'1984' was a WARNING. Not a bloody INSTRUCTION MANUAL.
Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?
A Register reporter has been let away with a slap on the wrist after confessing to what the cops claim is an act of terrorism. According to the Metropolitan Police, anyone caught watching a sickening beheading video will be treated like a terrorist. Lawyer and legal commentator David Allen Green challenged that claim – and we …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 17:09 GMT NumptyScrub
quote: "It wasn't meant to be a cliché factory either....
New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."
Watching a video is not an act of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of violence directed against the state.
The word the Met officer wanted is sedition, which is an act of promoting or fostering discontent with the state in a non-violent manner (using violence makes it terrorism).
Watching a video is not sedition either though. You would need to promote or distribute the video for it to be an act of sedition.
For simply watching a video to be considered a crime under existing terrorism legislation, that legislation would have to be so very broad you could argue it was deliberately ignoring what terrorism actually is. What is the betting shouting "Allah won't like you doing that" at someone in the street "may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation" in the UK?
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 20:50 GMT GotThumbs
But, but what if....
the video was an instructional video on how to create a bomb?
My point is....the context of the video is (and should be) a SIGNIFICANT factor in any governments concern regarding who views the video and where are they located.
Would you be concerned if the police did NOT look into the chap who lives next door to you or works in the same building as you....who has been watching multiple videos created by known terrorist organizations?
Just because some sick bastard chooses to view the beheading of a fellow journalist, he seems to want to inflame his local government.
We should all remember that the term 'Journalist' is very, VERY LOOSELY used these days.
IMO. There is ZERO information to be learned, buy viewing this video, but the terrorists will LOVE to see the view numbers jump. It's what they want.
Why not be the bigger person and choose to disappoint them by NOT viewing it.
-
Sunday 7th September 2014 10:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: But, but what if....
@ GotThumbs
"Just because some sick bastard chooses to view the beheading"
Strange. It was only a couple of hundred years ago that the Brits and French got a good afternoon's entertainment out of public executions. What's the difference between that and watching a video, other than the technology.
Some of them not that long ago weren't just beheadings either. What about a nice bit of flaying alive, or hanging, drawing and quartering.
Bear in mind that most of these people seem to be living in a period far removed from the current period - or want to take life back to those times, so it fits very well with their philosophy.
-
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 23:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
... if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first.
Well the article itself rather worryingly deployed "sickening" without quotes or the required minimum of irony, so I think you're getting your offence a bit out of proportion. Anyway, no one's read Tony Blairs autobiography, so what do we use for comparison?
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 23:30 GMT corestore
"New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."
1. I never read the Daily Mail.
2. Newspeak.
3. Thoughtcrime
3. 'That's not watching a video, that's supporting terrorism'
4. 'That's not free speech - we'd NEVER curtail free speech - that's *propaganda*'
5. 'That's not a rifle, we would never ban rifles, that's an *assault weapon*.'
Redefine it, isolate it, destroy it, change the meme, change the language. 1984.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 15:31 GMT NoneSuch
Having a government dictate what you can see, read, and hear for "your protection" is the first step to despotism. It only increases over time and eventually leads to a Little Red Book or Mein Kampf becoming leading literature for the masses.
Governments work for us. We tell them what to do. Once governments begin dictating edicts to the people, you no longer live in a democracy.
-
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 18:35 GMT Anomalous Cowshed
"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"
But that's precisely the problem: all governments are afraid of their people, which is why they spend so much time, money and resources, one might even say, ingenuity, in attempting to control or repress them. Because as government inevitably tends towards "government of the masses by the elites" it becomes increasingly important to the elites to remain in government and avoid being lawfully or violently demoted to the ranks of the governed masses.
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 19:18 GMT Hargrove
Re: "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"
@ Anomalous Cowshed:
Because as government inevitably tends towards "government of the masses by the elites" it becomes increasingly important to the elites to remain in government and avoid being lawfully or violently demoted to the ranks of the governed masses.
Nicely put.
For what it's worth, at least in the US, several distinctions are useful.
There is the Government in Theory--a conceptual republic whose just powers derive from the will of those governed which is reflected in the rule of law.
There is the government as actually specified in the formal laws of a nation. Because power does not yield, these inevitably become disconnected from the will of the people.
Finally there are those who govern. For the same reason, (power does yield), they act uncompromisingly for the benefit of special interests who perpetuate their power, with increasing disregard for both the concept of a rule of law and the written laws themselves.
The aggregate message of the reports we see here in the Register is that the People comprising society at large need to become critically discriminating with regard to the difference between proper government and the actions of those who govern. And, to begin to take organized steps to change the latter at the polls, while we still can.
Never forget Miriam Carey.
