to leverage the justice system and whatever ancillary measures are necessary to discover and publicize your identity. You speak boldly, but I doubt you possess the fortitude to see your name attached to your statements.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[martin-boundary]

Also, "he, who thinks showing people jumping off the burning trade center buildings is ok, is a hypocrite"

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[Engeekneer]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id...

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[wonkey_monkey]

Or maybe he doesn't get his news solely from Slashdot.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[infolation]

Ironically the Daily Mail, who are normally an ultra-right, police-supporting newspaper in the UK, have actually condemned the police's statement that merely viewing is an offence.

There would also be no public interest in prosecuting a someone for viewing if they didn't intend to promote IS. It would be absurd. So for the Met to say that viewing a video in and of itself could constitute an offence seems to me to be far from reality - Barrister Adam Wagner

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[TapeCutter]

Excellent rant! Personally I don't care to have those sort of images in my head, kinda like - once you've seen one uncensored holocaust documentary you've seen them all. And you're spot on with the propaganda claim, the new warlord in Iraq would like nothing better than the west to start bombing the shit out of Iraqi cities because the obvious result would be a flood of eager new recruits. As someone commented recently "it's the oldest recruiting method known to man".

I do think some think some images should be illegal and actively censored, pre-pubescent kiddy porn, snuff films, stuff that is abhorrent to a sane person and constitutes a grave criminal act. Such images are in fact a very deep invasion of the victim's, and their family's, privacy. The beheading video is different in that it is an "act of war" specifically designed provoke a knee-jerk military response, the executioner was almost certainly chosen for his UK accent and would have been told - "Cut his head off, or lose your's".

At the end of the day all one can really say about this kind of military censorship is that "The first casualty of war is truth". Old Ben was a politician preaching to the colonial choir, the quote is an obvious attempt to boost the morale of those who would do the real fighting. Probably the bravest thing he did was fly a kite in a thunderstorm, that feat took real scientific balls!

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[AchilleTalon]

Well, your error is to think an ultra-right entity is supporting without conditions the police. There is just no link here. Ultra-left entities are as well likely to support the police as anyone knows from the old USSR experience. Each will support the police if the police enforce their own thoughts, dot period. In that case, the police does not support the ultra-right philosophy.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[TapeCutter]

Yep, that's one of those images that doesn't go away, and the people behind this propaganda video are trying to provoke the same knee-jerk reaction - "Stock up on cruise missiles, someone has to pay for this atrocity".

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[Ol Olsoc]

Excellent rant! Personally I don't care to have those sort of images in my head, kinda like - once you've seen one uncensored holocaust documentary you've seen them all. And you're spot on with the propaganda claim, the new warlord in Iraq would like nothing better than the west to start bombing the shit out of Iraqi cities because the obvious result would be a flood of eager new recruits. As someone commented recently "it's the oldest recruiting method known to man"

.

Of course. We keep granting their wish. If there is a lesson to be learned in iall this, it's to stay out of middle eastern affairs, and let them continue to kill each other until - hopefully - that hate gene gets bred out of them. Or they simply eliminate each other. No one else will ever stop it.

This is religion, people are simply and cruelly practicing their religion. So unless the west is prepared to be a permanent presence and act as cops, we should allow these people to practice their evil stone age religion, as long as they keep it within their borders.Study the middle east, look at it's history, from biblical times to now. People don't engage in that sort of neverending war against their neighbors unless they get something out of it.

Because none of us are going to change their genetic/religious makeup.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[Type44Q]

Whoever modded this insightful was either a shill or a drooling idiot. The "reasoning" (more like lack thereof) doesn't stand up to critical analysis.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[NReitzel]

It's certainly true that America doesn't have the talents of the UK.

In particular, Brits have an absolute monopoly on rampant pomposity.

It's a good thing you guys leaned to grovel properly, sonst sie Deutsch sprechen werden.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[nospam007]

"Excellent rant! Personally I don't care to have those sort of images in my head, kinda like - once you've seen one uncensored holocaust documentary you've seen them all."

Sure, but the same thing could be said for an Uwe Boll movie and nonetheless they have an audience.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[AmiMoJo]

Society has decided that your freedom to disseminate terrorist propaganda is not worth the lives of the extra hostages terrorists would take if they knew their propaganda would be successful.

In that case why is the press allowed to report it for days on end, and why are the police drawing even more attention to it?

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[shutdown -p now]

While I agree that this is bullshit, the reason why Daily Mail want people to see this video is because it will make that much easier to get them riled up about evil Muslims and such, which is basically the Daily Mail business model.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[Ol Olsoc]

"Because none of us are going to change their genetic/religious makeup."

Flinguez-moi tout ça.

Indeed. While it is true that the urge to kill other humans is pretty strong in most humans, in that neck of the woods, none of them can abide not sending their neighbors to their maker.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[JackieBrown]

They don't want people watching this because these actions go against the PC message that the muslim religion is a religion of peace and love (parroted quickly by the US president).

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once

[TubeSteak]

And it's been parroted sans critical thought ever since. Unless you think that we should all be free to randomly assault one another, you are trading the freedom to assault for the security from assault.

What a load of crap.
There was a functional legal system at the time Benjamin Franklin wrote those words.

Far too many people try to interpret the words and documents of America's Founding Fathers in a complete vacuum.

Thoughtcrime

[Anonymous Coward]

even viewing the video could constitute a criminal offence in the UK

Re:Thoughtcrime

[ledow]

Surely, viewing certain types of illegal pornography is no different.

It's not a "thought" crime if what you're watching (and thereby encouraging the production of) is illegal to view.

It would be a thought crime if, say, the police arrested you for signing up on a website where you COULD have watched the video.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[fredprado]

Anytime someone prohibits you from viewing, listening or reading something it is thought crime, and policing thought is barbaric and unjustifiable violence against individuals.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[geogob]

Possessing or distributing it could be regarded as a crime. But citing viewing the content as a crime leaves a very bitter after taste.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[thegarbz]

So tell me why seeing something with my eyes should be illegal?

Tell me again who have I harmed, who have I affected, in what way was the public at large affected? Everything that is happening is happening in your own mind. That by definition is a thought crime, which incidentally also is a true victimless crime.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[bill_mcgonigle]

Anytime someone prohibits you from viewing, listening or reading something it is thought crime, and policing thought is barbaric and unjustifiable violence against individuals.

They need to police your thoughts so you can have freedom.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[mwvdlee]

It's not a "thought" crime if what you're watching (and thereby encouraging the production of) is illegal to view.

I guess pirating the video should be encouraged then.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[Pax681]

There are many instances in British law of absolute offences for which there is no defence.

British Law? what's that? THAT is not correct....there's english law whicvh covers England and Wales... there's Scottish Law which covers... you guessed it.. Scotland and then there's the legislation passed by the Irish assembly which covers Northern Ireland. just sayin.......

Re:Thoughtcrime

[Dr_Barnowl]

Making it should be illegal. Viewing it arguably does no additional harm (if you presume that anyone who would view it it willingly is already irreversibly fucked up, and people who aren't fucked up are appropriately digusted).

Viewing it is illegal in my jurisdiction. Which paradoxically makes it impossible to report if you stumble upon it in a place where you didn't expect (or want) to find it, because if you do so you're now confessing to a crime. This arguably means that kiddy porn remains available for longer than it otherwise would.

