NE2: Islamic State Terror Prevention Act (Failed)

[Blair]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've brought this forward, as I said I would as I want all terrorism related legislation to be debated immediately.

Sponsor Clyde1998, you have 36 hours to advocate for this bill

[free my dawg]

I object to this legislation being introduced. The SOAP clearly states that the earliest legislation must be introduced in NE1. You have discretion over NE2 and NE3, but you must bring up the Haverford Act in this slot.

[Blair]

Legislation has been tabled for now

[Blair]

Now that Kurds bill has been signed, I can re-introduce this.

I'll leave it up to Clyde to talk about this bill

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

Without wanting to step on the toes of the Federal Government - I feel that we need to combat the threat of the Islamic State [IS] in the North East (and Atlasia as a whole).

My proposal will move to outlaw any IS propaganda within the region, by enforcing strict rules on the ownership and distribution of material within the region.

Section 1 outlines the what I propose we outlaw: the ownership or distribution of IS propaganda and the broadcast of propaganda or speeches of IS by media sources and online. Due to constraints with local powers, it may be difficult to enforce this online, but if we have clear evidence that the distributors live in the North East region - then we can give them the relevant penalty.

Section 2 shows what I think the punishments should be. Fines should be used if someone is found guilty of broadcasting or publishing IS propaganda or speeches. A prison sentence could be used if someone owns or distributes IS propaganda or speeches, however this should be used if a fine too soft.

[Blair]

What would happen, if someone shared a video say from CNN/BBC/Fox that showed an ISIS speech. I wouldn't want people facing fines just for sharing a news article

[Lincoln Republican]

We cannot be getting into the business of censoring legitimate news which may be considered by some as IS propaganda.

Sometimes there is a thin line between what is newsworthy and what is propaganda.

[free my dawg]

What would happen, if someone shared a video say from CNN/BBC/Fox that showed an ISIS speech. I wouldn't want people facing fines just for sharing a news article

Possibly only extend the fines to news stations? I can't propose amendments to your drafted legislation, so if you or Clyde want to do it, that's fine.

We cannot be getting into the business of censoring legitimate news which may be considered by some as IS propaganda.

Sometimes there is a thin line between what is newsworthy and what is propaganda.

I understand that. However, if we do that, we're simply instilling fear into the people and letting the terrorists win. Also, there's the issue of the respect of the families of the victims - I know that James Foley's family wants as little people to see the video of his death as possible, and by circulating it on a major news outlet, it's a blatant disrespect towards families who will never see their sons or daughters again.

[pikachu]

I'm a bit wary of this because I do think that news organizations should have their discretion on what they want to broadcast. I do understand that families of the victims don't want to see their family members deaths being played on the news, so I wouldn't mind a fine for that, but if it's something similar to the bin Laden videos that would come out in the 2000s, I think the media has the right to decide whether they want to show those or not. (Of course, if distributors do it with the intent of spreading terrorism, they should be punished.)

[Blair]

I've got several concerns about this bill.
-I don't think it's the right anti-terror approach, I'd rather see more options to de-radicalize individuals here, or at least track them.
-I don't think censoring the news is the answer-it makes us look weak, and plays into the hands of IS.
-It's press censorship on mass, we need the press to report on the issues using all the information that is available to them
-If someone wants to get hold of a speech, they'd still be able to. It's regional legislation, and wouldn't be effective

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This line as well is not too good, I take the view that every time IS are mentioned they see it as propaganda

[free my dawg]

Possibly we can change the "any IS propaganda" line showing "any IS videos that show the deaths or execution of any Atlasian" and get rid of the speeches part?

[Blair]

Possibly we can change the "any IS propaganda" line showing "any IS videos that show the deaths or execution of any Atlasian" and get rid of the speeches part?

Yeah that sounds good, I'll draft an amendment. This is as far as I'm prepared to go in limiting the media, any further and we'd be defeating ourselves

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[pikachu]

If say, the Chicago Tribune decided to post a video of an ISIS beheading, would they be punished under this bill, or are they expected to have a Northeast-only version of their website?

[free my dawg]

If say, the Chicago Tribune decided to post a video of an ISIS beheading, would they be punished under this bill, or are they expected to have a Northeast-only version of their website?

If a Northeasterner sees it.

[Blair]

If say, the Chicago Tribune decided to post a video of an ISIS beheading, would they be punished under this bill, or are they expected to have a Northeast-only version of their website?

Under my bill I'd want to remove it.

I basically want the version of something called a D-notice that happens in the UK. It's basically where the government send out an alert saying don't publish x because it goes against our security concerns regarding nuclear weapons. But it seems there's unclear ground about what to do with national websites, not just those in the NE

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this could work and would be an improvement on my initial bill.

[Blair]

wicked, so it's friendly?

[Clyde1998]

wicked, so it's friendly?

Yes - it's a lot more enforceable at regional level.

[Blair]

wicked, so it's friendly?

Yes - it's a lot more enforceable at regional level.

Cool, that was just the main issue with the first bill as we'd be limited in enforcing it

[Lincoln Republican]

What do you plan to do, sue YouTube for $50,000 because someone from Bulgaria posts an IS video that is shown worldwide?

[Blair]

What do you plan to do, sue YouTube for $50,000 because someone from Bulgaria posts an IS video that is shown worldwide?

I've amended the bill down to a low level. We'd simply have the right to ask youtube to remove videos featuring killing. It's something that's been done before, and doesn't appear any different from copyright laws where youtube take down videos

[pikachu]

If a non-Northeasterner shares a video/photo with non-malicious intent, would we request them to take  it down? And if he/she didn't, the person would be fined?

[Blair]

If a non-Northeasterner shares a video/photo with non-malicious intent, would we request them to take  it down? And if he/she didn't, the person would be fined?

This is where the issue is, I'd be happy removing individuals from this and just keeping it for news/businesses.

I can't see how we're going to be able to censor every facebook page, because every facebook is accessible from the the Internet in the Northeast

[free my dawg]

If a non-Northeasterner shares a video/photo with non-malicious intent, would we request them to take  it down? And if he/she didn't, the person would be fined?

This is where the issue is, I'd be happy removing individuals from this and just keeping it for news/businesses.

I can't see how we're going to be able to censor every facebook page, because every facebook is accessible from the the Internet in the Northeast

Yes, that's way too much bureaucracy.

[Blair]

I'm starting to lose faith in this bill. I can see company finings working with Facebook for example, but we can't comb through every single website that has a clip of an ISIS murder on it