Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Thinking is a Crime!

Home Made Thought Crime Check!

UK To Jail Viewers Of "Far-Right Propaganda" | Amber Rudd | Terrorism
Published on Oct 6, 2017

Ben Shapiro Absolutely Destroys Lena Dunham On Thought Crime
Published on Aug 26, 2017

Criticizing Islam Now a Thought Crime!
Caught Thinking!
Amber Rudd: viewers of online terrorist material face 15 years in jail
Tightening of law around viewing terrorist material is response to increasing frequency of UK attacks
Alan Travis, Home affairs editor
Tuesday, 3 October 2017
Amber Rudd on day one of the 2017 Conservative party conference. Photograph: James Gourley/Rex/Shutterstock
People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.
A new maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism.
The tightening of the law around viewing terrorist material is part of a review of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy following the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks in Britain this year.
“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.
“This is an increasingly common means by which material is accessed online for criminal purposes and is a particularly prevalent means of viewing extremist material such as videos and web pages,” added the home secretary.
A Home Office analysis shows that since 1 September 2016 Daesh or Isis supporters have published almost 67,000 tweets in English, promoting online links to their propaganda on a range of online platforms and making English-speakers the second most important audience for Daesh supporters after Arabic. Figures also show that in the first eight months of this year, more than 44,000 links to Isis propaganda were created and shared.
The proposed changes will strengthen the existing offence of possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 so that it applies to material that is viewed repeatedly or streamed online. Currently the power applies only to online material that has been downloaded and stored on the offender’s computer, is saved on a separate device or printed off as a hard copy.
Radical websites
According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.
At an earlier fringe meeting, Rudd said she would continue to press internet companies to do more to prevent terrorist material being made available on their platforms in the first place. A second meeting of a global internet forum she chaired in California in the summer is due to take place next January.
Rudd also caused some consternation at the fringe meeting by criticising the tech industry for their “patronising” attitude that “sneered” at politicians who did not always get it right. She claimed it was not necessary for her to understand how end-to-end encryption worked to know that it was helping criminals.
Asked by an audience member if she understood how end-to-end encryption actually worked, she said: “It’s so easy to be patronised in this business. We will do our best to understand it. We will take advice from other people. But I do feel that there is a sea of criticism for any of us who try and legislate in new areas, who will automatically be sneered at and laughed at for not getting it right. I don’t need to understand how encryption works to understand how it’s helping the criminals,” she went on. “I will engage with the security services to find the best way to combat that.”

13 Things In 1984 That Are Coming True #Disturbing13
Erick Alden
Published on Sep 22, 2016
Thought Crime: German Police Raid Homes Of People Who Made ‘Hateful Postings’ On The Internet
By Joshua Yasmeh
21 June 2017
On Tuesday, German police raided the homes of 36 people accused of posting “hateful” content on social media. The content in question includes allegedly racist posts and threats.
The raids largely targeted individuals associated with far-right movements hostile to immigration.
“But the raids also targeted two people accused of left-wing extremist content, as well as one person accused of making threats or harassment based on someone’s sexual orientation,” reports The New York Times.
While direct threats proclaiming an explicit intention to carry out a violent act may be considered punishable in countries with strong free speech protections like the United States, Germany is notoriously censorious in the Western world insofar as it criminalizes so-called “hate speech” against racial and/or ethnic minorities.
“The still high incidence of punishable hate posting shows a need for police action,” explained Holger Münch, president of the Federal Criminal Police Office in a statement meant to justify the country’s aggressive crackdown against thought crimes. “Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the internet.”
Equating words with violence and using intentionally vague phrases like “climate of fear,” Münch championed the power of the state as a way to police what people think.
Given Germany’s sordid past as a country that just 70 years ago was gripped by a medieval-age bloodlust against a defenseless Jewish minority libelously blamed for every social ill imaginable, it’s understandable that the Federal Republic of Germany, built upon a collective sense of guilt, would be hyper-sensitive to any rhetoric that might conceivably gin up hostile feelings against groups that have been historically oppressed.
Unfortunately, Germany’s Ministry of Justice, or the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) is refusing to back down on its thought policing. It’s the opposite in fact; it’s doubling down on censorship.
At a parliamentary hearing on Monday, Germans debate “a draft of a new social media law aimed at cracking down on hate speech, a measure that an array of experts said was unconstitutional …” according to The Times.
“The measure, championed by Justice Minister Heiko Maas for passage this month, would fine Facebook, Twitter and other outlets up to $53 million (50 million euros) if they failed to remove hate speech and other forms of illegal content,” notes The Times, adding:
Under German law, social media users are subject to a range of punishments for posting illegal material, including a prison sentence of up to five years for inciting racial hatred.Under the draft statute, networks must offer a readily available complaint process for posts that may amount to threats, hate speech, defamation, or incitement to commit a crime, among other offenses.Social media outlets would have 24 hours to delete “obviously criminal content” and a week to decide on more ambiguous cases. The law, approved by Germany’s cabinet in April, would be enforced with fines of up to $53 million.
From twisting the arms of social media companies to censor and erase “hate speech” to raiding the homes of social media posters accused of posting “hate speech,” the German government is ironically sabotaging its own democratic ideals as a way to safeguard against fascist impulses.                                                         

Thailand's thoughtcrime arrests are getting dangerously bizarre
Patrick Winn, GlobalPost
Published May 30, 2016
Demonstrators hold up mock voting papers during an anti-coup protest on the steps of Democracy Monument to mark the second anniversary of the military take over of government in Bangkok, Thailand, on May 22, 2016. Thailand's military seized power from an elected government on May 22, 2014.(Photo: Mark Baker, AP)
In the eyes of Thailand’s military rulers, it seems no subversive thought is too petty to punish.
Thailand is now entering its third year under military dictatorship, a reign established when generals seized power from an elected government on May 22, 2014.
The army has vowed to use its sweeping powers to heal a nation torn by class resentment. But its favored tactics for keeping the peace — locking up critics and silencing dissent — have turned Thailand into a nation where even meek expressions of defiance can end in detention.
In the past nine months, Thais have been charged for clicking “like” on subversive Facebook memes. For handing flowers to an anti-junta activist. For allegedly insulting the king’s pet dog.
Others have been detained simply for reading George Orwell’s “1984” in public, or for raising three fingers, an anti-tyranny salute from the “Hunger Games” films.
Officers have even snatched up a man for eating a sandwich.
It was no ordinary sandwich, mind you. It was publicly declared a “sandwich for democracy,” scarfed down by an anti-junta activist at a mall — all while reading 1984. He was quickly surrounded by plainclothes officers.
“I am not a very brave person so, yes, I got kind of nervous and my hands were shaking,” said the dissident sandwich eater, a 33-year-old nicknamed Champ. (He requested that his full name be omitted.)
“As Che Guevara said, if you tremble at the sign of injustice, you are a friend of mine.”
This stunt, staged shortly after the coup, was a cheeky attempt to evade laws forbidding traditional political rallies. But its deeper intent was to reveal how far military officers would go to attack critics. They did not disappoint.
After taking a few nibbles, Champ was grabbed by six agents and hauled off by the seat of his pants.
“They dragged me away. They slapped my head,” Champ said in an interview this month. “They just kept punching me until they were sure that I couldn’t escape.”
Once subdued, Champ was taken to an army facility and interrogated. “They told me I’m a betrayer of my country,” he said. “They kept saying there’s been a lot of fighting in Thailand … and that we shouldn’t disrupt the peace.”
But the ordeal was worth it, Champ said. After all, it proved from the outset that the army “would not tolerate any kind of protest, any challenge to their rule, any little thing, including sandwich eating.”
“In the end,” he said, “they just made a fool of themselves.”
When the army seized power two years ago, it justified its takeover by promising a wave of grand reforms. Thailand, the generals said, would become a nation purged of corruption and of the recurring, sometimes bloody street protests that have convulsed the political order for nearly a decade.
Army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha, who appointed himself prime minister, even released a syrupy ballad vowing to “return happiness to the people.” At the outset, his subordinates seemed similarly upbeat.
“Of course, we are very experienced in terms of intervention. Anyone want to argue with me?” said Major General Werachon Sukondhapatipak, a military spokesman, at a press conference shortly after the 2014 coup.
“This is the 13th, coup number 13,” he said. “A lucky number!”
Indeed, Thailand has endured 13 successful coups since 1932, the last year in which the nation (then called Siam) was directly ruled by monarchs.