It should certainly be illegal to make it. And illegal to knowingly distribute it. And illegal to pay for it (directly - paying for a service that happens to unintentionally host kiddy porn shouldn't count, paying for a service devoted to kiddy porn should). But making it illegal to view or possess means that if you accidentally stumble upon it, you both viewed it, and because your computer cached it, possessed it, which means that people are far less likely to report it for fear of incriminating themselves.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[wonkey_monkey]

The act of seeing an indecent image of a child is an absolute offence

Citation needed. The offence is "possession," not "viewing."

and will lead to an automatic sentence.

Well, yes, that's what happens when you're found guilty of an offence. There's nothing automatic about it, though. We have these funny little things called trials, first.

There are many instances in British law of absolute offences for which there is no defence.

That sounds a bit tautological. If you committed the offence, you would, ideally, be found guilty. If successfully defend against the accusation, then from a legal standpoint you did not commit the offence in the first place.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[Lonewolf666]

Obligatory Nazi comparison:
This is essentially the same as the Nazi ban on listening to foreign radio stations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feindsender.
Congratulations, UK, you are becoming what you once fought against.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[penix1]

And illegal to knowingly distribute it.

You just knocked out bittorrent....

Re:Thoughtcrime

[present_arms]

Congratulations, UK, you are becoming what you once fought against.

Becoming?

Re:Thoughtcrime

[v1]

Making it should be illegal. Viewing it arguably does no additional harm

The best arguement made against that is that if you are a "supporting audience/consumer" of the "product", you are a part of the demand, which encourages the supply. Making viewing something like CP illegal doesn't proactively prevent the harm that has already occurred in the course of its production, but does give the perps less incentive to do it again, or others to get into the business.

In other words, people tend to stop performing when they don't have an audience. (some are in it for the benjamines, but others are simply content to have an audience) Law enforcement applying the above reasoning however definitely demonstrates that other means are proving insufficient or powerless to stop the original offense. Makes you consider alternate motives for the law, as though it was enacted due to the general frustration of law enforcement. Being unable to adequately stop the crime head-on, they're taking to trying to suffocate it out from the other end. Maybe a defensive strategy taken up by the politicians and police chiefs to deflect the criticisms of the public that is frustrated that their police are unable to stem the crime. "LOOK, we're doing *everything* we can!" (including arresting YOU because you're encouraging them!)

CP and terrorism are pretty different animals, but in the end, more viewers does encourage them. They'll both keep doing it even with no audience, but it's easy to show that a growing audience does encourage them. Specifically, terrorism has little point when there's no audience to terrorize.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[Lonewolf666]

Well, they don't have concentration camps. Yet.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[bluefoxlucid]

The Office of Inspector General told me any viewing of child pornography re-victimizes the person in the image and, therefor, upon discovering any child pornography, I must report it to OIG and immediately cease use of computer for fear of causing harm to someone, somewhere, by stumbling upon more child pornography.

The hard drives are scanned for matching fingerprints of known child pornography, then completely purged. You can't rescue any files from the drives, at all, so I hope you have back-ups which magically aren't possibly tainted with child pornography.

Honestly I think the whole thing is silly and blown out of proportion. Who cares about child pornography? Why aren't we shutting down the human trafficking rings instead? Nobody suffers when I download The Simpsons, so I would assume nobody suffers when some fat dude in his basement downloads Victoria's Seventh-Grade Secret or whatever nonsense.

Won't somebody think of the children, instead of the pictures of the children?

Re:Thoughtcrime

[bluefoxlucid]

That makes the US Government a terrorist organization.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[TapeCutter]

Jebus, have none of you actually read Orwell? What you wrote is actually a pretty good example of "circumstantial evidence".

A "thought crime" is where certain thoughts are illegal. My favorite example is from Christopher Hitchens @4:00 - 4:30, worth watching the whole speech.

The defining feature of thought crime is that there is no physical act, no physical manifestation of a crime, just an "illegal thought", accessing a web site or making a speech is an action, it doesn't qualify. Of course in the book, the only way to really find out what Winston was thinking was to torture him with his greatest fear, a live rat chewing on his face.1984 is a precautionary tale about power and control, and there is no more "totalitarian" form of control than the ability to control what people think. You really ought to read it before trying to redefine the terminology. ;)

Re:Thoughtcrime

[tompaulco]

It's not a "thought" crime if what you're watching (and thereby encouraging the production of) is illegal to view.

Watching something does not encourage the production of something. When you stop and rubberneck at an accident, does that mean you love accidents and want to encourage the production of them?

Re:Thoughtcrime

[mark-t]

Citation needed. The offence is "possession," not "viewing."

Actually, the offense is any of taking, making, distributing, showing, or possessing. Merely viewing such pornography, when it is done with intent (ie, you clicked play on a video where you could have reasonably known its contents before you watched it), would constitute a form of "taking".

Re:Thoughtcrime

[MrKaos]

You really ought to read it before trying to redefine the terminology. ;)

This is the Ministry of Truth's work.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[shutdown -p now]

Yes. Any law that makes the act of consuming any product or service illegal is a bad law. This includes drugs, prostitution, gambling, any kind of porn etc.

This is orthogonal to the act of producing the product or providing the service. E.g. in case of child porn, producing it should definitely be illegal.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[redeIm]

The best arguement made against that is that if you are a "supporting audience/consumer" of the "product", you are a part of the demand, which encourages the supply.

You'd not only need to provide hard scientific evidence of that claim, but it wouldn't matter if you did. Government censorship is 100% tolerable. The people at fault for raping are the rapists, and no one else.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[redeIm]

100% intolerable.*

Re:Thoughtcrime

[fredprado]

And censorship is a tool of thought policing. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[tepples]

I believe it was intended as a counterpart to what the USA calls "federal law", or a statute that applies to all countries of the UK.

Oh really? I thought this was AMERICA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Link to video is here. Scotland Yard can suck eggs. http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/temp.html?i=bc1_1408481278

Captcha: resistor
lol

Re:Oh really? I thought this was AMERICA!

[lemur3]

for those wary to look.....

it isnt quite as graphic as the beheading of Nick Berg that you may have seen... they do not show the entire act of beheading.

the content is interesting, and well worth a look if you want to understand this conflict a bit more.

Re:Oh really? I thought this was AMERICA!

[HeckRuler]

Well that's the march of progress. The cutting edge of technology eventually filters down into the hands of everybody.

But for this specific concern, the creations of blatantly false information, it's a cat and mouse game. There are technologies out there to identify fakes. Analyzing lighting, mostly, from my brief glances. But it means the thoughtless email "omglookatthisvideoTHANKSOBAMA" spam will dive off into the deep end of the crazy pool. As if they weren't already there. Ultimately, we had a brief window between the point where evidence could be created without the ability to falsify that evidence, and the point where everything had to be taken with a grain of salt. I imagine the future content will be trusted solely based on who presented it. The echo chambers will intensify and trustworthiness will have value.

They have invoked Streisand.

[SuricouRaven]

I also wonder will they prosecute any of the newspapers that showed images from the video? I don't know of any news channels that broadcast the clip, but there might be one of those somewhere too.

Re:They have invoked Streisand.

[mpe]

I also wonder will they prosecute any of the newspapers that showed images from the video? I don't know of any news channels that broadcast the clip, but there might be one of those somewhere too.

Of course just telling people about the video means that it's possible to go looking for it.
Probably be of far more use to strip anyone who wants to join a foreign military/paramilitary of their citizenship. After they leave, of course.

Re:They have invoked Streisand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's taken the spotlight off Israel/Hamas/Gaza, and all it cost was one American's life.

Re:They have invoked Streisand.

[SuricouRaven]

There is conflict taking place in Gaza, Iraq, Ukraine and Syria (The civil war never ened, just dropped out of headlines) right now. There's only enough public attention for one war at a time.

Seems to be working really well...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/temp.html?i=bc1_1408481278

Re:Seems to be working really well...

[baka_toroi]

Wow. I mean, it's not the most graphic (as in gore) video I've seen but damn if this isn't awesome propaganda for "the terrorists."

I think the US still thinks it's fighting against "sand niggers" and doesn't realize the true scope of what they're fighting against. I'm also surprised at their English proficiency and quality of video-editing.

Re:Seems to be working really well...

[jandrese]

Propaganda for ISIS? Pretty much everybody I know has thought the exact opposite. That this sort of thing is a disaster for them, and is going to hasten their demise.

"ISIS: Hey Western Governments that are largely keeping their hands off of the situation: We're going to kill your citizens now."
"Obama: Get me Seal Team 6"

Re:Seems to be working really well...

[baka_toroi]

This is coming from someone who doesn't follow all this stuff, so I'm not being completely sarcastic, but hasn't Obama called Seal Team 6 a million times already? What makes it different this time? What makes the US think they will win this war?

Propaganda is to get people talking about this, doesn't matter if it's good or bad talk. And I think they're succeeding. BTW, are they using Final Cut to edit these videos? For some reason I find that hilarious.

Re:Seems to be working really well...

[shutdown -p now]

The executioner in that video was born and grew up in Britain.

As far as propaganda goes, this video cuts both ways. I'm sure it'll cause some more to join the muji ranks. It will also cause some more Americans and Europeans to scream bloody murder, quite possibly enough to escalate the Western involvement in this conflict.

Re:Seems to be working really well...

[Keyboard Rage]

According to Dutch media, at least one of them is....British.

Perhaps they are afraid someone will recognize the voices? Why would that be a problem? Or are the people making these videos UK security agency implants?

Re:Seems to be working really well...

[shutdown -p now]

We're talking about what's currently there, not about what has been there. Yes, the present situation is due to Western meddling in the first place, but currently that meddling has receded significantly. It may well end up going even higher now.

Re:Seems to be working really well...

[HornWumpus]

Nonsense. They are reverting to the Sunni/Sheia war that was there before anybody realized there was oil under the sand.

Are you going to blame the Japanese and Chinese not liking each other on 'the west' too?

Re:Seems to be working really well...

[shutdown -p now]

ISIS is much, much more than just Sunni. They are more like the modern reincarnation of the Kharijites.

And the only reason why they have as much power and prominence as they do, is because we kicked Saddam out, helped kick Gaddafi out, and supported the attempts to kick Assad out. By rooting out secular dictators, we unleashed the force that they have contained.

Re:Seems to be working really well...

[HornWumpus]

True. But all good. Arabs fighting each other is the natural state.

Re:Seems to be working really well...

[jandrese]

There was a report about an operation to rescue the hostages that failed because the hostages were not where the intelligence said they would be. Several of the ISIS folks were supposedly killed in the fight however.

But no, special forces don't get called out on a daily basis, and it causes political trouble if they're discovered in foreign countries. Pakistan's government is still mad that we didn't give them a heads up before we went after Osama Bin Laden. Plus, they're extremely valuable and no matter how good they are, if you keep sending them into combat eventually someone is going to get lucky and kill them. They have to be used sparingly.

Suppression

[philip.paradis]

Things happen. Sometimes very nasty things happen. Attempts at suppression of information related to nasty things will inevitably fail, and such attempts will only serve to cast those advocating for suppression in a nasty light themselves. "Authorities" might find their time better spent pursuing criminals instead of engaging in an odd attempt to force the populace to bury its head in the sand on threat of imprisonment. The information itself isn't the problem; direct harm caused against human beings is.

TLDR: Scotland Yard can go fuck itself, and I think this is a great time to make a personal project of facilitating the spread of this information as widely as possible. Thank goodness I've got a great deal of resources available to assist in that endeavor. Cheers, mates.

Re:Suppression

[ThorGod]

I don't understand your argument. Care to give it a second shot, please?

Re:Suppression

[philip.paradis]

Certainly.

Or perhaps you were looking for something entirely different.

Re: Suppression

[philip.paradis]

Thanks for the clarification; I have not heard of her, as I am not at all interested in videogame journalism.

Re: Suppression

[philip.paradis]

I am, however, acquainted with the fictional journalist Zoe Barnes. The re-imagining of "House of Cards" has been a good series thus far.

Re:Suppression

[philip.paradis]

That fits the context well enough with regard to certain parties being welcome to go fuck themselves.

Re:Suppression

[philip.paradis]

We know where you live.

I certainly hope so; I'd have to rate you as severely cognitively impaired otherwise. Please be advised that I'm a former service member and a firm believer in the exercise of second amendment rights. Have a great day, and if you're thinking of coming to visit, enjoy your flight!

haven't watched it...

[ThorGod]

Why would anyone actually want to watch it?

Re:haven't watched it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, i knew absolutely nothing about this. At all, until i read it here. Now I want to watch it, mostly because the UK seems to think it's a big deal and has told me not to. But I'm contrary like that.

Re:haven't watched it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Morbid curiosity for a grievous taboo.

The real question is: who would want to watch it twice?

Re:haven't watched it...

[ThorGod]

Curiosity is definitely a possible cause...time to let it go.

Re:haven't watched it...

[dominux]

because the guy had a London accent, I imagine quite a lot of people want to see it to check it was nobody they recognise from school or whatever.

Re:haven't watched it...

[Nyder]

Why would anyone actually want to watch it?

I didn't care to watch it, but now that the UK wants to declare that it's a crime to watch it, I am now downloading it (thanks tpb!)

Will I enjoy it? Probably not, but if the governement(s) don't want me to see it, then I probably should see it.

Re:haven't watched it...

[thegarbz]

I have a more important question:
Why should it be illegal that I do?

Re:haven't watched it...

[redcaboodle]

I just watched it. I assume they put him on a lot on tranqs, to be that calm. They most likely threatened him with something a lot worse if he didn't play his part.
Judging from the pauses between his sentences, I am also reasonably sure he used a prompter of some kind instead of learning the speech by heart.
Poor sod.

Re:haven't watched it...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why would anyone actually want to watch it?

To better understand just how depraved the people are who made it.

I'm not joking. Supressing it gives them legitimacy - "the video the government is afraid you'll see" - but letting people watch it exposes the inhumanity of those who made it for everyone to see. The kind of people who might be convinced to join ISIS by watching this video are already so warped that censoring the video won't stop them. But no normal person is going to watch it and come away with anything but deep-seated disgust for the killers.

Re:haven't watched it...

[StripedCow]

In some random other case you might be right.
But there are limits to every principle, even this one.

Re:haven't watched it...

[old man moss]

If the UK government told you not to jump off a high building...

Re:haven't watched it...

[kevingolding2001]

To not be ignorant.

Basically this member of ISIS (with an East London accent) is explaining exactly what he believes, what his religion dictates, how he views the actions of the US, and why he feels justified in doing what he is doing.

