Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Police Warn Sharing James Foley Killing Video Is a Crime

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the do-not-pass-go dept.

United Kingdom 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."

cancel ×

391 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Jurisdiction 101 (5, Insightful)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | about 2 months ago | (#47726733)

Good luck with that.

Re: Jurisdiction 101 (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726803)

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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726815)

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726891)

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 (5, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 2 months ago | (#47726977)

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:Jurisdiction 101 (5, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | about 2 months ago | (#47726939)

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 (5, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47726957)

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.

Benjamin Franklin said once (2, Informative)

fluch (126140) | about 2 months ago | (#47726747)

"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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726861)

Oh f*ck off. America is a joke. You have no freedom. You're all fat and filled with the cheapest chemically altered food possible. Anyone who watches videos of beheading is a bit tapped in the head you know, so damn right the police should stop them.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726885)

Have you been to an Asda or Iceland lately? Yeah that's what I thought. I'm sure if that sentence was in the Daily Mail you'd have been all over it.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726899)

Nothing in the post mentioned "beheading" (and this is the first I had heard of that) so you have probably already watched it, you hypocrite.

Pointlesslessly trolling /. anonymously, you are obviously "tapped in the head", so I'm not surprised...

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726907)

Did you ever see the one where the Mexican cartel guy got it with an electric chainsaw? I think it's on LiveLeak....

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726929)

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 (5, Interesting)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47726985)

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?

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47727055)

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. (3, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 months ago | (#47726951)

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:Poor quote. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727101)

Exactly! James Foley was a consenting adult in this video, so why shouldn't we get to see him die?

I'm probably going to be modded down for this, but here goes...
Who owns the copyright to video when said video contains a non-consenting party?
In other words, if a party didn't consent, or if a minor, couldn't have the capacity to consent, should the video be legal?

Example: Some bullies going around taking baseball bats to "nerds". Then proceed to sell the video for a profit. To what extend should this be stopped? Should it be a civil matter? Should possession of the videos be a crime? No release was signed by the victims in this, so no what?

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 months ago | (#47726969)

But then he probably said a lot of other stupid things as well.

Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 2 months ago | (#47727061)

Also, "he, who thinks showing people jumping off the burning trade center buildings is ok, is a hypocrite"

Thoughtcrime (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726749)

even viewing the video could constitute a criminal offence in the UK

Re:Thoughtcrime (2)

ledow (319597) | about 2 months ago | (#47726773)

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 (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 months ago | (#47726789)

Anytime someone prohibits you from viewing, listening or reading something it is thought crime, and policing thought is barbaric and unjustifiable violence against individuals.

Re:Thoughtcrime (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 months ago | (#47727013)


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:Thoughtcrime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726843)

What a load of bullshit. Watching and reading something, as well as thinking, dreaming and speaking about it is essentially the same thing. Sure, everything you do in your head can have consequences that will result of direct action and possibly some harm being done. But that's the life.

Re:Thoughtcrime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726879)

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.

I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in the UK there is no type of pornography that is illegal to *view*. It is possession and/or distribution of it that is the offence.

Re:Thoughtcrime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727159)

That's not correct. The act of seeing an indecent image of a child is an absolute offence and will lead to an automatic sentence.

There are many instances in British law of absolute offences for which there is no defence.

Re:Thoughtcrime (1)

geogob (569250) | about 2 months ago | (#47726947)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727123)

Distinction without a difference.
Feminists and communists love locking men away for what's in their heads and disarming men so they may not follow what's in their hearts

Re:Thoughtcrime (5, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 months ago | (#47726955)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727105)

You can't make intelligent informed judgment about something without studying it first. That's just how humans work. Therefore depriving others from viewing or reading no matter for what reason should be regarded as evil and not acceptable in civil society.

Re:Thoughtcrime (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 months ago | (#47727109)

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.

Thoughtcrime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727121)

Go to your local police office and tell them you like watching child porn...

Oh really? I thought this was AMERICA! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726761)

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. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 months ago | (#47726763)

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:They have invoked Streisand. (1)

mpe (36238) | about 2 months ago | (#47726965)

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.

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.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726779)

The one I saw flashed from his throat being cut to his severed head laying on his back. Does that count if the actual 'snuff' part got skipped?

Obligatory: At least they didn't put it on a stick on London Bridge.

Seems to be working really well... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726781)

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/temp.html?i=bc1_1408481278

Suppression (4, Insightful)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47726785)

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:Suppression (1)

ThorGod (456163) | about 2 months ago | (#47726825)

I don't understand your argument. Care to give it a second shot, please?

Re:Suppression (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726855)

What the police need to do is ingratiate themselves with journalists by sleeping with them. Once they are part of the clique they can get any story they like squashed easy as pie. If they've slept with the people with the right connections they can even get reddit and 4chan to censor themselves.

Re:Suppression (0)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47726869)

You seem to be wagering that the police in question are very good in bed, or at least better in bed than those who would prefer more widespread dissemination (not to be confused with other terms ending in "ination") of this sort of information. I question the wisdom of that bet.