But for those who’ve run afoul of the junta, the latest coup has not brought much luck. Since the takeover, according to Human Rights Watch, at least 1,300 people have been summoned for questioning or what the army calls “attitude adjustment.”
This can involve several days of interrogation and re-education at an army camp. Failure to attend is a crime. “The United States has the Patriot Act to deal with the situation after 9/11,” Gen. Werachon said. “This is the same.”
Even less fortunate are those accused of Thailand’s most serious speech-related crime: disrespecting the royal family. The army, closely aligned with the palace, considers “upholding the monarchy” to be one of its prime directives.
But disrespect toward the king, who is now 88 and in ailing health, is hardly common. He is widely revered and his image is ubiquitous — on banknotes, gilded street portraits and glowing portrayals on television. Thais are taught from childhood that their king sits at the pinnacle of their society.
Still, prosecutors increasingly interpret codes against anti-royal speech in a manner described as “draconian” by rights groups.
The latest high-profile charge targets a 40-year-old widow, Patnaree Chankij, who works as a maid in Bangkok. Authorities said she received a private, anti-monarchist message on Facebook.
Her response to the message: “ja,” which in Thai means “yeah, sure” or “I see.” For typing that single word, she faces up to 15 years in prison.
“I was shocked. I never thought she’d become a political tool,” said Patnaree’s son, university student Sirawith Seritiwat.
Sirawith just so happens to be one of the most dogged activists daring to oppose the junta. He believes his mother was charged in May to cow him and others into silence.
“They want to use her as a tool to scare all of us,” he said. “But I can’t show fear. How can I expect society to be fearless if I’m afraid?”
For most people in Thailand — from rice farmers to urban executives — the junta’s intensifying crackdown on dissident speech is not a visceral concern. Though corruption persists and the economy is struggling, few are eager to risk confronting a military with near-absolute power.
Or perhaps the population is overjoyed with authoritarian rule. That is the army’s contention, at least. A poll released six months ago by Thailand’s statistics office, which is beholden to the military government, dubiously suggests that 99% of Thais are happy under the junta.
But those who openly resent the dictatorship are paranoid, and for good reason. Officials are unpredictable: sometimes condemnation slides; sometimes a mere “sandwich for democracy” is enough to set them off.
On May 22, the coup’s two-year anniversary, hundreds of anti-junta protesters in Bangkok staged their largest rally since the coup. To their surprise, police surrounded the crowd but did not act as they shouted, “Dictatorship get out!”
That doesn’t necessarily mean the protesters got away with it, says Sunai Phasuk, a senior Human Rights Watch researcher. “A tactic used quite often,” he says, “is to record protesters’ faces, their speech, and take action against them later.”
“They made it clear from day one that they would not tolerate even the slightest dissent,” Sunai said. “Now these measures send a very clear signal that Thailand is falling deeper and deeper into military dictatorship.”
The junta insists it will not hold power forever. It has penned a constitution that would permit an elected government — albeit one with heavy military oversight.
The public will vote on the junta’s favored constitution in August. But ahead of the referendum, debate is stifled. The penalty for those found guilty of “influencing a voter”? Up to 10 years in prison.
This story was first published on PRI.org and GlobalPost. Its content was created separately from USA TODAY.