The video cuts away prior to any actual gore being shown so it's not really that offensive (compared to some other videos I have seen).

If you really want to try to understand the whole complex mess of Islam in the 21st century, then there is a whole bunch of disturbing things you need to see, including this video (okay, you can stop about 30 seconds before the end for the 'sanitised' version.)

Re:haven't watched it...

[ballpoint]

> Why would anyone actually want to watch it?

To better understand just how depraved the people are who made it.

I'm not joking. Supressing it gives them legitimacy - "the video the government is afraid you'll see" - but letting people watch it exposes the inhumanity of those who made it for everyone to see. The kind of people who might be convinced to join ISIS by watching this video are already so warped that censoring the video won't stop them. But no normal person is going to watch it and come away with anything but deep-seated disgust for the killers.

Quoting to improve visibility of an insightful AC post.

Re:haven't watched it...

[drinkypoo]

In some random other case you might be right.

And sadly, we cannot trust any government to only tell us not to watch things when they are not things which are damning to those governments. History teaches us this. I prefer not to have to sit around and watch you repeat it like a complete rube.

Re:haven't watched it...

[GameboyRMH]

I think I'll watch the first 4:23 then. I don't want to see a guy beheaded and I have no interest in fundamentalist Muslim nutjobbery, but now that governments are saying not to watch this, I think I'll have to see what it's about.

Re:haven't watched it...

[penguinoid]

Why would anyone actually want to watch it?

It's almost a duty to spread material that the government wishes to censor. Otherwise the government will start creating more and more thoughtcrimes.

Re:haven't watched it...

[shutdown -p now]

For the same reason, I recommend that people go look up "The Clanging of Swords" - it's the original ISIS propaganda video from when they just finished their first major push in Iraq. It has it all - mowing down civilians, executing freshly surrendered POWs, forcing people to dig their own graves at gunpoint and making them say on camera that "my fate is slaughter", forced conversions etc. After watching this, I am firmly convinced that the people who filmed it, and the people who are filmed in it (other than the victims), are a cancer that should be exterminated.

Re:haven't watched it...

[ThorGod]

But it is well in my mind. ISIS has me convinced that the US needs to occupy Iraq again...can't get more concerned about this problem then being pro-police force.

Re:haven't watched it...

[dcollins117]

have a more important question: Why should it be illegal that I do?

It isn't. It's news, i.e., an accurate depiction of reality that cannot and definitely should not be censored. Some authoritative law enforcement douchebags are making the claim that it could lead to prosecution, but that doesn't magically change the reality of what is actually legal or not.

I liken the situation to the American cops who arrested people that videotaped them beating black folks. They also made certain claims that have no basis in fact.

Re:haven't watched it...

[x0ra]

Don't worry, there isn't much of the actual beheading. What has actually been filmed could have been with a dull knife, and to some extend, the beheading could have been staged.

Re:haven't watched it...

[jwhitener]

Why would anyone actually want to watch it?

I didn't care to watch it, but now that the UK wants to declare that it's a crime to watch it, I am now downloading it (thanks tpb!)

Will I enjoy it? Probably not, but if the governement(s) don't want me to see it, then I probably should see it.

I watched one a long time ago out of curiosity (early 2000's I think). I assumed naively that years of horror movies and american style explosion/killing movies would have conditioned me. It did not. I shut it off the second the knife started in... horrible. Completely different than some action/horror movie. Maybe it was my mind yelling at me that this was real, or something about the actual sounds involved (I still cringe), but it was not something anyone should watch without having a real purpose in mind.

If you want to, go for it. But it won't be something you like, you'll regret it, and it will be something you will never forget. To what end?

Re:haven't watched it...

[jwhitener]

To better understand just how depraved the people are who made it.

The sentence "with no trial, they beheaded a reporter with a knife" should make it crystal clear what type of people we are dealing with. Watching someone die won't add anything to that understanding.

What are they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

No video => population not terrorized => harder to justify the war on terror.

Why don't they also remove all the World Trade Center collapse footage from youtube?

And thus:

[Zanadou]

And thus, the natural extension of "possession of child pornography" laws begins.

Re:And thus:

[plover]

At least someone is thinking of the children!

Re:And thus:

[philip.paradis]

Obligatory.

Over-eager Press Office

[fremsley471]

The London Metropolitan Police Press Office released this statement. When challenged by a lawyer, they could only point vaguely to anti-terror laws and say things like "Do you want people to watch it". So it's PR people, probably with no legal training, who are making up laws on the hoof (and with no apparent correction from their superiors).

Fuller story here (free reg required):
http://blogs.ft.com/david-alle...?

Not surprising

[El Puerco Loco]

Is being Irish still considered a terrorist offense (or offence, in their crazy moon language) there?

Re:Not surprising

[Cederic]

Yes, of course.

Sadly being British, human and/or alive is also considered a terrorist offense here too. The law really is that badly written.

Re:Not surprising

[angularbanjo]

I think you mean an o'ffence.

Re:Not surprising

[Alioth]

Crazy moon language? English is called English because it was invented by the English. Offence is correct, offense is the "crazy moon language".

Re:Not surprising

[shutdown -p now]

English was not invented by anyone - like any other language, it is the result of a natural evolution with a heavy influence of several languages.

Regarding "offence" vs "offense" etc, the American spelling actually dates back to the older British spelling, which itself dates to the original French word "offense" that was adopted into English wholesale. For some mysterious reason, the Brits have switched a bunch of French "-se" endings to "-ce" sometime after American independence, while at the same time changing the spelling of some other words to more closely follow French (like "center" -> "centre" etc). So in many cases, American spellings today are more conservative with respect to language evolution than British ones.

Re:Not surprising

[shutdown -p now]

In which language?

Minor correction

[gargleblast]

We would like to remind the public that paternalism is a bitch.

FTFY.

How times change

[DNS-and-BIND]

"While Dan Rather attempts to rationalize the network's heartless decision to air this despicable 'terrorist propaganda video,' it is beyond our comprehension that any mother, wife, father or sister should have to relive this horrific tragedy and watch their loved one being repeatedly terrorized," the family said.

"Terrorists have made this video confident that the American media would broadcast it and thereby serve their exact purpose. By showing this video, CBS or any other broadcaster willing to show it proves that they fall without shame into the terrorists' plan."
-- Mariane Pearl, May 15, 2002

Re:How times change

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution, Shut down all media centers and cede all controls back to the Government. If you're not going to defend freedom of speech/expression you dont deserve it.

It's a terrible crime but hiding it won't make it go away. See: Nazi's sending jews to death camps, People (even the jewish people) refused to believe that it was happening, if you don't provide proof then the most terrible things can happen.

legal issues.

[hooiberg]

And in the Netherlands there was a legal discussion whether it was illegal or not to celebrate his beheading. That it was even necessary to establish this makes me ashamed of my country. By the way, it was decided that it is not illegal.

Re:legal issues.

[Keyboard Rage]

Unfortunately the Netherlands have a large amount of people who think it's alright that extreme rightist asshats spew hateful speech, but when a Muslim does it they need to be expelled.

hate to be that guy, but

[The_Revelation]

Anyone got a working mirror?

Re:hate to be that guy, but

[wonkey_monkey]

Anyone got a working mirror?

Not me. Mine keeps showing me a 40-year-old Chinese woman when I look in it.

The power of images...