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 21:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"
"People comprising society at large need to become critically discriminating with regard to the difference between proper government and the actions of those who govern."
For this, you need the people to be adequately educated. But for those who govern, adequately educated means "be barely able to read and write, and vote us to keep in government".
As Juvenal wrote... Panem et circenses (Bread and Circus)...
-
-
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 20:55 GMT Keep Refrigerated
Governments should be afraid of their people?
You know, for me, this quote has always been problematic. The way I see it, governments are afraid of the people... which is why they are increasingly stripping our rights and monitoring our communications.
Of course "Governments should work for their people" unfortunately doesn't quite sound so dramatic.
-
Sunday 24th August 2014 17:39 GMT skeptical i
Re: Governments should be afraid of their people?
@KeepRefrigerated, re: "Of course 'Governments should work for their people' unfortunately does not quite sound so dramatic."
Problem is, for /which/ people should my government be working? We the people who elect our representatives? Or them the people who fund the campaigns? Very occasionally these two constituencies have concerns in common, but ....
-
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 20:06 GMT Charles Manning
"Once governments begin dictating edicts to the people, you no longer live in a democracy."
Well you voted for them, so it is a democracy.
Parties only develop their policies in response to what the public gives them feedback on by voting. Like any other manufacturer/service provider, they sell what the punters buy.
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 01:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @Charles Manning
"Well you voted for them, so it is a democracy."
Huh? I didn't vote for this shower of crap that is in power right now... I do however think that there should be a general election instead of using a 'kingmaker' (whom was Clegg) to grant Cameron what he needs to be prime minister though.
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 10:37 GMT Graham Marsden
@Charles Manning - "Like any other manufacturer/service provider, they sell what the punters buy"
No, they sell what the suckers will believe.
For example the 2010 Tory Party Manifesto said "We will stop the forced closure of A&E and maternity wards, so that people have better access to local services, and give mothers a real choice over where to have their baby, with NHS funding following their decisions."
But in 2012 the Tories attempt to force the closure of the A&E and maternity ward at Lewisham Hospital, however, fortunately, they were defeated in the courts.
That's just *one* small example of what lies politicians will peddle to get people to vote for them, knowing full well that, once they're in power, they can do what the hell they like for the next four or five years before they peddle a *new* set of lies (and bribe people with their own money) to get them to vote for them again.
This makes a total mockery of the concept of democracy.
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 16:14 GMT James Micallef
Re: "Like any other manufacturer/service provider, they sell what the punters buy"
I wonder if a constitutional* change could be in order - Political parties need to present in their electoral manifesto not just 'blah-blah' but proposed legislation. Parliament procedure is run by civil service and by constitutional law, only laws in the manifesto can be proposed.
I know parties will argue that this binds them to much, doesn't allow flexibility etc, however I would argue that this is exactly what is needed. A lot of legislation is knee-jerk reaction to current situation and poorly thought out / rushed through, and mostly unneeded and based on political posturing about the 'cause du jour'. If legislation is good, it will always be applicable. legislation made for special cases is usually super-crappy. And if they want 'more flexibility' that's easy - limit governments to 2 or 3 year terms
*yeah, I know UK hasn't one, but equivalent basic laws on governance that cannot be changed by the party currently in power, needs national referendum 2/3 majority to change type-of-thing
-
-
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 05:38 GMT Shannon Jacobs
I am strongly opposed to censorship, but this beheading video manages to cross my line because the making of the video with the intention that people watch it and be frightened because of the video was an intrinsic part of the motivation of the vicious crime. If they knew that no one would see the video, then they might not have killed him, and anyone deliberately acting to distribute that video should be traced and arrested for aiding a crime or encouraging future crimes. By making terrorism succeed, that person is guaranteeing future acts of terrorism.
I actually think that professional journalists might be required for the sake of their work to watch it, but the general principle here is to negate the murderers' intentions by NOT watching the video. The sad punchline is that the victim died for the sake of freedom of speech, the underlying principle of serious journalism.
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 08:19 GMT DrBobMatthews
A very slippery slope to go down. No government has any right whatsoever to decide on what is acceptable for an individual should watch. Attempting to use flawed legislation introduced as a knee jerk reaction is always going to fail from mostly lack of respect. In todays overburdened legistaive nightmare of a world, the John Pilger photograph of the little Vietnamese girl on fire running up the road, would probably have been banned material by the Met Police and the government.
I have seen stills from the video and it is disgusting, but it also in its pictoral form sends two messages.
1. The "executioner" is sufficiently arrogant and brutal as not to care about the consequences.
2. This is the world like it or not that the West has helped to create by its heavy handed blind incursions into other countries. We are all of us partly culpable for creating the conditions that allowed this to happen.
