Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Kyrie eleison
Jan 26, 2013

by Ralp

Volkerball posted:

Yeah. It's a crime to watch it in the UK, and you can be arrested for it. In the US, I'm sure it's not a whole lot different.

you're 'sure' wrong! you can watch these videos in the US legally

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ethanol
Jul 13, 2007



Volkerball posted:

Yeah. It's a crime to watch it in the UK, and you can be arrested for it. In the US, I'm sure it's not a whole lot different.

police are knocking on my door becasue I clicked on a youtube link omg

ItBurns
Jul 24, 2007

ethanol posted:

police are knocking on my door becasue I clicked on a youtube link omg

same, screen door though

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009

by FactsAreUseless

Bape Culture posted:

Oh is it? loving hell haha.

I'm sure it's mostly designed to take down people who vocally support ISIS on social media that haven't committed any real crimes, but aid ISIS in its propaganda war to gain new recruits. "Sharing" the video seems to be the big no-no, but watching it is a crime too. I doubt anyone is going to come busting down your door, but just so you know. Best to stick with legal videos of ISIS executing Syrians.

Miltank
Dec 27, 2009

by XyloJW

Volkerball posted:

Yeah. It's a crime to watch it in the UK, and you can be arrested for it. In the US, I'm sure it's not a whole lot different.

we don't have thought crimes here dog. I can watch beheadings all day at the public library if I want to.

henpod
Mar 7, 2008

Sir, we have located the Bioweapon.
College Slice

I watched up until he put the knife to his throat and then bailed. Does it fade out like the previous one did?

quote:

Yeah. It's a crime to watch it in the UK, and you can be arrested for it. In the US, I'm sure it's not a whole lot different.

Whoops, i'm in London.

ethanol
Jul 13, 2007



henpod posted:

I watched up until he put the knife to his throat and then bailed. Does it fade out like the previous one did?
yes I'm going to describe it for you

just watch it pussy


goons sometimes, I swear

(it fades out)

henpod
Mar 7, 2008

Sir, we have located the Bioweapon.
College Slice

ethanol posted:

yes I'm going to describe it for you

just watch it pussy


goons sometimes, I swear

(it fades out)

Thanks, and sorry that you had to stop jacking off at the beheading to type that for me.

Kyrie eleison
Jan 26, 2013

by Ralp

henpod posted:

I watched up until he put the knife to his throat and then bailed. Does it fade out like the previous one did?

i just manned up and watched it and it is another mock execution like the previous one. lots of swipes against the neck and no blood. then it fades out and we see a pan of the corpse with its head removed afterwards.

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009

by FactsAreUseless

Kyrie eleison posted:

you're 'sure' wrong! you can watch these videos in the US legally

Feel pretty confident how up to date you are on terrorism legislation? It changes a lot, really arbitrarily.

quote:

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."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/police-warn-james-foley-video-crime-social-media

Kyrie eleison
Jan 26, 2013

by Ralp

Volkerball posted:

Feel pretty confident how up to date you are on terrorism legislation? It changes a lot, really arbitrarily.

i do feel pretty confident actually that it is legal to watch here. man the UK is a nightmare state.

Bape Culture
Sep 13, 2006

As a not poor, white guy, I'll assume that's just realistically for dodgy people and not goons who wanted to say isis' gay little message.

Punk da Bundo
Dec 29, 2006

by FactsAreUseless
hahahaha what kind of bitch made country is that, can't even watch a video or you'll go to jail? and jason statham is from broken britain???????????????

ethanol
Jul 13, 2007



if you're white and watching these, the nsa will assume you are emboldening yourself for joining the army to kill arabs

but if you're not white than it may be used as evidence against you


make the right call goons

Miltank
Dec 27, 2009

by XyloJW

Volkerball posted:

Feel pretty confident how up to date you are on terrorism legislation? It changes a lot, really arbitrarily.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/police-warn-james-foley-video-crime-social-media

lol no we don't have laws against watching internet vids here in america

cis white male
Jul 5, 2014

i'm a fag i'm a lesbian

Robo Reagan posted:

tell me more of your views on muslims

they're a massive cult who are culturally important and interesting, but are of course wrong about the nature of the universe

Miltank
Dec 27, 2009

by XyloJW
mohammed was the meccan Joseph Smith except Joseph Smith was born in a nice place to live aka america.

Szymanski
Jul 31, 2005

You down with OCP?
Sugartime Jones

Volkerball posted:

Yeah. It's a crime to watch it in the UK, and you can be arrested for it. In the US, I'm sure it's not a whole lot different.

There was an article on the financial times blog saying this is incorrect;
blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/08/21/is-viewing-a-video-a-criminal-offence-under-terrorism-law/

Unfortunately its behind a paywall, according to a legal expert it would be almost impossible to prosecute under current legislation.
The Police wouldn't comment further. Its not unlike the Police to claim powers they don't have.

Drunk & Ugly
Feb 10, 2003

GIMME GIMME GIMME, DON'T ASK WHAT FOR

Volkerball posted:

Feel pretty confident how up to date you are on terrorism legislation? It changes a lot, really arbitrarily.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/police-warn-james-foley-video-crime-social-media

theyre supposedly trying to "warn" that it MIGHT be illegal or some bullshit, and i think the stereotype is brits dont want to cause a fuss so theyll quietly obey

quote:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/watching-james-foley-beheading-video-not-terrorist-offence-says-lawyer-1462061

A police warning that watching or sharing the graphic video of journalist James Foley being beheaded by Isis (known as Islamic State) could be a "terrorist offence" has been slammed by a lawyer, who says the statement was "false and alarmist".

Lawyer and writer David Allen Green challenged the Met's senior anti-terrorist press officer on what law makes viewing a terror video illegal.

David Green
Twitter @DavidAllenGreen
He asked the Met which specific law made watching the video a crime, suggesting that no such criminal law exists in Britain.

Green posted on Twitter: "Some may say viewing video should be an offence; but it isn't, and @metpoliceuk should not publish false alarmist statements about the law".

He added that he had not seen the video in question "and would prefer if no one saw it" but that it is "not an offence to have viewed it".

The police spokesman refused to specify which criminal offence can apply to viewing the video published on YouTube by IS on Tuesday, instead replying: "Our statement stands."

When pushed, a more senior press officer quoted sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 to justify the police warning. But Green refuted the claim, stating that the sections specified "don't cover viewing".

Sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 refer to the "encouragement of terrorism" and "dissemination of terrorist publications" but do not specifically refer to people watching videos created by terrorist groups. The Act can be read here.

Blogging for the Financial Times on Thursday, Green writes that the results of his conversation with the Met press bureau are "worrying". He says: "People need reliable and accurate public information, and they have the right to expect it from the well-funded PR departments of UK police forces.

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009

by FactsAreUseless

Szymanski posted:

There was an article on the financial times blog saying this is incorrect;
blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/08/21/is-viewing-a-video-a-criminal-offence-under-terrorism-law/

Unfortunately its behind a paywall, according to a legal expert it would be almost impossible to prosecute under current legislation.
The Police wouldn't comment further. Its not unlike the Police to claim powers they don't have.

Well there you go.

quote:

Yesterday, in response to the sharing on the internet of horrific and sickening footage of the apparent execution of journalist James Foley, the UK’s Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) provided the following statement to news reporters:

"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."

What was eye-catching about this statement was that “viewing” the material could, by itself, be a criminal offence under “terrorism legislation”. By the time the statement was issued, thousands of people had viewed the video. Was the MPS really saying that each UK viewer faced, at least in principle, a conviction under terrorism law for doing so?

This was certainly the natural reading of this statement. And it was the aspect of the statement which was picked up by the news media – and this coverage was unsurprising: it was a sensational and newsworthy assertion made by a major police force about the criminal law.

Was this statement correct? Was the MPS providing a true description of the criminal law? Of course, no sensible or civilized person would want to watch this video. But was it really an offence under terrorism law to have viewed it?

I asked the MPS press office what was the specific criminal offence which covered mere viewing of such a video. Surely they would be able to tell me straight away, as they had made the statement. But the general news desk could not help, and so it was arranged that a specialist anti-terrorism press officer would call me.

I asked her the legal basis of this significant legal warning. She emphasised it was a “may” not a “will” statement of the law, and she then mentioned vaguely section 1 and section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

However, neither of those two complex and detailed provisions refer to “viewing” material. I pressed her on which actual wording in those sections supported the MPS’s contention; and she replied it was a “matter of interpretation”. But which particular wording was being interpreted, I asked, as even “matters of interpretation” need something to be interpreted. There was no answer.