[Anonymous Coward]

A north vietnamese point-blank to the head execution...

A girl running from a napalm attack, her clothes half burned off...

Bodies piled in German concentration camps...

An explosion over Hiroshima...

Are these photos now forbidden as well?

Re:The power of images...

[Chrisq]

A north vietnamese point-blank to the head execution...

A girl running from a napalm attack, her clothes half burned off...

Bodies piled in German concentration camps...

An explosion over Hiroshima...

Are these photos now forbidden as well?

But sharing them wouldn't be islamaphobic and upset the "religion of peace". The government is in full appeasement mode

Re:The power of images...

[wonkey_monkey]

To play Devil's advocate for a moment, none of those came along with (as I assume the video in question does) an expression of the ideology behind the act, nor were they posed for the sole purpose of being recorded and distributed.

Re:The power of images...

[tompaulco]

I'm surprised they are actually allowed to call terrorists terrorists.In the U.S., it is not PC to call terrorists terrorists. However, you can call people who hate government oppression in response to terrorist acts terrorists.

Re:The power of images...

[Anonymous Coward]

The first is gore, which is banned like any other depiction of extreme sexual acts.
The second is child porn pure and simple. The torture kind, no less.
A giant pile of people is very much an "extreme sexual act", whether or not they have been baked.
The heat flash and shock front could be said to have effectively "violated" the structural integrity of buildings for several kilometers around, and killed thousands in an instant, making it both gore AND some kind of inert-structure-rape AND a video depicting terrorist acts.

So yes. You're a disgusting sexual deviant and deserve to be arrested for mentioning any or all of these terrible treasonous images.

Viewing the video is a crime?

[Yoda222]

If watching this video is a crime, why not arrest this men which must have seen it to be able to make this comment?

Every other answer is worse

[hyades1]

The video should be published. James Foley knew the decisions he was making put him in danger. He walked in with his eyes open, having decided that his photographs could tell the story of average people caught up in the evil going on around them...and that they were worth the risk.

The only thing worse than the murderous pieces of excrement who killed him are the fascist bastards in bespoke suits who want to use his death as an excuse to turn our freedom-loving countries into the same kind of totalitarian state ISIS is trying to create.

Fuck them. They're as bad as the terrorists.

We need to decide: is our freedom worth the price of a few successful terrorist attacks, or should we simply open the door wide to Big Brother, and invite him in for a permanent visit.

Re:Every other answer is worse

[aberglas]

+1

Re:Every other answer is worse

[hyades1]

So do you actually work for the police, or do you just suck them off for free?

Re:Every other answer is worse

[Vitriol Angst]

What I think England and America need is a ban on "sticking one's head up one's rear-end" -- you wouldn't think it was necessary to outlaw an anatomical contrivance so improbable, but yet, it would prevent people from promoting legislation like; "Viewing a video that we don't like is a criminal offense."

We also need a ban on the use of the word "Terrorist" because all it really means is; "actual bad guys, and people we don't like but don't want to trouble with the laws that get in our way". If someone commits a crime or act of war, we already have laws for that. No need to have "special classifications" for people like "enemy non-combatant." It just means; non-state recognized people who go to war and can't afford uniforms.

Poor quote.

[thegarbz]

This has absolutely nothing to do with security and everything to do with a thought crime. The mere thought that looking at something could be considered illegal is wrong.

The fact that this is about terror and anti-terror is neither here nor there. Remember we are talking about a country which has made it illegal to watch contented acts between two adults (See ban on possession of videos depicting extreme pornographic acts)

Re:Poor quote.

[philip.paradis]

Copyright doesn't apply to productions made in the course of a criminal act, and with that, we're done.

Re:Poor quote.

[TapeCutter]

Please go a reread 1984. That is not the definition of a "thought crime". Also, if you're from the US I think you would be surprised at the sex that's available on late night broadcast TV in the UK. As with many other nations in the commonwealth, the UK draws the line at depicting certain acts of violence, particularly when it's associated with sex. Depicting acts of fornication or buggery is not illegal, in fact talking and joking about them in explicit terms on national TV seems to be almost compulsory. .

Re:Poor quote.

[thegarbz]

I didn't say porn was illegal. I said extreme porn. Videos or images depicting realistic necrophilia, injury, and rape. The great thing about this law is that it doesn't actually even need to be real, it just needs to depict it. Think about it for a second and realise how broad the definition of extreme pornography actually is before you laugh at others point out how absurd the laws are.

The silent hill scene where a woman get's her skin ripped off, pass. But what about the scene from Irreversible where Monica Bellucci gets brutally raped? Illegal under this definition. We can happily spend all days killing zombies, but under this law if you have a bad enough day in court you may find watching the humorous Walking Dead parody may end you in hot water. God forbid you search for Rule34 on the Simpsons, because you know both Bart and Lisa are under-age and if you happen to see a comic or otherwise drawn and fake image depicting under-age pornography ... illegal.

Aside from the technicalities of the wording we are still talking about a law that criminalises the consumption of media instead of its provisioning or manufacture. The onus is on you to hope you don't get a BDSM advert pop-up while you're browsing the internet otherwise you are a criminal. Think this is absurd? I'm sure the UK were the ones who jailed someone where the only evidence of child pornography came from the cache folder from their browser and it was classed as possession.

As for the rest of the commonwealth, I assume you're lumping the UK together with the likes of India and Malaysia for your example. I can't find any western nations of the commonwealth who have laws against pornography other than bestiality and child pornography, and even then bestiality is regulated at the production stage not the consumption and even then only in some locations.

Mandatory

[lolococo]

In soviet UK, YouTube watches you.

And have been widely criticised for saying it

[91degrees]

Watching the video is not a crime. It could, conceivably, be used as evidence of committing a crime. So could getting the 8:45 to Basingstoke, but only is that was something you did in order to commit a crime.

Pretty much anyone else who has spoken on the matter has said the police overstepped, and that watching the video is not illegal.

Re:And have been widely criticised for saying it

[91degrees]

Having the word "I have a gun" written on a piece of paper is legal.

Handing a piece of paper to a bank teller is legal.

Catching the train to Basingstoke, walking past and then into a bank, and handing over a piece of paper that says "I have a gun" is probably going to be considered a fairly compelling case that you intended to rob a bank.

Re: They should do the opposite

[thesupraman]

I have 3 words for you..

Westboro Baptist Church

Although I do wonder if you will understand.

Re: They should do the opposite

[Chrisq]

I have 3 words for you..

Westboro Baptist Church

Although I do wonder if you will understand.

You mean that nasty organisation - which though it is thoroughly unpleasant is far better than Islam because it has never even threatened to kill someone, let alone murdering thousands, kidnapping thousands of women as sex slaves and chopping off journalist's heads?

Watching video of a drone killing innocents...

[Mojo66]

By their definition, wouldn't be watching a video of a US drone killing innocent people, which happens regularly since years, be a crime as well? I don't know whether such a video actually exists, but I would be curious if media would broadcast it. I'm assuming here, or course, that we accept drone strikes as a form of governmental terrorism.

Over the years, hundreds of civilians have been killed by drone strikes, has this ever been picked up media in a similar way as this incident has been? Maybe media regard drone strikes as a form of terrorism and consider broadcasting it a crime as well...

Misread

[Anonymous Coward]

An anonymous reader points out that UK authorities have warned that sharing the video of the James Foley murder could lead to prosecution under anti-terror laws.

