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]

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

[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

[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

[UnknownSoldier]

Indeed.

The name you are looking for is:

Streisand effect

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[present_arms]

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

Becoming?

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

[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

[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.

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

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.

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.

haven't watched it...

[ThorGod]

Why would anyone actually want to watch it?

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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

And thus:

[Zanadou]

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

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...?

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.

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.

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

[hyades1]

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

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.

[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:Not surprising

[angularbanjo]

I think you mean an o'ffence.

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'

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.

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).

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".

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 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.

Re:Might makes right ?

[Cryacin]

I think that depends strongly on the definition of ostrich!

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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.