I said I would email so that the MPS could give me a considered response; and so I asked in writing if the MPS could please specify exactly under which law “viewing” the video “may” be an offence. One hour later came the simple reply: “The MPS statement stands”, and no mention of any specific legislation.

It would appear that the MPS press office, which had produced and promoted the bold statement that that “viewing” a video could itself be a criminal act under terrorism legislation, could not substantiate it when challenged.

This was worrying. People need reliable and accurate public information, and they have the right to expect it from the well-funded PR departments of UK police forces. If a police force tells people something is against the law then it should be able to instantly say on demand what that law is. The law should not be made up by press officers as they go along, especially in respect of matters such as terrorism where confidence in law enforcement agencies is crucial.

It cannot be the role of any police force to publish alarmist and false statements about the criminal law.

cis white male
Jul 5, 2014

i'm a fag i'm a lesbian

Miltank posted:

mohammed was the meccan Joseph Smith except Joseph Smith was born in a nice place to live aka america.

neat Joe Smith thingy: he and his friends were allowed to conduct forced marriages (including telling underage girls that they had to marry and sleep with the Prophet or they and their whole families would go to hell) by the population at large with some notable exceptions. Most people preferred that the mormons just be left alone to do their own thing, similar to how groups in the fifties got angry when the gov did raids on fundamentalist LDS compounds

it was only when Joseph Smith ordered an anti-polygamist newsletter to be burnt to the ground that locals formed a posse and went and killed his rear end while he was in jail.

If you're a cult leader you can statutory rape as many girls as you want, as long as you don't violate the freedom of the press!

vyst
Aug 25, 2009



For real though I don't want to go to jail. NSA if you're reading this I won't watch any more youtube videos ever please keep my cornhole tight tia.

ItBurns
Jul 24, 2007
Hundreds of 'posters', netizens who make 'posts' on comedy site 'AwfulSite.com' were arrested in coordinated raids under the Patriot Act for distributing animated jpegs of 9/11 and other terror-related content. Many also face charges related to state sodomy laws for proclaiming 'im gay' and 'same', although some condemned the behavior, stating '[redacted] up if true'.

Robo Reagan
Feb 12, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

Volkerball posted:

Feel pretty confident how up to date you are on terrorism legislation? It changes a lot, really arbitrarily.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/police-warn-james-foley-video-crime-social-media

lol as lovely as america is at least i can watch some fat dude in his 40s being beheaded by an autotuned terrorist before having a jo at /r/femalecorpses

Robo Reagan
Feb 12, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

cis white male posted:

they're a massive cult who are culturally important and interesting, but are of course wrong about the nature of the universe

prove it nerd

Dave Concepcion
Mar 19, 2012

Robo Reagan posted:

lol as lovely as america is at least i can watch some fat dude in his 40s being beheaded by an autotuned terrorist before having a jo at /r/femalecorpses

god bless

Ekster
Jul 18, 2013

so uhh does anyone know why they would post-process the beheading? is it way more difficult in practice so they decided to kill him quickly first then take his head off or something?


sorry I'm not up to speed on barbaric jihadist procedure and I ain't watching that vid

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009

by FactsAreUseless

ItBurns posted:

Hundreds of 'posters', netizens who make 'posts' on comedy site 'AwfulSite.com' were arrested in coordinated raids under the Patriot Act for distributing animated jpegs of 9/11 and other terror-related content. Many also face charges related to state sodomy laws for proclaiming 'im gay' and 'same', although some condemned the behavior, stating '[redacted] up if true'.

Robo Reagan
Feb 12, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

Ekster posted:

so uhh does anyone know why they would post-process the beheading? is it way more difficult in practice so they decided to kill him quickly first then take his head off or something?


sorry I'm not up to speed on barbaric jihadist procedure and I ain't watching that vid

i imagine they do it quickly for being a good boy and not loving up your speech

Demonachizer
Aug 7, 2004
I totally would bungle my lines a few times to force a reshoot and buy a couple extra minutes on this lovely loving planet.