Did anyone else read "prosecution" as "persecution" the first time round?

Re:The slippery slope

[91degrees]

The police aren't our leaders.

Might makes right ?

[Taco Cowboy]

If the government of England wants England to become a nation of ostriches it can use whatever might it wants but if the people doesn't want to, the government can't legally force people to become ostriches

As long as England remains a democratic country, that is ...

Re:Might makes right ?

[Thanshin]

As long as England remains a democratic country, that is ...

I think that depends strongly on the definition of democracy.

Re:Might makes right ?

[arvindsg]

As long as England remains a democratic country, that is ...

I think that depends strongly on the definition of democracy.

I think that strongly depends on the definition of 'definition'

Re:Might makes right ?

[Cryacin]

I think that depends strongly on the definition of ostrich!

Re:Might makes right ?

[sabri]

As long as England remains a democratic country, that is ...

The UK is not democratic anymore. It is a Soviet-like police state worse than Orwell predicted. I've said it many times here, and have been marked a troll every time, but at some point the world is going to see that the UK is a plague and a far cry from the heroes they were back in the forties.

Re:Might makes right ?

[Archangel Michael]

Depends ... isn't that an adult Diaper brand?

Re:Might makes right ?

[Keyboard Rage]

Ostrich? Isn't that the local people's name for Austria, which is short for Australia?

Re:Might makes right ?

[ganjadude]

i like turtles

Re:Might makes right ?

[bbsalem]

The UK remaining a Democracy is in doubt..... I cringe when I hear UK English spoken because I fear the elitism and class rigidity of that nation. I am glad to be in the U.S. and not have to deal with that class consciousness, and it is a threat to inclusive institutions under the Cameron government. I am glad I am not a British citizen.

Re:Might makes right ?

[bbsalem]

It is Depend, not depends. there I rub your nose in it :\)

Re:Might makes right ?

[Draugo]

In adult diapers... you monster

Life imitates TV...

[AC-x]

So watching a news-worthy video is illegal eh? Sounds like part of the plot from the first episode of Black Mirror.

The Foley Beheading was Faked

[FudRucker]

http://beforeitsnews.com/alter...

Re:The Foley Beheading was Faked

[AHuxley]

In the past a Strategy of tension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... could be kept going for years.
"Western governments during the Cold war used tactics that aimed to divide, manipulate, and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorist actions in order to achieve their strategic aims"
Also see Operation Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:The slippery slope

[Panoptes]

The British police have long since crossed the Rubicon of public trust and support. It is tragic to see a once respected and admired group of public servants become a venal, corrupt and despised bunch of bully-boys, despotic and arrogant beyond belief. In my more cynical moments I reflect that post-Thatcher Britain has at last got the guardians it deserves.

Re: They should do the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that nasty organisation - which though it is thoroughly unpleasant is far better than Islam because it has never even threatened to kill someone, let alone murdering thousands, kidnapping thousands of women as sex slaves and chopping off journalist's heads?

Yeah. No true Christian would do anything like that, except for the Army of God, IRA, the NLFT (who forcibly convert people, as well as using rape as a means of intimidation), Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati (who was gunned down on behalf of Christians using World Vision as cover), NSCN, one of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland factions carried out ethnic cleansing leaving 900 people dead and 100,000 refugees, Maronite Christian militias in Lebanon targeting Muslims and Palestinian refugees ("People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing crucifixions and were calling themselves Christians."), the Iron Guard, the Lncieri, National-Christian Defense League, the KKK, the Lord's Resistance Army, and so forth.

No, Christians are the true Religion of Peace.

Except that they are no better.

Insult to the journalist's entire career

[Ardeaem]

The idea it would be illegal to view a video of the death of a journalist -- whose very reason for being there was to inform people about events just like this -- is an insult to Foley's entire career, and to brave journalists everywhere.

Re:Insult to the journalist's entire career

[biodata]

Well said sir.

Re: They should do the opposite

[Chrisq]

You mean that nasty organisation - which though it is thoroughly unpleasant is far better than Islam because it has never even threatened to kill someone, let alone murdering thousands, kidnapping thousands of women as sex slaves and chopping off journalist's heads?

Yeah. No true Christian would do anything like that, except for the Army of God, IRA, the NLFT (who forcibly convert people, as well as using rape as a means of intimidation), Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati (who was gunned down on behalf of Christians using World Vision as cover), NSCN, one of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland factions carried out ethnic cleansing leaving 900 people dead and 100,000 refugees, Maronite Christian militias in Lebanon targeting Muslims and Palestinian refugees ("People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing crucifixions and were calling themselves Christians."), the Iron Guard, the Lncieri, National-Christian Defense League, the KKK, the Lord's Resistance Army, and so forth.

No, Christians are the true Religion of Peace.

Except that they are no better.

So are you arguing that we should also hide any videos of Christian atrocities or that the Muslims should be able to commit rapes and murders because some Christians do to?

I should also point out on behalf of Christians that we don't have hundreds of Christians from the West going to join these groups, and that a majority of Christians condemn these atrocities whereas when Muslims commit atrocities we see thousands of them celebrating.

Look Away

[jaeztheangel]

Roll Up, Roll Up,
To Look Away,
As A Cockney
Betrays the UK.

Journalist or Spy?
He Didn't Have To Die
All Fanatics Lie
While Families Cry.

Rest In Peace, Our thoughts are with the family.

They're wrong

[tomtomtom]

They just made this up. See this which was written by an actual lawyer, not a press office: Is viewing a video a criminal offence under terrorism law? (may be paywalled).

Odd argument - and doesn't guarantee peace in 2700

[Chrisq]

Please note, it is now 1370-something according to islamic calendar, as it starts from Mohamed's flight.

During the 1370s, christians were very busy beheading, hanging and burning people, just because they had a different opinion on religion or were considered witches and sorcerers or suggested better methods to stop pestilence beyond prayers. Furthermore, in that era entire armies of christians chopped up each other on the battlefields over who was to become the next king or whether the Pope should be above the Emperor or vica versa. By now, most christian nations have grown up and no longer do such things.

Thus, I suggest islamic calendar 2000-something will see a lot of muslim computer chip engineers and software designers, who don't even know how to use a knife or an RPG (the non-dungeon type).

If you go along the lines that we should allow it because Christians did the same thing hundreds of years ago there will never be peace. for one thing it is by no means certain that the same thing will happen in Islam. The Quran has a lot of direct instructions to murder, rape, and subjugate non believers - becoming a peaceful religion would mean seeing a lot of the Qur'an as incorrect, whereas for Christians it largely meant ignoring the Old testament - which the theology itself made easy.

That said Judaism has largely come to terms with the violent passages in the Old testament, so its not impossible. The thing is even if it does happen, and you are content to let the Muslims continue in barbarism until 2700 then what's to say that some other religion won't be violent then? Will your descendants then say "oh well the Christians and Muslims used to be like this so lets give them a few centuries of barbarism?"

Reverse psychology

[biodata]

The powers that be want as many people to see this as possible so that they can inflame passions for the new invasion of Iraq. They know that telling people not to watch it will ensure that as many people get to see it as possible.

Re:The slippery slope

[FudRucker]

I can take care of any idiot stupid enough to break in while i am at home, as as matter of fact i would be so brutal to any intruder that they would prefer the cops take them away

The people of the UK.

[TapeCutter]

1. It's not him silly, it's "the people of the UK", who are you to claim immunity from the democratic will of society, where does this immunity end?
2. Your overreacting to something the head cop said "could" be considered illegal. I think if you dig a bit deeper than the click bait headline you'll find his real message was more along the lines of - "Yes we all know it's shocking, but please stop reacting as intended by those who perpetrated this act". There's also a cultural difference in the way the UK justice system operates, as a general rule UK public prosecutors are nowhere near as eager to be associated with frivolous convictions and "plea bargaining" as their US counterparts seem to be. UK society in general is less tolerant of "anti-social behaviour", it's their idea of "keeping the peace" and it works rather well for "the people of the UK".

I don't give a damn. My portion of society isn't affected by those threats, and thus those who might consider attempting to threaten me under inapplicable jurisdictions are welcome to go fuck themselves. Apparently, you're invited to the latter party. Would you care for some lube?

Yeah right, you tell 'em how it is internet tough guy, lol.

Disclaimer, not the AC, who btw has as much right to his privacy as the Foley family does to theirs.

Re:The people of the UK.

[drinkypoo]

who are you to claim immunity from the democratic will of society

Laws which prohibit citizens sharing information are not enacted at the will of society, but by those who would control them by feeding them misinformation.

Re:The people of the UK.

[philip.paradis]

It's not him silly, it's "the people of the UK", who are you to claim immunity from the democratic will of society, where does this immunity end?

I don't care about relevant rules/restrictions/regulations/laws adhered to the by people the UK in matters such as this; that's largely my point. My immunity starts where their jurisdiction stops.

Your overreacting to something the head cop said "could" be considered illegal. I think if you dig a bit deeper than the click bait headline you'll find his real message was more along the lines of - "Yes we all know it's shocking, but please stop reacting as intended by those who perpetrated this act". There's also a cultural difference in the way the UK justice system operates, as a general rule UK public prosecutors are nowhere near as eager to be associated with frivolous convictions and "plea bargaining" as their US counterparts seem to be. UK society in general is less tolerant of "anti-social behaviour", it's their idea of "keeping the peace" and it works rather well for "the people of the UK".

I'd love to offer you the excuse that you must be unfamiliar with the way the UK treats freedom of expression, but judging by your last sentence you're plainly aware of the true state of affairs. You didn't even do a passable job of prettying it up with your preceding statements. At least we're in agreement that the UK clearly operates under different rules. Public communication of possible state criminal prosecution due to the dissemination of information such as the video in question amounts to one thing only: a veiled threat, no matter how politely put it may be. I don't have to accept that from where I sit.

Yeah right, you tell 'em how it is internet tough guy, lol.

Internet tough guy? I post with my full name, and my residential address is easy to come by. Please tell me you're not so cognitively impaired that you can't figure it out. I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in person if you like; please feel free to swing by the house whenever you like. I do ask that you provide a bit of advance notice, as I wouldn't want to mistake you for an unwelcome guest and take unfortunate adverse actions upon your arrival.

Disclaimer, not the AC, who btw has as much right to his privacy as the Foley family does to theirs.

You're absolutely correct that the AC I responded to has a right to his privacy. I have a corresponding right to call him a coward, and not simply in the AC sense. As for considerations regarding Foley's family wishes, he was a United States citizen. As soon as I receive a valid written communication from the his estate to the effect that they don't want people directly appraised of the savage acts committed against him, I'll gladly act in accordance with said wishes. As for your wishes on the matter, I suggest you print them out on quality cardstock, roll the pages into a neat little cylinder, and go fuck yourself with it. Enjoy, champ.

Re:The people of the UK.

[shutdown -p now]

who are you to claim immunity from the democratic will of society

A human being with natural rights.

A "democratic will of society" is not the end-all, be-all. The democratic will of society in Weimar Germany resulted in a totalitarian regime that opened the first concentration camp for political opponents less than two months after taking over the government. The democratic will of society in Rwanda resulted in a genocide of several hundred thousand people. The democratic will of society in Russia resulted in invasion of a sovereign country and annexation of part of its territory.

Re: The people of the UK.

[philip.paradis]

Aw, poor baby, did I touch a nerve? Grow a pair, jackass.

Re:The same reason other content are illegal

[drinkypoo]

"Why should it be illegal that I do?" because some culture set a point at which they do not want some content to be watched.

Cultures don't do that. Tiny subgroups of cultures do that. Care to try to excuse censorship again?

Re:You are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a moron. If everybody bothered to ignore this, then the extremists wouldn't have any reason to do this since they are only doing this for attention. It is like little kids, you just make it worse if you attend every whining they do, because then they will learn that can just whine to grab your attention.

It's part of the historical record

[timrod]

As gruesome as the video is, it is now part of the historic record - whether the police in the UK like it or not. The same thing happened with the Budd Dwyer suicide video, where a bunch of studios chose not to air any footage at all from the suicide, not even the parts that did not contain gore. Fortunately, as bad as that video is, copies have survived to become part of the record, which is important in understanding things like how the media reacted to the first suicide ever recorded on television.

Years from now, when the history books are trying to teach kids everywhere how brutal groups like ISIS were, this is what they will have to show them - how the Islamic fighters were so enthralled with the idea of turning Iraq and Syria into islamic states that they were willing to forego their humanity and behead a man who had done nothing to them, simply because he wasn't of the same religion as they were.

Re: They should do the opposite

[Chrisq]

You have thousands of Christians going to African countries to convince them to change the laws in order to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death.

Do you have a reference for that?

UK moves into German territory

[Lawrence_Bird]

Germans can't read Hitler's stuff because.... omfg they might get naughty ideas and start killing jews again!
Brits can't watch videos made by terrorists because... omfg they might be come scared! or radicalized! Crusades 2014!

I long ago decided never to set foot in the UK again. Not that the US is any wonderland but the UK (with Australia right on its heels) is a complete pukefest now. I'm not even sure what comes after the "Daddy" and "Mommy" state but the UK is certainly flirting with it.

Re:Odd argument - and doesn't guarantee peace in 2

[Chrisq]

Oh look, you have never read quran. Have you read the old testament? This is some seriously sick shit there.

I have read both and both are rather nasty.

Re:You are an idiot

[GameboyRMH]

If every person tried to ignore this, the media would still harp on it to get us all to pay attention to make them ad dollars, it doesn't make much difference how many individual people watch the video.

Let People See It

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, its gruesome, horrible, disgusting, vile, etc. But people should see it if they so choose. The world needs to see just how barbaric these IS / ISIS / ISIL (or whatever the fuck they go by today) savages are. More people need to see that THIS is what religious extremism leads to. When even Osama Fucking Bin Laden says you're taking it too far, then you've left the reservation completely. I'm just sad they AREN'T all consolidated in their own little made-up state. At least then it would be easier to carpet bomb these dirt-eating goat fuckers into oblivion. Preferrably with bombs painted in pig blood and warheads wrapped in bacon.

To the UK Police

[azav]

Go fuck yourself. Sincerely, the world.

Nobody takes any notice of English and Welsh law.

[pigsycyberbully]

The video is everywhere it is even on YouTube. There is even a GIF animation, where he keeps on getting his head cut off again and again, and again! Nobody takes any notice of these laws in the U.K. they make them up as they go along like "hate crime" there is no law for hate crime because no crime is friendly or meaning to be friendly. There is literally no such thing as a hate crime in law. There is a law for writing the words fuck, cunt and shit on the Internet using telecommunications telephone satellite wireless and so on. There is a law to stop you from walking across the road called jaywalking. There is also a law against talking on a footpath without walking. Literally nobody takes any notice of English and Welsh law.

