Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Could Imprison People For Looking At Terrorist Content (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson writes: Not content with trying to "combat" encryption, the UK government also wants to criminalize looking at terrorist content. The leading Conservative party has announced plans which threaten those who "repeatedly view terrorist content online" with time behind bars. New laws will be introduced that could see consumers of terrorist content imprisoned for up to 15 years. The same maximum sentence would face those who share information about police, soldiers or intelligence agencies with a view to organizing terrorist attacks.
How are you Wiggy Buggers over there going to get your rights back without guns?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
You can't learn about terrorism without reading about it. Not reading about it leaves you ignorant. Being ignorant removes the tools for combating it.
Well, you're not supposed to research it on your own. Listening to alternative political viewpoints and being able to form your opinions on your own is the greatest evil. Just stay away from those websites and wait for government approved educational materials to inform you about terrorism, and how you should feel about it.
Misrepresents Citizens United.
And money doesn't necessarily translate to wins.
Bloomberg:
He didn't win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. In the primaries and general election, he defied conventional wisdom, besting better financed candidates by dominating the air waves for free. Trump also put to use his own cash, as well as the assets and infrastructure of his businesses, in unprecedented fashion. He donated $66 million of his own money, flew across the country in his private jet, and used his resorts to stage campaign events. At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors giving $200 or less. Super-PACs, which can take contributions unlimited in size, were similarly skewed toward his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Ultimately, Trump won the presidency despite having raised less than any major party presidential nominee since John McCain in 2008, the last to accept federal funds to pay for his general election contest.
Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion, less than President Barack Obama raised in 2012. Her sophisticated fundraising operation included a small army of wealthy donors who wrote seven-figure checks, hundreds of bundlers who raised $100,000 or more from their own networks, and a small-dollar donor operation modeled on the one used by Obama in 2012. She spent heavily on television advertising and her get-out-the-vote operation, but in the end, her fundraising edge wasn't enough to overcome Trump's ability to dominate headlines and the airwaves.
On Dec. 8, campaigns and super-PACs filed their post-election reports on fundraising and spending with the Federal Election Commission from Oct. 20 through Nov. 28. Here's where they stood at the end of the race:
Hillary Clinton
TOTAL RAISED
$1,191M
Candidate Raised to Date* $973.2M
Spent $969.1M
Cash on Hand $4.1M
Super-PACs Raised to Date $217.5M
Spent $215.1M
Cash on Hand $3.7M
Total Raised to Date $1,190.7M
Total Spent $1,184.1M
Total Cash on Hand $7.8M
Donald Trump
TOTAL RAISED
$646.8M
Candidate Raised to Date* $564.3M
Spent $531.0M
Cash on Hand $33.3M
Super-PACs Raised to Date $82.3M
Spent $85.5M
Cash on Hand -$1.8M
Total Raised to Date $646.8M
Total Spent $616.5M
Total Cash on Hand $31.5M
The UK wants to divorce from Europe partly because those pesky European Human Rights keep getting in the way if their oppression.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC