Re: UK to Levy 15-Year Sentences Merely for Viewing 'Far-Right' Material

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Dec 1, 2024 at 3:35:27 AM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

2024-12-01 6:06 AM, shawn wrote:

Sun, 01 Dec 2024 08:14:50 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

They can't censor the rest of the world and attempting to block anything
that doesn't fit the progressive' leftist narrative would be next to
impossible, so they've decided to make looking at anything 'not leftist' a
crime that can get you a 15-year bid in the can.

This is what happens when the moviePigs of the world get their way with
regard to free speech.

----------------------
People in the United Kingdom could face up to fifteen years in prison for
repeatedly viewing "far-right propaganda" or "terrorist material" online,
according to a report.

Users who view the forbidden content only once by mistake, or out of
curiosity, will not be charged, and it is reported that there will also be
protections for journalists, academics, and "others who may have a
legitimate reason to view such material".

"I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online,
including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda, and bomb-making
instructions, face the full force of the law," declared British Home
Secretary Amber Rudd. "There is currently a gap in the law around material
[that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently
downloaded."

I get the worry about jihadi websites, but if all they are doing is
viewing I'm not sure how that becomes a legal matter. I've had a
Ranger handbook that covers basic bomb and trap making for decades and
yet I've yet to set out to hurt someone with that knowledge.

Seems to me there's a big difference between knowing something and
applying it. Yet this law would make it illegal to know how to create
something that could hurt others and assumes that if you are viewing
certain material then you must be a threat to others. So there's an
assumption of guilt built into this bill/law/whatever actually come
into force. Hopefully it's just one more crazy idea that gets brought
up by a law maker and then tossed into the dust bin of history.I

I agree with your point. Even more concerning to me is the definition of
"far right". A whole lot of things get labelled "far right" by the
progressive/Marxist crowd.

If you go back and look at some of Hillary Clinton's speeches from her 2008
primary campaign against Barack Obama, the things she was saying at that time
would have her labeled a "far-right Nazi fascist" if she said them today.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1851040287713316864/vid/avc1/968x720

/YAzQZ6FccJfwe-lk.mp4?tag=16

Regarding illegal aliens:

HILLZ: So I think we need to have tough conditions. Bring people out of the
shadows and if they've committed a crime, deport them. No questions asked,
they're gone. If they've been working and are law-abiding, we should say here
are the conditions for you staying. You have to pay a stiff fine because you
came here illegally. You have to pay back taxes. You have to learn English.
And you have to wait your turn in line.

And she said these things to great applause to a crowd of Democrat voters.

Now the Democrats want to throw open our borders and not even ask anyone who
they are as they flood across illegally. And pay a fine? Fuck no, *we* the
American taxpayer get to pay the fine in the form of handing them debit cards
full of *our* money and we get to pay the bills for hundreds of thousands of
them to stay for free in hotels around the country.

People don't understand exactly how far the Democrat Party has lurched to the
left in the last 20 years. Certainly if JFK were running for office today on
the same platform he espoused in the 1960s, he'd be booted out of the Democrat
Party altogether. He'd be a moderate Republican on today's political
spectrum.

Similarly, both parties had BOTH liberals and conservatives in them, and
the pre-Goldwater Republican Party had a higher share of liberals than
the Democratic Party had.

The traditional Republican coalition was labor, blacks, small
businesses.

Would Orwell's 1984 be deemed "far right" if streamed?

According to the leftist punditsphere, reading things like Orwell and books
like LORD OF THE RINGS makes you a dangerous far-right extremist.

https://youtu.be/_4EjDyK15_A?t=112

Reading Animal Farm will get you shot. Don't even think about Lord of
the Flies.

And the Research Information and Communications Unit of the UK's
counter-terrorism agency "Prevent" has listed LOTR and various other classic
works of literature and various authors both modern and historical as red
flags for "right-wing extremism":

    Murray further noted that Prevents' Research Information
    and Communications Unit (RICU) has previously listed
    historical texts as red flags. Essentially, if someone is
    reading 1984, or works by Lewis, Tolkien, Aldous Huxley,
    or Joseph Conrad, they should be suspected of being
    a far-right extremist terrorist. Murray's own books were
    on the list.

https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/16/reading-lord-of-the-rings-1984-could-lead-right-wing-extremism-govt-report-warns-douglas-murray/

So the answer to your question is, yes, steeping yourself in Orwell's works
would indeed put you in danger of prosecution under this law.

Notice that Prevent has not come out with any scary list of books that
indicate someone is a dangerous far-left extremist. Most likely because to the
people who work at Prevent, there's no such thing as a dangerous far-left
extremist.