Re:Meaning?

[philip.paradis]

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. It would seem that unless ISIS initiates content removal requests, the media in question would not be subject to ordinary reproduction restrictions, as it was released for public distribution by ISIS. This said, I urge you to consult competent legal counsel regarding jurisdictional considerations.

Re:They should do the opposite

[GameboyRMH]

Yesterday I read an article that mentioned the number of Austrian Muslims that have gone to fight for ISIS, and the number of Muslims living in Austria.

I punched those numbers into my calculator and it said that 0.0002% of Austrian Muslims are ISIS-level nutbags. Are you going to label an entire religion over the actions of a nutbag fringe?

Your bigotry has been unfounded the entire time.

Re:The same reason other content are illegal

[thegarbz]

From what I recall it's not illegal for me to see breasts. What I think you are describing is public exposure or "indecency" as a small subgroup of your "culture" calls it. That is subjecting others to content, and has nothing to do with consumption.

Now why is it that I am allowed to legally watch Pyramid Head rip of the skin right off a woman and throw it at some of his other victims, but I am not allowed to see one persons's head get separated from their body.

Again try and draw the distinction between viewing something in private where it affects no one other than yourself and tell me again what culture has to do with it. And also remember that statistically the cultured folk around you will be into all sorts of perverse activities in their private times.

Pirate Bay

[dixonpete]

There a couple of torrents of the video there. Mostly it's all rhetoric, some of it voiced by Foley himself. The actually beheading isn't shown, just the start and end of it. My reaction to watching was simply that these bastards needed to be put down ASAP. Presumably not the response they were hoping for.

So,Would Tiananmen Square Photos Be Illegal Today?

[RhettLivingston]

In June of 1989, similarly horrible and grotesque videos and pictures made their way out of the Tiananmen Square massacre, including a graphic shot of the crushed remains of the head of a student run over by a tank. The massacre was unquestionably a terrorist act designed to regain control of the people through their fears by the creation of maximum horror. The government wanted the message to get out. But does anyone really believe it worked for them in the end? Have we sunk so low that we would make the dissemination of such truths illegal today?

ISIL has reached the status of a government. Governments don't have to be recognized to "be". For now, they govern a territory and its people. Like all of the videos of terrorist government atrocities, this video does not generate sympathy for that government. Instead, it builds anger against it.

Furthermore, this man was a journalist. What do you think he would want? Perhaps for the horror of his death to cause change? I'm not a journalist and I know that I'd want the world to see.

Can't do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't aware of the story of the killing until this headline. This story brought out the 'I support no censorship in me'. But a little voice in my head said read before you find and watch. I'm glad I read first. Ban or no ban, censorship or not... I do not want to watch it. Why? First, watching a murder kills a piece of yourself. Second, it was a video made and promoted by real terrorists. Not the 'you broke the law, so we charge you as a terrorist' type, but REAL ones. I don't want to support or give any legitimacy to them. I think of the dilemma of hating censorship vs. hating real terrorism and can only come up with this decision. The only censorship I will accept is the censorship I give myself. I will not watch it, but not because I was told not to... but because *I* decided it would be harmful to me.

I will learn about him and mourn him instead, and pray for peace for him and his family.

Re:Moreover...

[Jiro]

Islamic countries in the Middle East generally work on a tribal culture which is heavily based around people gaining status through family connections. In other words, even you just kill the actual terrorists, you're *still* making someone angry because you killed his family.

really?

[nurb432]

Posting is a terrorist *act*? it may be really tacky, uncool, and not something i would want to watch, but is NOT a terrorist act.

What is next, discussing it is considered a terrorist act ?

Man, we are falling down the rabbit hole faster than most of us could have imagined. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

Re:They should do the opposite

[Chrisq]

Well there are thought to be Twice as Many' British Muslims Fighting for ISIS Than in UK Armed Forces, and a survey a number of years ago showed that a large percentage of British Muslims thought theat acts of terror against civilians is justified.

We value freedom

[MooseTick]

Those terrorists don't value freedom like we do.

Like, the freedom to watch a video and get arrested for it.

Wrong Message

[SuperKendall]

Releasing the hostages for any amount of money would at the very least decry to the world that America loves and honors life

What good is helping one to hurt thousands. That is not valuing life at all.

It says exactly the opposite, that America cares so little for anyone's life that they are willing to encourage more kidnappings.

The true way to value a life is to say its worth is without measure, so you cannot demand money for it.

Supressed: ISIS is our alley against Assad.

[FriendlyLurker]

Good luck with that.

We all (UK, US) fund the Syrian "rebels" aka ISIS with our tax dollars. The same terrorist organization responsible for the beheading - receiving money and training directly and indirectly through us and from our close allies. If mainstream media have "suppressed" this little detail (well, not mentioned very much), then suppressing the video so that not many see that either won't be too hard.

magnet link to the video

[bd580slashdot]

I downloaded the video from liveleaks.

Here is the magnet link:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:eda055c56511005f5d9ed2f381cb6b0bc8781ce8&dn=ISIS%5Fbeheading%5FJames%20Foley.mp4

I am seeding right now.

Re:magnet link to the video - 2 more from tbp

[bd580slashdot]

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:a94aa98f2bca3381d2ae730b2eb123d244d17111&dn=James+Foley+beheaded+journalist.mp4&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:a28a94bb590e0019333826fc5a501877d548e520&dn=ISIS%20beheading%20American%20James%20Wright%20Foley.mp4&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:eda055c56511005f5d9ed2f381cb6b0bc8781ce8&dn=ISIS%5Fbeheading%5FJames%20Foley.mp4

It's too tragic to hold your beliefs to it.

[Bust0ut]

Censorship mechanisms are clearly in place everywhere; the UK has great audacity to acknowledge it. The video is being wiped from the history books by lack-luster politicians and their alliances. We can not allow this machine to be proven effective, even once. Any individual who would seek to control my life experience does not belong in the United States. We need to build a tower to remember those who sacrificed for America, instead, we wade in the pond where our enemies and allies drift onwards.

Re:Because it's fake, perhaps?

[x0ra]

Moreover, if I was about to die, I would never behave as James Foley allegedly did. There is no fear in his words. I can't believe someone about to die would behave as such. As the neck is being cut, there is no sign of blood. Even the 3/8" long cut of superficial skin I made on my thumb with a chisel yesterday was bleeding more, and I was not slicing myself with force...

Perfect!

[Cyfun]

Step 1: Send video link to all political officials, claiming it to be cute kitties

Step 2: Have them arrested for clicking on the video

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Profit!

Is it a bigger sin than drawing Muhammad?

[someoneOtherThanMe]

We should announce an international "watch James Foley killing day".

Re:Meaning?

[philip.paradis]

I'll repeat the note that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Failure to consent to participation in a production does not imply assignment of copyright. Perhaps you were thinking of case law involving works produced for hire; I'm confident the victim didn't pay to have his own execution rendered to video, unless you count paying with his life. Perhaps I'm missing something here and his estate will come forward with a claim for financial damages on grounds of copyright, though. Should such a claim arise, I'd be keenly interested to see learn of their intended collection mechanism.