Going to jail nowadays for owning a book, wtf?
AFAICT someone might go to jail for owning a book (not sure if paper or electronic):
From wikipedia (old revision): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Hamza_al-Masri&oldid=609513570
--- Guilty of one charge of "possessing a document containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"[31] under the Terrorism Act 2000, s58. This charge under the Terrorism Act of 2000 related to his possession of an Encyclopedia of Afghan Jihad, an Al Qaeda Handbook and other propaganda materials produced by Abu Hamza.[32] ---
Message du 21/05/14 16:24 De : "Georgi Guninski" AFAICT someone might go to jail for owning a book (not sure if paper or electronic):
From wikipedia (old revision): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Hamza_al-Masri&oldid=609513570
--- Guilty of one charge of "possessing a document containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"[31] under the Terrorism Act 2000, s58. This charge under the Terrorism Act of 2000 related to his possession of an Encyclopedia of Afghan Jihad, an Al Qaeda Handbook and other propaganda materials produced by Abu Hamza.[32] ---
Would you be in favor of charging someone for possessing things like: - A catalog of hacking tools; - Pedophile instruction manual; - Recipes for preparing human flesh; ??? Things like that remember me that google once did not have the capacity to exclude links from its systems, but because of pedophiles, they finally built that capacity. The next day the copyright industry was knocking at their door to take down content they previously couldn't because of the lack of technical capacity. "Now Google don't have excuses." - I remember seeing that phrase in a New York magazine. The only way to not have people charged because of a book would be to make legal all books no matter what and you guessed it right, it won't happen. Because you, yourself, will be in favor of indicting people in at least one of the items I quoted, which automatically makes it legal to charge anyone because of possession of any book.
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:05:03PM +0200, tpb-crypto@laposte.net wrote:
Would you be in favor of charging someone for possessing things like: - A catalog of hacking tools; - Pedophile instruction manual; - Recipes for preparing human flesh;
???
....
Because you, yourself, will be in favor of indicting people in at least one of the items I quoted, which automatically makes it legal to charge anyone because of possession of any book.
Are you sure you know what i will do, lol? Calling people names is usually a bad trolling practice.
Message du 21/05/14 18:48 De : "Georgi Guninski"
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:05:03PM +0200, tpb-crypto@laposte.net wrote:
Would you be in favor of charging someone for possessing things like: - A catalog of hacking tools; - Pedophile instruction manual; - Recipes for preparing human flesh;
???
....
Because you, yourself, will be in favor of indicting people in at least one of the items I quoted, which automatically makes it legal to charge anyone because of possession of any book.
Are you sure you know what i will do, lol?
I have a fair idea. When pressed correctly, very few of us would go against all three items. The third one takes many by surprise, let me tell you.
Calling people names is usually a bad trolling practice.
Well, I didn't call you names, Sir. I just know you are only human.
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:37 PM,
- A catalog of hacking tools; - Pedophile instruction manual; - Recipes for preparing human flesh;
I support the right to write all of those. With some distaste in some cases, mind you, but I'm a freedom of expression hard-liner.
Well, I didn't call you names, Sir. I just know you are only human.
Now you take that back! On the internet, no one knows you're a velociraptor. -- Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. -- Arnaud-Amaury, 1209
Message du 22/05/14 03:51 De : "Steve Furlong" On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:37 PM, wrote:
- A catalog of hacking tools; - Pedophile instruction manual; - Recipes for preparing human flesh;
I support the right to write all of those. With some distaste in some cases, mind you, but I'm a freedom of expression hard-liner.
Well, I tasted all kinds of food in this life, but there is still one kind to try, mind you. Now going totally off-topic, I think there is a reason why ETs are shy of us, you know maybe they taste well. But, what kind of food didn't I try, yet, really? lol
Well, I didn't call you names, Sir. I just know you are only human.
Now you take that back! On the internet, no one knows you're a velociraptor.
I dream the day scientists will create a talking dog, I will queue to have one like the iphone fanatics. A talking dog would be a friend out of dreams to me. But so far I know for sure you are only human, whatever kind of animal you think yourself you are.
All "speech" should be legal--printed, electronic, or otherwise--even guides to making bombs like the Anarchist Cookbook, of which I have a copy. Anyone who doesn't support that doesn't deserve freedom of speech. I understand limits to speech being necessary to prevent imminent harm (when there is evidence of clear and present danger) like yelling fire in a crowded theater. However, this logic has been overextended and abused to the point where less-than-clear danger and just potential risk are enough to justify censorship of unpopular political speech. One more reason to nix the Terrorism Act. -Henry On May 21, 2014, at 12:05 PM, tpb-crypto@laposte.net wrote:
Message du 21/05/14 16:24 De : "Georgi Guninski" AFAICT someone might go to jail for owning a book (not sure if paper or electronic):
From wikipedia (old revision): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Hamza_al-Masri&oldid=609513570
--- Guilty of one charge of "possessing a document containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"[31] under the Terrorism Act 2000, s58. This charge under the Terrorism Act of 2000 related to his possession of an Encyclopedia of Afghan Jihad, an Al Qaeda Handbook and other propaganda materials produced by Abu Hamza.[32] ---
Would you be in favor of charging someone for possessing things like: - A catalog of hacking tools; - Pedophile instruction manual; - Recipes for preparing human flesh;
???
Things like that remember me that google once did not have the capacity to exclude links from its systems, but because of pedophiles, they finally built that capacity. The next day the copyright industry was knocking at their door to take down content they previously couldn't because of the lack of technical capacity.
"Now Google don't have excuses." - I remember seeing that phrase in a New York magazine.
The only way to not have people charged because of a book would be to make legal all books no matter what and you guessed it right, it won't happen.
Because you, yourself, will be in favor of indicting people in at least one of the items I quoted, which automatically makes it legal to charge anyone because of possession of any book.
UK law, not US, so no “1st amendment” protections. The affirmative defense is interesting if incredibly vague. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58 58 Collection of information. (1)A person commits an offence if— (a)he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or (b)he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind. (2)In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record. (3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession. (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable— (a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, to a fine or to both, or (b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both. -- Lance Cottrell loki@obscura.com On May 21, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Henry Rivera <4chaos.onelove@gmail.com> wrote:
All "speech" should be legal--printed, electronic, or otherwise--even guides to making bombs like the Anarchist Cookbook, of which I have a copy. Anyone who doesn't support that doesn't deserve freedom of speech. I understand limits to speech being necessary to prevent imminent harm (when there is evidence of clear and present danger) like yelling fire in a crowded theater. However, this logic has been overextended and abused to the point where less-than-clear danger and just potential risk are enough to justify censorship of unpopular political speech. One more reason to nix the Terrorism Act. -Henry
On May 21, 2014, at 12:05 PM, tpb-crypto@laposte.net wrote:
Message du 21/05/14 16:24 De : "Georgi Guninski" AFAICT someone might go to jail for owning a book (not sure if paper or electronic):
From wikipedia (old revision): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Hamza_al-Masri&oldid=609513570
--- Guilty of one charge of "possessing a document containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"[31] under the Terrorism Act 2000, s58. This charge under the Terrorism Act of 2000 related to his possession of an Encyclopedia of Afghan Jihad, an Al Qaeda Handbook and other propaganda materials produced by Abu Hamza.[32] ---
Would you be in favor of charging someone for possessing things like: - A catalog of hacking tools; - Pedophile instruction manual; - Recipes for preparing human flesh;
???
Things like that remember me that google once did not have the capacity to exclude links from its systems, but because of pedophiles, they finally built that capacity. The next day the copyright industry was knocking at their door to take down content they previously couldn't because of the lack of technical capacity.
"Now Google don't have excuses." - I remember seeing that phrase in a New York magazine.
The only way to not have people charged because of a book would be to make legal all books no matter what and you guessed it right, it won't happen.
Because you, yourself, will be in favor of indicting people in at least one of the items I quoted, which automatically makes it legal to charge anyone because of possession of any book.
Message du 21/05/14 18:54 De : "Henry Rivera" <4chaos.onelove@gmail.com>
All "speech" should be legal--printed, electronic, or otherwise--even guides to making bombs like the Anarchist Cookbook, of which I have a copy. Anyone who doesn't support that doesn't deserve freedom of speech. I understand limits to speech being necessary to prevent imminent harm (when there is evidence of clear and present danger) like yelling fire in a crowded theater. However, this logic has been overextended and abused to the point where less-than-clear danger and just potential risk are enough to justify censorship of unpopular political speech. One more reason to nix the Terrorism Act. -Henry
I totally agree with you and the strong men of yore did too. But strong men as you and me are the fringe now and we will have to fight for the minds of the masses once again, like the ancients did. Our pussified men of today can't stomach the realities of the world, lol.
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:54:09PM -0400, Henry Rivera wrote:
All "speech" should be legal--printed, electronic, or otherwise--even guides to making bombs like the Anarchist Cookbook, of which I have a copy. Anyone who doesn't support that doesn't deserve freedom of speech. I understand limits to speech being necessary to prevent imminent harm (when there is evidence of clear and present danger) like yelling fire in a crowded theater. However, this logic has been overextended and abused to the point where less-than-clear danger and just potential risk are enough to justify censorship of unpopular political speech. One more reason to nix the Terrorism Act. -Henry
Agree with the main idea, but not sure agree with the "limits". Currently in theory most people have right of free speech, but there are so many limits/ exceptions they rule and one can hardly exercise free speech without hitting limit/exception. To paraphrase a quote: First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a terrorist, Then they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist, ...{jews, trade unionists, protestants} Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:05:03PM +0200, tpb-crypto@laposte.net wrote:
Would you be in favor of charging someone for possessing things like: - Pedophile instruction manual;
The brits are gonna implement this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/04/queens_speech_computer_misuse/ Queen's Speech: Computer Misuse Act to be amended, tougher sentences planned And possessing ‘paedophilic manuals' will be an offence
participants (5)
-
Georgi Guninski -
Henry Rivera -
Lance Cottrell -
Steve Furlong -
tpb-crypto＠laposte.net