Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Police Warn Sharing James Foley Killing Video Is a Crime

Posted by samzenpus on from the do-not-pass-go dept.

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."

43 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Jurisdiction 101 by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good luck with that.

    --
    And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
    1. Re: Jurisdiction 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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..

    2. Re: Jurisdiction 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:Jurisdiction 101 by geogob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Jurisdiction 101 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re: Jurisdiction 101 by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...)

    6. Re:Jurisdiction 101 by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re: Jurisdiction 101 by turgid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Stick Men
    8. Re: Jurisdiction 101 by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    9. Re: Jurisdiction 101 by sillybilly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re: Jurisdiction 101 by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  2. Thoughtcrime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Thoughtcrime by fredprado · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Thoughtcrime by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Thoughtcrime by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful


      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.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Thoughtcrime by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Thoughtcrime by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    6. Re:Thoughtcrime by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  3. Oh really? I thought this was AMERICA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  4. Seems to be working really well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  5. Suppression by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  6. haven't watched it... by ThorGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would anyone actually want to watch it?

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    1. Re:haven't watched it... by Nyder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:haven't watched it... by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:haven't watched it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > 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.

  7. And thus: by Zanadou · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  8. Over-eager Press Office by fremsley471 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...?

  9. legal issues. by hooiberg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  10. The power of images... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:The power of images... by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    2. Re:The power of images... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  11. Re:Benjamin Franklin said once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"

  12. Every other answer is worse by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  13. Poor quote. by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)

  14. Re:Benjamin Franklin said once by philip.paradis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  15. And have been widely criticised for saying it by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Might makes right ? by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    I think that depends strongly on the definition of democracy.

  17. Insult to the journalist's entire career by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. They're wrong by tomtomtom · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

  19. Re:Benjamin Franklin said once by infolation · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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

  20. The people of the UK. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:The people of the UK. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. Re:Might makes right ? by sabri · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.