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."

18 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...)

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

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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...?

  6. 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?

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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.