UK Police Warn Sharing James Foley Killing Video Is a Crime 391
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."
Jurisdiction 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Jurisdiction 101 (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..
Re: Jurisdiction 101 (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.
Re: Jurisdiction 101 (Score:2, 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.
Re: Jurisdiction 101 (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
You would have even the moderates up in arms if you did that publicly. Remember the Danish cartoonist a few years back, normally quiet muslims in Asia went apeshit, and the death threats came rolling in.
I don't know that I can agree with you on this particular item regarding censorship: I would think the extremists would love everyone to see that video, to strike fear in their hearts. They're terrorists. They want those images out there. If they can't get their message out, they aren't exactly winning
Re: (Score:3)
Terrorists don't "win" every time you get a little inconvenienced in life.
Foley was inconvenienced as he won't be able to conduct the rest of his life. Smashing this form of oppression is the duty of anyone who actually values democracy because democracy suffers insults like this everyday. You may not be a tewwowist, but you seem to be the type of coward that would be dressed in black clobbing protesters for exercising their rights. You're a different kind of oppressor, you may live in western society and we may tolerate your slimey cowardly presence, however your as much as a th
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why Pirate Bay has been shut down, just like Ghandhi's resistance was quickly and efficiently suppressed by the British Empire. Not to mention the hard-line communists who stopped the dissolution of Soviet Union through military power, and the US stamping out drug use through i
Re:Might makes right ? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as England remains a democratic country, that is ...
I think that depends strongly on the definition of democracy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Might makes right ? (Score:4, 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.
Re: Jurisdiction 101 (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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 s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
It's a myth, and does not have any basis in the modern understanding of human anatomy and physiology. A drop in blood pressure so rapid will render the victim unconscious practically instantly.
Re: Jurisdiction 101 (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...)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no written law because writing laws about watching the video, is a crime.
You joke, but that's not far off the thinking behind the First Amendment.
(To pre-empt any smart-assery: yes, I'm aware there's no First Amendment in the UK.)
Re: Jurisdiction 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
We've never had freedom of expression in the UK. Or Freedom of Speech. Or Government by the consent of the people.
Re: (Score:3)
We've never had freedom of expression in the UK. Or Freedom of Speech. Or Government by the consent of the people.
We noticed that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Jurisdiction 101 (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.
Re:Jurisdiction 101 (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.
Re:Jurisdiction 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed.
The name you are looking for is:
Streisand effect [wikipedia.org]
Supressed: ISIS is our alley against Assad. (Score:3)
Good luck with that.
We all (UK, US) fund the Syrian "rebels" aka ISIS with our tax dollars [washingtonsblog.com]. The same terrorist organization responsible for the beheading - receiving money and training directly and indirectly through us and from our close allies. If mainstream media have "suppressed" this little detail (well, not mentioned very much), then suppressing the video so that not many see that either won't be too hard.
Benjamin Franklin said once (Score:2, Informative)
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (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"
Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (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?
The people of the UK. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The people of the UK. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll add one point to my last comment. Please attempt to have me brought up on charges; I'm not difficult to find. Given your position on these matters, I'd adore the opportunity to leverage the justice system and whatever ancillary measures are necessary to discover and publicize your identity. You speak boldly, but I doubt you possess the fortitude to see your name attached to your statements.
Poor quote. (Score:4, 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)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say porn was illegal. I said extreme porn. Videos or images depicting realistic necrophilia, injury, and rape. The great thing about this law is that it doesn't actually even need to be real, it just needs to depict it. Think about it for a second and realise how broad the definition of extreme pornography actually is before you laugh at others point out how absurd the laws are.
The silent hill scene where a woman get's her skin ripped off, pass. But what about the scene from Irreversible where Moni
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Thoughtcrime (Score:4, Insightful)
even viewing the video could constitute a criminal offence in the UK
Re: (Score:3)
Surely, viewing certain types of illegal pornography is no different.
It's not a "thought" crime if what you're watching (and thereby encouraging the production of) is illegal to view.