Did I miss some sort of /b/ or film reference here? I've been out of the loop for a while owing to more pressing concerns.

Re: Suppression (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726905)

Pretty sure it's a reference to Zoe Quinn, it's not surprising that you haven't heard of her if you aren't interested in videogame journalism.

Re: Suppression (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47726999)

Thanks for the clarification; I have not heard of her, as I am not at all interested in videogame journalism.

Re: Suppression (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47727015)

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:Suppression (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727017)

If the people on 4chan got laid they probably wouldn't be on 4chan.

Re:Suppression (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726981)

When Americans try to say that last line in a British accent it sounds like
"Jizz, mates."

Re:Suppression (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47727067)

That fits the context well enough with regard to certain parties being welcome to go fuck themselves.

Re:Suppression ---- Is it real? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727171)

I decided to NOT watch it. Then a journalist on the web said, after viewing it, that he wasn't convinced the beheading was real. (It is an authentic propaganda piece from ISIS, only the actuallity of the beheading is called into question.) Foley is strangely calm before , while he spouts the lines he's been told. He is calm while being cut, but video immediately fades to black, then a headless corpse, with a head resting on the stomach. So thanks slashdot citizens, for providing the link. I have watched it to be a witness. It might be real, or it might be fake. You can safely watch the first 4 minutes which is only Obama and Foley and executioner speaking propaganda , and stop watching before the act which is only a few seconds at the end. Maybe they (Western governments) really object to people seeing the propaganda portion.

But what (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726795)

What if you jerk off to it? Is that a sex crime?

haven't watched it... (5, Insightful)

ThorGod (456163) | about 2 months ago | (#47726797)

Why would anyone actually want to watch it?

Re:haven't watched it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726817)

Well, i knew absolutely nothing about this. At all, until i read it here. Now I want to watch it, mostly because the UK seems to think it's a big deal and has told me not to. But I'm contrary like that.

Re:haven't watched it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726835)

Morbid curiosity for a grievous taboo.

The real question is: who would want to watch it twice?

Re:haven't watched it... (1)

ThorGod (456163) | about 2 months ago | (#47726847)

Curiosity is definitely a possible cause...time to let it go.

Re:haven't watched it... (2)

dominux (731134) | about 2 months ago | (#47726863)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726893)

Sir you are a terrorist or a sodomite. Get into the lorry.

Re:haven't watched it... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726889)

It is not even that good, it is edited. The drug cartel beheadings from Mexico are much better. There is one with four women (from a rival cartel) being beheaded with machettes and axes. At least they kick and hold the heads afterwards. The Arabs need to take some lessons from the Mexican Zeta cartel.

Re:haven't watched it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726913)

I read the transcript of what was said. That was disgusting enough to make me lose all interest. People being beheaded isn't especially shocking these days. What I found disturbing was the obvious brainwashing/extortion that must have been required to make those words his last. It is too horrific for me to even contemplate and I'm pretty desensitized.

Despite my refusal to watch this specific video, IMHO looking away from this sort of brutality only allows it to flourish under the radar. The first step in addressing a problem is witnessing evidence the problem exists. Treating beheadings like we treat homeless people, "out of site, out of mind", isn't especially respectful to the people dying in these gruesome murders.

Then again, maybe I'm just a sick fuck who only watches beheading videos because he's trying to stir emotions and feel something.

Re:haven't watched it... (1)

redcaboodle (622288) | about 2 months ago | (#47727027)

I just watched it. I assume they put him on a lot on tranqs, to be that calm. They most likely threatened him with something a lot worse if he didn't play his part.
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.

Re:haven't watched it... (5, Interesting)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 months ago | (#47726963)

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:haven't watched it... (5, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 months ago | (#47726973)

I have a more important question:
Why should it be illegal that I do?

Re:haven't watched it... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727181)

> 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.

What are they thinking? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726799)

No video => population not terrorized => harder to justify the war on terror.

Why don't they also remove all the World Trade Center collapse footage from youtube?

Watching video of a drone killing innocents... (1, Interesting)

Mojo66 (1131579) | about 2 months ago | (#47727085)

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 regard drone strikes as a form of terrorism and consider broadcasting it a crime as well...

And thus: (4, Insightful)

Zanadou (1043400) | about 2 months ago | (#47726805)

And thus, the natural extension of "possession of child pornography" laws begins.

Re:And thus: (1)

plover (150551) | about 2 months ago | (#47726867)

At least someone is thinking of the children!

Re:And thus: (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47726895)

Obligatory [imgur.com] .

Over-eager Press Office (5, Informative)

fremsley471 (792813) | about 2 months ago | (#47726819)

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 (1)

El Puerco Loco (31491) | about 2 months ago | (#47726823)

Is being Irish still considered a terrorist offense (or offence, in their crazy moon language) there?

Re:Not surprising (1)

Cederic (9623) | about 2 months ago | (#47727169)

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:Not surprising (2)

angularbanjo (1521611) | about 2 months ago | (#47727179)

I think you mean an o'ffence.