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 12:18 GMT NumptyScrub
quote: "A very slippery slope to go down. No government has any right whatsoever to decide on what is acceptable for an individual should watch."
Child porn.
That's how effective the "think of the children" argument is. I'm conflicted myself; I agree that the passive act of viewing something should not be, of itself, an offense, but I suspect I would still be comfortable agreeing with a guilty verdict for someone who was found simply watching child porn, as long as it was beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to watch that content.
I categorically cannot agree that watching a video is terrorism though. The act has to be violent to be terrorism, and watching a video is not a violent act.
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 12:45 GMT <shakes head>
i do belive you are mistaken, this is thee result of the west removing it's heavy hand from those areas (post 1945), this is what is was like before the days of empire, everyone breaking into smaller and smaller groups and a us and them mentality. with empire the Empire was always them and so everyone got on a whole lot better.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 08:34 GMT DrBobMatthews
Re: Eastasia
I agree, but what it boils down to is the ridiculously flawed doctrine so beloved by duplicitous politicians, "My enemies enemy is my friend" wow has that been torn to shreds over the last 20 years.
After the illegal war in Iraq and the nonexistent WMD's it should have been change to my supposed friends are my enemies friends.
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 09:50 GMT Bumpy Cat
Re: Eastasia
The government wasn't going to support ISIS or al-Nusra. Stop repeating such nonsense. They were going to support the FSA, who are a broad, mostly secular resistance movement. However, Assad is not stupid; he ignored ISIS/al-Nusra and focussed all the attacks of the Syrian government on the liberal/secular opposition; he released 500+ Islamist insurgents from jail to bolster ISIS; some reports say that the Syrian govt even came to an arrangement with ISIS/al-Nusra to not attack each other, allowing both of them to concentrate on the FSA.
The result: ISIS can claim to be the bulk of the resistance to the Syrian government. The Syrian government can point to ISIS and say "See? Our opposition are sectarian fascist murderers!". A win for both of them - and a loss for anyone who calls themself liberal or secular.
-
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 14:00 GMT Matt Bryant
Re: corestore
"'1984' was a WARNING. Not a bloody INSTRUCTION MANUAL." So you have the barbaric and totally unjustified beheading of a reporter by an Islamist, simply because the reporter was a Yank, in a propaganda video that the Islamists want to have distributed as widely as possible, and your immediate response is to criticise the government's efforts to block their propaganda? You are seriously in need of a reality check.
-
Thursday 21st August 2014 16:33 GMT NumptyScrub
Re: corestore
quote: "So you have the barbaric and totally unjustified beheading of a reporter by an Islamist, simply because the reporter was a Yank, in a propaganda video that the Islamists want to have distributed as widely as possible, and your immediate response is to criticise the government's efforts to block their propaganda? You are seriously in need of a reality check."
Show me where in law it is an actual offense to watch that video, and I shall immediately shut up.
Letting people know about propaganda is one thing (although Streisand Effect, right?) but an official statement implying that simply viewing it makes you a terrorist is incomprehendably stupid. Nobody that far divorced from either reality or common sense should be in such a position of power in the first place.
They may as well have said that "making a cheese sandwich may constitute an offense under Terrorism legislation". It's as patently ridiculous and just as unenforcable, IMO, whilst also being exactly as true (for any given value of "may"). It's also just as damning of both the apparent vagueness of the existing Terrorism legislation, and the Service's apparent (lack of) understanding of it.
I'm going to make myself some cheese sandwiches for lunch tomorrow as a deliberate act of sedition.
You'll note that at no point have I condoned the actions perpetrated in this video. I completely disagree with the act and with the message it apparently portrays, and idiots like that have my utmost contempt. What also has my contempt, though, is the way that at least some people in the Service think that anything they don't like the sound of is automatically illegal, without any reference to actual legislation (and a complete inability to quote legislation to back up their previous statements). That, sir, is a fucking diabolical state of affairs (pun intended).
-
-
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 15:13 GMT Khaptain
Two girls and a cup
"Two girls and a cup" - Easy to make a mistake about what you are going to see.
"Beheading of a British Journalist". - not a lot of error possible here.
Should everyone that looks at the crucifixion scene or a bloody Christ dying on the cross also be considered as terrorists ?
-
Wednesday 20th August 2014 15:23 GMT Rich 11
Re: Two girls and a cup
Should everyone that looks at the crucifixion scene or a bloody Christ dying on the cross also be considered as terrorists ?
Not if they consider the crucifixion a just and lawful act. That would make them supporters of the Imperial Roman hegemony, not terrorists. However if they didn't consider it just or lawful, that might risk them being categorised as opponents of the regime, and potentially rebels, insurgents or terrorists.
So not the best comparison, really.
-