It would be a thought crime if, say, the police arrested you for signing up on a website where you COULD have watched the video.
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thoughtcrime (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.
They need to police your thoughts so you can have freedom.
Re: (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 [wikipedia.org].
Congratulations, UK, you are becoming what you once fought against.
Re: (Score:2)
Possessing or distributing it could be regarded as a crime. But citing viewing the content as a crime leaves a very bitter after taste.
Re:Thoughtcrime (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.
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
The best arguement made against that is that if you are a "supporting audience/consumer" of the "product", you are a part of the demand, which encourages the supply.
You'd not only need to provide hard scientific evidence of that claim, but it wouldn't matter if you did. Government censorship is 100% tolerable. The people at fault for raping are the rapists, and no one else.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a "thought" crime if what you're watching (and thereby encouraging the production of) is illegal to view.
I guess pirating the video should be encouraged then.
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
A "thought crime" is where certain thoughts are illegal. My favorite example is from Christopher Hitchens @4:00 - 4:30 [youtube.com], worth watching the whole speech.
The defining feature of thought crime is that there is no physical act, no physical manifestation of a crime, just an "illegal thought", accessing a web site or making a speech is an action, it doesn't qualify. Of course in the
Re: (Score:2)
British Law? what's that? THAT is not correct....there's english law whicvh covers England and Wales... there's Scottish Law which covers... you guessed it.. Scotland and then there's the legislation passed by the Irish assembly which covers Northern Ireland. just sayin.......
Oh really? I thought this was AMERICA! (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
They have invoked Streisand. (Score:2)
I also wonder will they prosecute any of the newspapers that showed images from the video? I don't know of any news channels that broadcast the clip, but there might be one of those somewhere too.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course just telling people about the video means that it's possible to go looking for it.
Probably be of far more use to strip anyone who wants to join a foreign military/paramilitary of their citizenship. After they leave, of course.
Seems to be working really well... (Score:5, Informative)
http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/temp.html?i=bc1_1408481278
Re: (Score:3)
I think the US still thinks it's fighting against "sand niggers" and doesn't realize the true scope of what they're fighting against. I'm also surprised at their English proficiency and quality of video-editing.
Suppression (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand your argument. Care to give it a second shot, please?
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly [slashdot.org].
Or perhaps you were looking for something entirely different [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarification; I have not heard of her, as I am not at all interested in videogame journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
I am, however, acquainted with the fictional journalist Zoe Barnes [imdb.com]. The re-imagining of "House of Cards" has been a good series thus far.
Re: (Score:2)
That fits the context well enough with regard to certain parties being welcome to go fuck themselves.
haven't watched it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would anyone actually want to watch it?
Re: (Score:3)
because the guy had a London accent, I imagine quite a lot of people want to see it to check it was nobody they recognise from school or whatever.
Re:haven't watched it... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
In some random other case you might be right.
And sadly, we cannot trust any government to only tell us not to watch things when they are not things which are damning to those governments. History teaches us this. I prefer not to have to sit around and watch you repeat it like a complete rube.
Re:haven't watched it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a more important question:
Why should it be illegal that I do?
Re: (Score:3)
"Why should it be illegal that I do?" because some culture set a point at which they do not want some content to be watched.
Cultures don't do that. Tiny subgroups of cultures do that. Care to try to excuse censorship again?
Re:haven't watched it... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
For the same reason, I recommend that people go look up "The Clanging of Swords" - it's the original ISIS propaganda video from when they just finished their first major push in Iraq. It has it all - mowing down civilians, executing freshly surrendered POWs, forcing people to dig their own graves at gunpoint and making them say on camera that "my fate is slaughter", forced conversions etc. After watching this, I am firmly convinced that the people who filmed it, and the people who are filmed in it (other th
Re: (Score:2)
Curiosity is definitely a possible cause...time to let it go.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging from the pauses between his sentences, I am also reasonably sure he used a prompter of some kind instead of learning the speech by heart.
Poor sod.
And thus: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At least someone is thinking of the children!
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory [imgur.com].
