Arrested for watching!?

Juan Mourep

Juan Mourep

Vital 1st Team Regular
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/20/watch-james-foleys-beheading-online-and-you-could-get-arrested_n_5694871.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

The Metropolitan Police have issued an extraordinary warning today that anyone viewing or sharing a graphic video of the beheading of a US journalist may be liable for arrest.

In a statement issued Wednesday afternoon, Scotland Yard said they were examining the video, which shows the murder of freelancer James Foley by an ISIS jihadist with a British accent. The Met warned that "viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation".

"I can understand completely the Metropolitan Police wanting to deter the sharing of this film, but if they are going to threaten people with possible prosecution for a very serious offence for just viewing the material, they really should quote Act and Section, as they have most media lawyers scratching their heads to think what law they are referring to,"


 
My point of view on this subject is this....

Looking at, downloading this horrific, barbaric video is what they want. I wouldn't wish to do this and will not as I wouldn't want to seem that I am encouraging more of this. Ok, I am fully aware that not viewing this type of stuff is not going to stop them from posting it on the internet, but why should you want to seem to encourage it?
 
Surely they should be spending their time and resources blocking the websites with the extremist material in the first place?
 
david-avfc - 22/8/2014 05:42

Surely they should be spending their time and resources blocking the websites with the extremist material in the first place?
Click to expand...


Problem is, it's a thankless task. As they said on the news tonight, as soon they block/take down these posting, replacement/new ones are uploaded.

And of course they look to post on sites like Youtube for instance....
 
Pride of Lions - 21/8/2014 22:36

My point of view on this subject is this....

Looking at, downloading this horrific, barbaric video is what they want. I wouldn't wish to do this and will not
Click to expand...



Ditto! I never searched out the Saddam death either.

The threat of prosecution for watching world news is however a breach of our freedom to search out the truth.

And no, I don't see it the same as paedophiles getting their rocks off.

There will be those sick people out there who get a kick out of such things, but I would wager that most would be sickened by such a violent act.


 
Juan Mourep - 22/8/2014 00:05

Pride of Lions - 21/8/2014 22:36

My point of view on this subject is this....

Looking at, downloading this horrific, barbaric video is what they want. I wouldn't wish to do this and will not
Click to expand...



Ditto! I never searched out the Saddam death either.

The threat of prosecution for watching world news is however a breach of our freedom to search out the truth.

And no, I don't see it the same as paedophiles getting their rocks off.

There will be those sick people out there who get a kick out of such things, but I would wager that most would be sickened by such a violent act.
Click to expand...

I think your missing the point. These sick videos help to spread the message of Isis. You can say only sick people would watch these videos, but there are British citizens out there who are commiting these acts of violence so obviously stuff like this appeals to some extremists and may make others want to join up or commit similar acts themselves.

Why do you think the terrorist in the video of that journalist was English? It's to appeal to young British Muslims.
 
Sorry Juan - especially as I'm about to PM you lol but you're wrong.

The warning was harsh in terms of trying to stop the curious and give them a doubt, so it's right. Nobody naturally interested will be prosecuted mate.

It was an effort to stop people being disturbed, and I say that as somebody who watched a previous beheading video years ago from Iraq becuase I was dumb enough to wonder what the fuss was about.

If that statement stops one person it's done it job.

Legally, I'd like to wonder about the 'media lawyers' who were scratching their heads to be fair in that article.

The link with paedos is correct.

There is a very clear legal difference between watching something streamed and then not streaming but downloading which ticks the 'dissemination' element of the law.

You don't download from youtube for example...that's why you don't pirate films or music etc when it's streamed but Youtube can pirate by hosting via the upload. You do download portions enough to tick the boxes when you use peer to peer for example.

People who are curious to watch this and stream it are watching propoganda, but people who don't stream in the true sense are helping to diseminate it because my experience says as you download, you also upload.

Your quoting a human rights lawyer dude who focuses on watching only really. Sherie Blair is also a human rights lawyer - remember Ginola?

That should tell you all you need to know in reality. It's a story from nothing trying to garner interest.

The statement has been screwed from the Met to suit.

And the Met were right here.

The only thing you can throw at them is treating like kids, but you never overhyped something for effect with your littlens to prove a point? lol
 
I haven't seen the video and I don't want to watch it but I'll defend anyone who wants to watch it. The government don't have the right to choose which videos or news stories we read. Anyone with a curious mind will want to know what IS, Al Queda, The Russians, whatever enemy is in fashion at the moment are all about. They want to block IS's access to the internet but don't we have a right to know what our enemies are fighting for?
 
I'm conflicted, therefore I shall comment no more unless something resolves itself. I hope that this helps to progress the debate.

 
Lost_In_Ca - 22/8/2014 08:50

Like anything concerning religion, its fucked up.
Click to expand...

I don't think the freedom to watch a terrorist beheading a journalist in an online video has an awful lot to do with religion, the terrorist act may be committed in the name of religion but not the viewing which is the point of this thread. I really don't think anyone would argue that the beheading of anyone and subsequent uploading of the video is anything other than, as you so eloquently phrase it, "fucked up".

 
When something is 'banned' more people, unfortunately want to seek it out.

This is the nature of people.

By doing this, the police are, in actual fact, promoting it
 
Think I'm with mikey boy on this.

I don't think anyone would be arrested but this looks a way to stop the spreading. Especially important the young and foolish don't watch and think it entertainment, with all the computer games, wall to wall news etc they could become de sensitised to such horrors. Plus the other side, some it would haunt and upset.

It is, I guess, spreading offensive material. Be an amazing thing if anyone was arrested though, that would indeed impinge freedom of speech. Would be fascinating on what grounds, which act and if any court in the land would touch such a ridiculous case with a barge pole.
 
I've seen it, because I was told it looked fake and had to see for myself, you don't actually see the beheading happen so not as grim, I was mainly upset by the bravery of the guy being forced to read out what ISIS made him read, talking to his family for the last time and being told what to say.

If I get arrested then so be it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.