Minor correction (1)

gargleblast (683147) | about 2 months ago | (#47726829)

We would like to remind the public that paternalism is a bitch.

FTFY.

How times change (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 months ago | (#47726839)

"While Dan Rather attempts to rationalize the network's heartless decision to air this despicable 'terrorist propaganda video,' it is beyond our comprehension that any mother, wife, father or sister should have to relive this horrific tragedy and watch their loved one being repeatedly terrorized," the family said.

"Terrorists have made this video confident that the American media would broadcast it and thereby serve their exact purpose. By showing this video, CBS or any other broadcaster willing to show it proves that they fall without shame into the terrorists' plan."
-- Mariane Pearl [washingtonpost.com] , May 15, 2002

Re:How times change (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726875)

Solution, Shut down all media centers and cede all controls back to the Government. If you're not going to defend freedom of speech/expression you dont deserve it.

It's a terrible crime but hiding it won't make it go away. See: Nazi's sending jews to death camps, People (even the jewish people) refused to believe that it was happening, if you don't provide proof then the most terrible things can happen.

legal issues. (3, Interesting)

hooiberg (1789158) | about 2 months ago | (#47726881)

And in the Netherlands there was a legal discussion whether it was illegal or not to celebrate his beheading. That it was even necessary to establish this makes me ashamed of my country. By the way, it was decided that it is not illegal.

hate to be that guy, but (1)

The_Revelation (688580) | about 2 months ago | (#47726897)

Anyone got a working mirror?

The power of images... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726903)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726925)

Yes?
lol im not sure what you mean

Re:The power of images... (4, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 months ago | (#47726935)

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

Viewing the video is a crime? (1)

Yoda222 (943886) | about 2 months ago | (#47726911)

If watching this video is a crime, why not arrest this men [bbc.com] which must have seen it to be able to make this comment?

Because it's fake, perhaps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726915)

It's because the video is clearly faked, and the government doesn't want you looking at it too closely. The video doesn't show the actual beheading - why would those responsible NOT include that part of the footage, and instead include only the very beginning, where the victim's neck is beginning to be 'cut', and then show the victim's 'head' on top of the body, missing out the actual beheading? There are plenty of other videos online which show entire beheadings, and very gruesome they are too. The whole thing is laughably bad propaganda, put out by 'you know whos'...

They should do the opposite (0)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 months ago | (#47726927)

They should show it on TV with an explanation that this is what Islam stands for and believes. Perhaps then the people who say ridiculous things like "all religions are the same" would shut up. Do they really believe that a reporter interviewing the Mormon tabernacle Choir is just as likely to be kidnapped and beheaded?

Re: They should do the opposite (1)

thesupraman (179040) | about 2 months ago | (#47727049)

I have 3 words for you..

Westboro Baptist Church

Although I do wonder if you will understand.

Re: They should do the opposite (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 months ago | (#47727079)

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?

Every other answer is worse (5, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | about 2 months ago | (#47726937)

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:Every other answer is worse (1)

aberglas (991072) | about 2 months ago | (#47726961)

+1

Re:Every other answer is worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727089)

+100

bye bye democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726979)

UK is a police state

Re: bye bye democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727185)

Every cuntry is

Mandatory (2)

lolococo (574827) | about 2 months ago | (#47726991)

In soviet UK, YouTube watches you.

And have been widely criticised for saying it (3, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 months ago | (#47726997)

Watching the video is not a crime. It could, conceivably, be used as evidence of committing a crime. So could getting the 8:45 to Basingstoke, but only is that was something you did in order to commit a crime.

Pretty much anyone else who has spoken on the matter has said the police overstepped, and that watching the video is not illegal.

Re:And have been widely criticised for saying it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727115)

It could, conceivably, be used as evidence of committing a crime.

You walked past a bank building, so you must be a bankrobber ?

In other words: I haven't got a clue how a (still) legal action could be used as evidence to an illegal one.

Re:And have been widely criticised for saying it (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 months ago | (#47727133)

Having the word "I have a gun" written on a piece of paper is legal.

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.

UK propaganda! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727063)

Now we know freedom of information is also a crime!

But the courts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727065)

... disseminating extremist material within the UK ...

But the UK courts agreed the internet is USA territory: I remember a person was extradited from the UK because the USA didn't like what he did wholly within the UK. Expanding that precedent, no country can legally censor the internet since the USA has freedom of speech in its territories.

The slippery slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727095)

And thus the slippery slope slips again. How do we put up with such idiots as leaders?

Re: The slippery slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727151)

You are disarmed. You have no choice. They put up with you. Not the other way around.

Re:The slippery slope (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 months ago | (#47727197)

The police aren't our leaders.

Misread (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727173)

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.

Did anyone else read "prosecution" as "persecution" the first time round?

Double standards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47727203)

So sharing videos of American soldiers butchering Iraqi civilians are okay then? Hypocrites.

If you're squeamish, don't watch it. Problem?

America, America... land of the freaks, home of the knaves.

May you be nuked from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?