Over-eager Press Office (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... [ft.com]?
Not surprising (Score:2)
Is being Irish still considered a terrorist offense (or offence, in their crazy moon language) there?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course.
Sadly being British, human and/or alive is also considered a terrorist offense here too. The law really is that badly written.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Crazy moon language? English is called English because it was invented by the English. Offence is correct, offense is the "crazy moon language".
Minor correction (Score:2)
FTFY.
legal issues. (Score:4, Interesting)
The power of images... (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?
Re:The power of images... (Score:5, 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
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The power of images... (Score:4, 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.
Viewing the video is a crime? (Score:2)
Every other answer is worse (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So do you actually work for the police, or do you just suck them off for free?
Mandatory (Score:2)
And have been widely criticised for saying it (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty much anyone else who has spoken on the matter has said the police overstepped, and that watching the video is not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Handing a piece of paper to a bank teller is legal.
Catching the train to Basingstoke, walking past and then into a bank, and handing over a piece of paper that says "I have a gun" is probably going to be considered a fairly compelling case that you intended to rob a bank.
Insult to the journalist's entire career (Score:5, Insightful)
They're wrong (Score:5, Informative)
It's part of the historical record (Score:3)
As gruesome as the video is, it is now part of the historic record - whether the police in the UK like it or not. The same thing happened with the Budd Dwyer suicide video, where a bunch of studios chose not to air any footage at all from the suicide, not even the parts that did not contain gore. Fortunately, as bad as that video is, copies have survived to become part of the record, which is important in understanding things like how the media reacted to the first suicide ever recorded on television.
Years from now, when the history books are trying to teach kids everywhere how brutal groups like ISIS were, this is what they will have to show them - how the Islamic fighters were so enthralled with the idea of turning Iraq and Syria into islamic states that they were willing to forego their humanity and behead a man who had done nothing to them, simply because he wasn't of the same religion as they were.
So,Would Tiananmen Square Photos Be Illegal Today? (Score:3)
In June of 1989, similarly horrible and grotesque videos and pictures made their way out of the Tiananmen Square massacre, including a graphic shot of the crushed remains of the head of a student run over by a tank. The massacre was unquestionably a terrorist act designed to regain control of the people through their fears by the creation of maximum horror. The government wanted the message to get out. But does anyone really believe it worked for them in the end? Have we sunk so low that we would make the dissemination of such truths illegal today?
ISIL has reached the status of a government. Governments don't have to be recognized to "be". For now, they govern a territory and its people. Like all of the videos of terrorist government atrocities, this video does not generate sympathy for that government. Instead, it builds anger against it.
Furthermore, this man was a journalist. What do you think he would want? Perhaps for the horror of his death to cause change? I'm not a journalist and I know that I'd want the world to see.
Re: They should do the opposite (Score:2)
I have 3 words for you..
Westboro Baptist Church
Although I do wonder if you will understand.
Re: (Score:2)
I have 3 words for you..
Westboro Baptist Church
Although I do wonder if you will understand.
You mean that nasty organisation - which though it is thoroughly unpleasant is far better than Islam because it has never even threatened to kill someone, let alone murdering thousands, kidnapping thousands of women as sex slaves and chopping off journalist's heads?
Re: (Score:3)
Yesterday I read an article that mentioned the number of Austrian Muslims that have gone to fight for ISIS, and the number of Muslims living in Austria.
I punched those numbers into my calculator and it said that 0.0002% of Austrian Muslims are ISIS-level nutbags. Are you going to label an entire religion over the actions of a nutbag fringe?
Your bigotry has been unfounded the entire time.
Watching video of a drone killing innocents... (Score:2, Interesting)
By their definition, wouldn't be watching a video of a US drone killing innocent people, which happens regularly since years, be a crime as well? I don't know whether such a video actually exists, but I would be curious if media would broadcast it. I'm assuming here, or course, that we accept drone strikes as a form of governmental terrorism.
Over the years, hundreds of civilians have been killed by drone strikes, has this ever been picked up media in a similar way as this incident has been? Maybe media rega