Yesterday in his great wisdom the Lord Chief Justice of England decided it was ok to download Moslem?

Question

terrorist material from the internet,so long as they were only "window shopping" and did not intend to carry out anything they may have seen.Does this mean it is ok to download child p**n so long as one is only looking?? I am thinking especially of that television man who was jailed for what he said was "research" In the catalogue of evil I dont think there is a lot to choose between supporting bombing hundreds of people or possibly putting small children at risk?What ever,his Lordship has opened a huge legal loop hole I suggest he plug at his earliest convenience. P.S. I have no wish or desire to download child p**n,in case any wit may think I have.

Answer 1

Muslims?  Well people in England should be concerned as the rest of the world look at the Muslims genocide record and fear them it's all facts and recorded online these people need to be contained and people should take the research and learn from it quickly

Answer 2

The freedom to be able to learn is something that should be guarded carefully. Take this example of downloading information about Jehad. It is entirely reasonable for people to be interested in reading about what people that believe in the writings are fighting for, how and why. Only through this kind of knowledge can we understand the reasoning behind actions.

The idea that someone can be in-prisoned for simply reading about the thoughts, beliefs, actions and methods of other people is crazy.

There is no comparison between this and downloading child pornography. The comparison would be downloading documents about paedophiles, paedophile rings, the actions and reactions related to child pornography.

The people involved with the legal case mentioned within the question downloaded information, not product. (Child pornography is the product, not the information).

We need to look at the wider aspect of censorship. If people are to be convicted of a crime based on reading information about the actions and activities, methods and beliefs of Jehad, the next step is to select religions that people can not read about without breaking the law. Religious books would be destroyed because it would become unlawful to own them. This would lead to people of a given faith being segregated and persecuted because of their belief. You may remember this has happened in the recent past - it ended in the n**i death camps.

Be careful of believing that an interest in a body of people and their beliefs should become a crime. Those thoughts will only lead to an oppressive society and prove George Orwell completely right (1984) - remembering that most of his predictions have come to pass.

Answer 3

i have an interest in rifles, i have looked them up online, but does that mean i will buy one and go on the rampage????

very much doubt it

Child p**n cannot be compared with "terrorism" material

Answer 4

I see where youre coming from, however we are setting a dangerous precedent if we are to be prosecuted by the thought police. I have read books on the evils of the n**i regime. Does this mean Im about to get a clan together and invade Poland?

Bottom line is, did they commit an offence? No.

Will they be more closely monitored now anyway because of their interest in extremist material. Yes.

I think the right decision was reached in this case.

Answer 5

" I have no wish or desire to download child p**n"

Yeah, yeah, we all believe you - honest.

Answer 6

what u saying exactly? As there are many issues with islam there will be wih other faiths!

Answer 7

double standards again

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah !

Answer 8

If you are interested in pornography you will look at it, if you are interested in terrorism you will look at it. The appeal judges are, as everyone in the legal system knows, nothing short of congenital half wits. The appellants tell the old goats whatever they wish to know and are usually fogged by good sense. They are also biased by opinion and if some Islamic mouthpiece says the appellants are innocent and the conviction has only been brought by racist, bigoted Christians, then it is in the best interests of the appeal judges to release them otherwise they could be criticised as racist. The easy option in these cases is to say that the prosecution did not prove enough intent in  terrorism, merely an interest in it. The appellants know that we know of their intent, they will, continue in the pursuit of their ultimate goal. by then it will be too late, let us hope that it will not be, but if it does happen, I can only hope that the appeal judges are involved in the tragedy.