Comment by pythonaut_16 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pythonaut_16 | Hacker News Reader

This article is pretty click-baity. It claims to be about reading banned literature in the title, then when you navigate to the site it immediately says the announcement/law is actually about watching videos promoting terrorism.

The main body of the article is pretty incoherent and rambling; it never really clearly states what the law is actually about.

If you actually go read the linked BBC article[0], you'll find that what's happening is somewhat less alarming than the article would lead you to believe. From what I gather, a politician is attempting to increase the maximum sentence of an existing law from 10 to 15 years, and to apply it to streaming content rather than just downloaded content.

There are definitely free speech implications and concerns here, but it's not nearly as dire as the article would imply.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620

*Also, the subtext of the BBC article > People who repeatedly view terrorist content online will face up to 15 years in prison, the home secretary has told the Conservative Party conference.

> then when you navigate to the site it immediately says the announcement/law is actually about watching videos promoting terrorism.

Huh, is that somehow better? Can I not watch promotion videos for whatever reason and not go to jail? Research and journalism are obvious examples, where the politicians will say "of course those people will not get prosecuted" (until there is a journalist publishing negative stuff about said politician), but even for plain old curiosity's sake, trying to understand those people better, or whatever else you can come up with, it should be totally legal.

Not better necessarily, but outrageously different from the article's (and original HN title's) claim that people were going to be sent to jail for 15 years for reading banned literature.

I still don't see any difference between the severity of reading banned literature or banned terrorism videos. Neither should be illegal or, failing that, punishable by a severe sentence (10 years jail is already ridiculous, let alone 15).

Is owning a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook or Mein Kampf going to be a criminal offense? What about a video version of same?

Anarchist's Cookbook, yes, probably. There has already been several convictions under this law for owning descriptions of how to make bombs. (The law dates from 2000, although the maximum sentence is now being increased from 10 to 15 years).

Mein Kampf, I'm less sure, there have been people charged with owning ISIS propaganda, but I'm not sure exactly how it worked out on appeal. (They were also convicted on other counts.)

Most of the convictions have happened due to the defendant being caught for something else/more serious.

The question is, where do you draw the line, are books on basic chemistry and physics, from which can be derived illegal knowledge, also to be banned?

As soon as it's politically advantageous for those in power to make it so, yes.

The article is not click-baity. It uses analogy to make a point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com