Zzulu
May 15, 2009

(▰˘v˘▰)

man how many whities have they got in storage, jesus

2 dead and they already got another journalist ready

Zzulu
May 15, 2009

(▰˘v˘▰)

Ekster posted:

so uhh does anyone know why they would post-process the beheading? is it way more difficult in practice so they decided to kill him quickly first then take his head off or something?


sorry I'm not up to speed on barbaric jihadist procedure and I ain't watching that vid

Well if ya must know; With the other beheadings they do it's really quite a gruesome process and uh, involved . The video in the op is one example... (its absolutely nuts that that video is still online lol)

They gotta saw the throat open and then mess around with the neckbones, which takes quite some time(:barf:). For whatever reason they seem to want to avoid that clumsy messy process in their vids directed at America

cis white male
Jul 5, 2014

i'm a fag i'm a lesbian
do we really need three ISIS threads

isn't that what they want

Ekster
Jul 18, 2013

Zzulu posted:

Well if ya must know; With the other beheadings they do it's really quite a gruesome process and uh, involved . The video in the op is one example... (its absolutely nuts that that video is still online lol)

They gotta saw the throat open and then mess around with the neckbones, which takes quite some time(:barf:). For whatever reason they seem to want to avoid that clumsy messy process in their vids directed at America

Yeah that makes sense. I was kind of curious how you would sever the neckbones with just a knife. Isn't the guy already dead by then? Just get an axe and be done with it at that point.

Drunk & Ugly
Feb 10, 2003

GIMME GIMME GIMME, DON'T ASK WHAT FOR
I stumbled upon an article and perhaps we will no longer get mindfucking twitter catgun posts from isis anymore? its mashable, i dunno if theyre legit or w/e

quote:

As Twitter shuts down access to various Islamic State fighters, members of the group are shifting their social media focus to the decentralized social network, Diaspora.

On Wednesday, Twitter started actively suspending accounts from accounts actively sharing video and graphic imagery related to the brutal beheading of American journalist James Foley. Many of those accounts were related to the Islamic State, the radical Islamist group in Iraq claiming responsibility for Foley's murder.

SEE ALSO: The Militants in Iraq Threaten the Entire Middle East (and the U.S.)

As Mashable's Colin Daileda and Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai reported last month, these radical Islamists in Iraq are using social media to spread fear and propaganda in a way no terrorist group has done before.

With Twitter cracking down on the posts and the accounts, the next step is to move to more anonymized networks.

That's where Diaspora comes in. Originally created in 2010 as a response to Facebook's privacy policies, the service differs from traditional social networks in that it's completely decentralized.

As a result, as reported by the BBC and The Telegraph, IS fighters are moving to Diaspora.

For its part, the Diaspora Foundation — the group which runs the non-profit social network — posted a blog post explaining how its service works and the challenges involved with shutting down postings from IS fighters.

diaspora* is a completely decentralized network, which, by its nature, consists of many small servers exchanging posts and messages. There is no central server, and there is therefore no way for the project's core team to manipulate or remove contents from a particular node in the network (which we call a "pod"). This may be one of the reasons which attracted IS activists to our network.

The diaspora* project team is, however, concerned about the activities of these members inside our network, because of the potential legal difficulties that hosting such material may cause individual pod administrators ("podmins")

"So far," the Diaspora project writes, "all of the larger pods have removed the IS-related accounts and posts. This includes a high-volume account on JoinDiaspora.com which was apparently used as a main distribution channel."

BLAH BLAH BLAH ETC http://mashable.com/2014/08/22/diaspora-islamic-state/

Morally Inept
Mar 5, 2012

by XyloJW
Liveleak won't even show the second beheading. Bunch of pussies.

SirEvelynTremble
Dec 25, 2013

FUCK YOU HITLER
STALINGRAD
ROFLMFAO

cis white male posted:

do we really need three ISIS threads

isn't that what they want

no you're right we should not talk at all about one of the most interesting things happening in the world.

let's stick to cats yeah?

Frog Act
Feb 10, 2012



im lovin the obama filter on that video, these guys are a lot like the GOP

Bolow
Feb 27, 2007

SirEvelynTremble posted:

no you're right we should not talk at all about one of the most interesting things happening in the world.

let's stick to cats yeah?

whats interesting about a bunch of backwards rear end people doing barbaric things while using their dumb moon god to justify the awful poo poo they're doing.

that poo poo has been going on since the dawn of mankind tbh

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Rambling Robot
Sep 13, 2011
Duggar Fan Club Superstar #1 LOL

ethanol posted:

police are knocking on my door becasue I clicked on a youtube link omg

The UK police is something else, it wouldn't surprise me.

  • Locked thread