[waps]

> Yeah the threats about being arrested for viewing the video struck me as weird too.

A police officer explained this to me. They do this because they want the ability to arrest the people who are recruiting muslims using these videos. The "recruiting" thing is impossible to prove, so ...

These videos are made with one purpose only : to recruit more muslims to their cause. Assuming they know what they're doing, that's exactly what free dissemination of these videos will do (otherwise, after all, there wouldn't be an al qaeda or IS organization in the first place).

I think you can at least agree that using arrests, and even violence (of the police kind, not the IS kind), to prevent that from happening is unambiguously a good thing.

The arguments against these laws are mostly of the "slippery slope" kind, and I agree that these laws are open to abuse. I hate to say it but I also don't see an alternative.

[seanflyon]

> They do this because they want the ability to arrest the people who are recruiting muslims using these videos. The "recruiting" thing is impossible to prove, so ...

I take issue with this. They think someone is guilty of a real, serious crime, but they can't prove it so they want to convict them of something else. That is bypassing the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

[waps]

You may think that you'll vote to stop this, but you won't. Think about the consequences of your position for 5 seconds. If modern law cannot guarantee people's freedom from large-scale violence, then nobody, not me, not you, nobody, has any use for modern law. Abrogating law to prevent these things from happening, hell, even committing massacres against their forces, is perfectly acceptable behaviour. Islam does not fight with a distinction between civilians and military. So it's impossible to hit one and not the other. That cannot reasonably result in not hitting them. You may not agree, today, but if these things keep expanding like they have in the last decade, you will agree before another decade passes.

[seanflyon]

> guarantee

What does this mean? Of course no guarantee of safety could be absolute, so how large does the threat have to be for us to give up our basic freedoms? Terrorists are already, for western countries a statistically insignificant threat. Nothing compared to drunk drivers, diabetes, cancer etc.

You are appealing to an irrational fear.

[Alupis]

I disagree. The people making the videos are not in the US or UK. Furthermore, the people making the video are already breaking US and UK laws -- murder. The simple act of making a video (of some kind), posting it, linking to it, nor viewing it are illegal in themselves. However, if the government of the US or UK deem the video content to be "extremist" content, now it becomes illegal to link-to, or view the video? That seems bad to me (censorship). (again, murder is already illegal). Where does it draw the line? What about extremist videos that don't include murder but talk poorly about the US and UK governments and people? Will be deem those to be illegal to view too?

Police can already arrest the people making the videos (if they were in the UK or US) without having to make it a crime to simply view the video.

I don't buy the argument that these videos are propaganda to recruit -- they are there to stir fear and incite the idea that no one will save you if you are captured. The goal of the videos are to bend the public opinion.

The video will only sicken the majority of US and UK citizens -- which will in turn demand direct military action. This is, what both administrations (US and UK) have been trying to avoid recently as both have campaigned in large to avoid any direct use of the military (aka, boots-on-the-ground). It would be bad, politically, to then renege on that and send troops in.

[waps]

I'm not talking about the people making the video. I'm talking about people recruiting new fighters to their cause.