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 [email protected] On May 21, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Henry Rivera <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] 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. >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
