• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

Stout said:
Holy Crap !

Up to 10 years in jail for watching Nazi Killer Guy's bodycam footage.



Link
Click to expand...

That sounds ridiculous and over-the-top.

uke2se said:
I'd say leaving them locked up without trial on an island would be a better option. That's how we treat terrorism-suspects.
Click to expand...

Anyone who even just watches this stuff is a suspected terrorist?

Are you joking?
 
uke2se said:
I'd say leaving them locked up without trial on an island would be a better option. That's how we treat terrorism-suspects.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're up for it :) Watching a video makes someone a terrorism suspect. Better watch my back, I watched one of those ISIS videos a few years back. Oops...better not admit that

How about criticizing religion ? A lot of people find that objectionable. Life with no hope for parole ?

How about watching porn ? A lot of religious people find that objectionable. Death penalty ?

Then there's all that fictional violence and all those video games.....
 
Stout said:
Sounds like you're up for it :) Watching a video makes someone a terrorism suspect. Better watch my back, I watched one of those ISIS videos a few years back. Oops...better not admit that
Click to expand...

Are you refering to the one where they burned a guy alive in a cage? Yeah I watched that. Disgusting stuff, and it certainly cemented my opinion of those monsters, but I guess Uke thinks I'm a terrorist sympathiser now. Surely I must be on his punchables list at this stage.
 
Arcade22 said:
Only a potential terrorist would break the law just to watch an illegal movie.
Click to expand...

A beautifully simplistic and ridiculous view, but there you have it.

I actually almost sought this one out, but decided it'd probably be best for my mental health if I didn't. What are my terrorist credentials, according to you?

Do you like eating cereals? What if your country makes that a crime? Does that somehow reflect badly upon you if you decide to eat them anyway? Your logic makes no sense. The fact that something is made illegal is not, in and of itself, a comment on the morality of the thing or of those who engage in it.
 
Stout said:
Then there's all that fictional violence and all those video games.....
Click to expand...

According to the NYT one of the notable characteristics of the mass murderer was that he played violent video games.

I hope i don't have to explain why those sick sadistic bastards that could ever find causing death and mayhem enjoyable should probably be in prison for the rest of their lives, even if they only did in video games (at least yet). Better safe than sorry.
 
Stout said:
Holy Crap !

Up to 10 years in jail for watching Nazi Killer Guy's bodycam footage.



Link
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying "10 years for watching". It's 10 years for downloading and/or distributing...

I don't think that's surprising or unjustified. After all, the same would apply to child pornography and few people object to making it illegal to download and distribute that.

And while snuff films were once considered an urban legend, they are completely real today and exist in huge quantities.

In this case we are talking about a terrorist snuff video, and I reckon there will likely be more of these in the future.

I have absolutely no problem with making the download and distribution of this kind of thing illegal.

Not only that, but I reckon those here who have watched it should inform the authorities where it is being hosted.
 
Arcade22 said:
According to the NYT one of the notable characteristics of the mass murderer was that he played violent video games.
Click to expand...

He probably also breathed oxygen.

I hope i don't have to explain why those sick sadistic bastards that could ever find causing death and mayhem enjoyable should probably be in prison for the rest of their lives, even if they only did in video games (at least yet).
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

You think enjoying causing fake mayhem translates in real life?
 
Belz... said:
Are you refering to the one where they burned a guy alive in a cage? Yeah I watched that. Disgusting stuff, and it certainly cemented my opinion of those monsters, but I guess Uke thinks I'm a terrorist sympathiser now. Surely I must be on his punchables list at this stage.
Click to expand...

yep, that's the one, I didn't believe it was real, that ISIS would actually upload something like that as part of a recruitment effort. I've probably been on the punchables list for years :)
 
Arcade22 said:
According to the NYT one of the notable characteristics of the mass murderer was that he played violent video games.

I hope i don't have to explain why those sick sadistic bastards that could ever find causing death and mayhem enjoyable should probably be in prison for the rest of their lives, even if they only did in video games (at least yet). Better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

So is this a vote for banning violent video games then ?
 
zooterkin said:
Is there any technical or legal distinction between watching and downloading?
Click to expand...

Sure, why not? IANAL, but if you download it, it can be distributed in future from your file. If you stream it, unless you are recording at the same time, you are not making copies.

There are probably analogous laws relating to terrorism and child pornography. If I downloaded a cache of terrorist materials, I would expect it to be illegal. If I merely view it, maybe not.
 
zooterkin said:
Is there any technical or legal distinction between watching and downloading?
Click to expand...

Depends. Streaming could be considered different from downloading.

For example: The Swedish law against possessing child pornography had to be amended so that they also prohibited just viewing it, because at the time it was legal simply to stream it online.
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
yep, that's the one, I didn't believe it was real, that ISIS would actually upload something like that as part of a recruitment effort. I've probably been on the punchables list for years :)
Click to expand...

The depressing thing is that some people indeed want to join in.
 
Hmmmm... it looks like the law has recently been amended to make it illegal to watch terrorist material online once, in the UK, with punishment being up to 15 years in prison.

Apparently, it had previously been illegal if you watched something three times.

It will be an offence to view terrorist material online just once – and could incur a prison sentence of up to 15 years – under new UK laws.

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill was granted Royal Assent yesterday, updating a previous Act and bringing new powers to law enforcement to tackle terrorism.

But a controversial inclusion was to update the offence of obtaining information "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" so that it now covers viewing or streaming content online.

The rules as passed into law are also a tightening of proposals that had already been criticised by human rights groups and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Max Hill.

Originally, the proposal had been to make it an offence for someone to view material three or more times – but the three strikes idea has been dropped from the final Act.
Click to expand...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/13/uk_counter_terror_act_royal_assent/
 
angrysoba said:
I don't think anyone is saying "10 years for watching". It's 10 years for downloading and/or distributing...
Click to expand...

I can't help but find it excessive and draconian either way. One way to avoid that impression would be to explicitly differentiate between less serious offences and more serious ones. The actions of someone who distributes terrorist propaganda on a large and professional scale is obviously not comparable to someone who downloads and views it simply out of curiosity or simply because it's forbidden. If anything i find that there's no reason to equate the two.

Then you'd avoid people risking, at least in theory, overly long prison sentences for what amounts to benign yet illegal actions. Like in how newspapers sometimes say that "Person X risks 15 years in prison for this crime" and then they get 8 months in prison or a suspended sentence.
 
Last edited:
If it can be served from your computer, then you've downloaded it.

Most streaming services work with your browser to play the file without storing it on your side. There are ways to override this default behavior, but they require additional knowledge and effort.
 
It looks like it is now illegal to watch the video in New Zealand:

It is illegal for anyone in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute this material in any form, including via social media platforms.

“We’re aware that for a time after the attacks, this video was widely available on social media and many New Zealanders saw it, sometimes without meaning to”.

“Its important people are now clear they should not view, download or share the video”, says Mr Shanks.

Our priority is to mitigate the harm caused by this material to the New Zealand public, and in particular to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the Christchurch terror attacks.

Associated with the video, it should be noted that a lengthy ‘manifesto’ document is being examined separately from the video footage and will take more time to consider.
Click to expand...

https://www.classificationoffice.go...urch-shooting-video-officially-objectionable/
 
Arcade22 said:
I can't help but find it excessive and draconian either way. One way to avoid that impression would be to explicitly differentiate between less serious offences and more serious ones. The actions of someone who distributes terrorist propaganda on a large and professional scale is obviously not comparable to someone who downloads and views it simply out of curiosity or simply because it's forbidden. If anything i find that there's no reason to equate the two.

Then you'd avoid people risking, at least in theory, overly long prison sentences for what amounts to benign yet illegal actions. Like in how newspapers sometimes say that "Person X risks 15 years in prison for this crime" and then they get 8 months in prison or a suspended sentence.
Click to expand...

Huh? Yeah, I think you have made the obvious point that the distinction between large, professional distribution, and small-time distribution is reflected in the sentencing.

Again, this may well be true of child pornography, or even downloading and distributing copyrighted material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom