Choudary is really in prison. I would seriously have a lot of fun trying to get him out of there. I actually want to join a Virtual Association that tries to get him released. We can try lots of strategies to exhaust the adversary. If we keep doing that for long enough, they are going to release him, just because they are sick and tired of the circus! ;-)
I'm not sure where you're picking that up from, because that assertion is not a part of any legal code that I'm aware of. As far as I'm aware, it absolutely does not require supervision. It doesn't even require that someone act on it at all, so long as it seems pretty obvious that someone will. For example, if someone were to post a detailed step by step plan of how to carry out an act of domestic terrorism against a target of some significance, that could easily lead to jail time if the directions and reasoning and persuasion attached to this information seem like they're intended to get some action and if it seems fairly plausible that it will. That information will be removed when discovered, and the person who did it will need a lawyer. No one is going to wait for the thing to happen, and then ask if the person who incited it was directly supervising the person who carried it out. That's just absurd.
That is one example, it does not constrain this aspect of the law to deception. Also, I would argue that Choudary was guilty of all sorts of deception, but that is open to a variety of religious opinions.
Deception is not a requirement for this to apply, and in order for something to be imminent it doesn't demand immediacy. Imminence has more to do with certainty than with a particular time frame.
Again, imminent and immediate are separate matters. If something cannot be immediately done, it can still be imminent.
I said that his speech was "directed to inciting" and "very likely to incite." (Also, that it certainly did). That's what I said. So when you tell me I'm claiming "these people were acting under supervision of Choudary," no I am not saying that. What you are doing is making something up. His speech was directed to inciting, and it was very likely to incite. It's possible to do all that without ever meeting someone in person. His speech, in and of itself, was illegal because of its direction and its intent. And its content, let's not forget that, but these are the other factors. Did he supervise? No. But that's entirely irrelevant.
That makes it non-immediate, but it does not make it non-imminent.
That's right, I never have claimed that, nor have I even implied it. Which means you never should have attributed it to me.
You're making a big point out of Syria being a country that does not reside within the UK. The thing is though, Choudary does reside in the UK. His actions are judged by the UK, because he's a UK citizen. So what if Syria isn't in the UK? Do you honestly think Syria is going to regulate the speech of Anjem Choudary?
You should definitely get in contact with Anonymous and try to get them on board with this. As a matter of fact, you should tell them all your plans and conspiracy theories, I'm sure they'll love them and work with you closely in order to help make them happen.
This is a silly discussion, because all of that can trivially be circumvented by doing it anonymously.
The National State would first have to figure out who exactly posted that information. If they were capable of doing that, how comes that the tor network is full of information that the State would consider illegal? I can see it every day, if I want to! ;-)
Deception amounts to purposely and knowingly lying. It is NOT about having another opinion than yourself. Therefore, prove your case. Show that Choudary has been telling lies. Unless you do this, what you are saying, just amounts to slander.
I believe that speech should be anonymous by default. The National State should not be informed as to who is saying what to whom. The fact that they are jailing people for what they say, simply proves my point. With the tor network and similar technologies, we are expelling the National State out of judging the legitimacy of speech and any of their other attempts at enforcing their detestable man-made law.
Speech is not a valid object of regulation. Since anonymous speech renders slander impossible, it would only leave us to deal with the forbidden speech types of blasphemy and deception.
Well, I would not recommend to discuss what exactly to do, unless you are completely anonymous.
All of this rests on the assumption of actual evidence, of course. And with evidence, under circumstances x y and z, this is the expected outcome.
To your point about the tor network, I was actually watching an Information Wars program on Vice TV the other day, there was an interesting conversation with one of the whitehats working on the side of the government, and according to this person there was a stretch of time a couple of years back (it lasted just a few weeks) during which the Firefox browser could be exploited, and as long as anyone was accessing the tor network via Firefox, they were exposed. So the national state (which is in no way related to pagan religious beliefs) was aware of this, and they used it for surveillance purposes until they felt like they'd nailed enough people. Then they let Mozilla know they had a problem and that everyone had been exposed for a little while, and now it's been patched. But for anyone who was using the tor network, they never would have known that their browser was leaving them exposed until it was too late.
What I said about him lying was an incidental comment and not entirely serious, it was more of a shot at him for believing in things that are false. Whatever actual deception he was actually guilty of, he did in order to avoid being arrested while continuing to act as an enemy of the state. In any case, proof of actual deception is not the point, because the reason he went to prison doesn't have anything to do with his honesty or lack thereof.
Most of the time that's completely true, in some carefully defined instances free speech is not protected though.
Oddly enough, blasphemy is not illegal and deception is universally disliked on moral grounds but legally speaking it's almost never actionable unless you get it in writing. I don't know why I'm telling you this, though, because....well, it's you.
Sure he is. He's guilty of breaking UK law. Simple as that. UK law exists, people are punished when they break it, he broke it and is now being punished.
Extremists already do that. Prevailing opinion states that secular laws are the way to go, and that secular liberalism religious liberty and pluralism are all good things that should be protected. Extremists, especially of the jihadist variety, Already feel justified in using force even though these opinions are not specifically directed right at them.
I am not attacking Choudary just for expressing his opinions, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop repeating that.
I can agree with that. Question, though. What if there's something that you see as a problem- please remember that it's only your opinion that it is a problem, it's a personal assessment of yours- and as it turns out, there are no possible ways for it to be solved to your satisfaction. Whether you use violence or not, either way you won't get what you want. What do you recommend to such a person, if that is an accurate judgment of the actual prospects? I think this is a rather important question, in the abstract and not for you personally, so I hope you'll run it as a hypothetical and give it some thought.
Hm. How about that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, at some point I should ask an actual Muslim to explain that to me.
Your opinion reflects faith and trust in the National State, and the questionable belief that it will not harass you for no good reason. It does not represent faith in the singular God ! ;-)
If your OS knows your IP address, then your browser can also know, and then it could indeed reveal it. There are many ways to prevent your own OS from knowing your IP address. Example: use a guest virtual machine that routs its traffic through a whonix (or other similar) gateway in a second virtual machine. It is simple: the OS cannot reveal what it does not know, and firefox cannot ask to the OS what it does not know itself. You cannot solve the problem at the level at which it was created. That is one reason why serious users do not use tor browser. It is a workaround with just one single line of defense.
His error is that he should have called for people to join an Anonymous Virtual Association on the tor network. Next, he could anonymously explain his views. I do not say that what Choudary says is right or wrong. I suspect, however, that he must be right about a lot of things. Still, people should not speak openly about these things. They should be anonymous. UK man-made law should not be allowed to interfere with otherwise entirely legitimate speech.
Well, thanks for making the problem even worse! ;-)
Ha! But you are! You insist that Choudary should go to prison for his opinions. I think that it is utterly wrong to emprison Choudary for expressing his opinions.
Not true at all. With bitcoin, we are taking the banking system to the cleaners. National States are so desperate that they do not want lose face by inventing unenforceable laws to prevent it. Both Russia and China have already backpedaled from trying to do that. Inventing new laws will not help. The system was designed specifically with a view on making National States powerless to do anything about it.
Because I am interested in getting Choudary released?
You see, in a sense, you are right. I mostly use Islam as a tool. It is quite effective as an instrument to achieve particular goals, as long as your are not engaging in behaviour that is forbidden by its law. Seriously, my goal is not be labeled as a Muslim, because it would actually do nothing much for me. I just want to use it to achieve certain objectives. Furthermore, it is our beloved Master, the singular God, who will ultimately be the judge of that! ;-)
I can see you're well prepared, looks like you don't have much to worry about after all.
It's awfully difficult to have any significant impact on mainstream Islam from the tor network, though. And I don't think Choudary's main goal was to quietly and subversively convince a few people to commit acts of violence, his main goal was to have a certain kind of influence on mainstream Islam while avoiding legal trouble. As far as I'm aware, anyway.
I see it as a problem-neutral sort of scenario.
Ha! I told you already, that is not accurate! I insist that Choudary go to prison for inciting lawless acts of violence and acting in a way that caused harm to others. I can see why you'd want to express it in the way that you are- an opinion, taken by itself, is perfectly harmless and you wish for people to assume without further evidence that he simply had opinions and did no harm. That is incredibly misleading, because Anjem Choudary cannot possibly be held harmless. What he did was intended to cause harm, and more to the point it unquestionably did. So once again, if you Must insist on saying Choudary is in prison "just for his opinions," make sure it's clear that comes from you and not from me.
In the end, it is still all about what Choudary has said.
He was saying things for 20 years without being charged with a crime. Then something was a little different, and now he's got 10 years. None of what you keep repeating explains that.
But that isn't what happened, so....
Not every issue necessarily returns to the question of how to "defeat the National State." Actually, for most issues that's fairly irrelevant.
Maybe because your low opinion of them is just your opinion, and it doesn't have as much traction in reality and in fact as you think it does.
The funny thing about man-made law is that there are 200+ different versions of it. Under American man-made law, Choudary has done absolutely nothing wrong. The Americans wanted to get rid of British man-made law, because they said it sucks big time. In their declaration of independence, they justify this by invoking Divine Law:
Still, it was clear that someone or something was going to put an end to all the abuses made possible by incessantly inventing man-made law, and that if you put our humble negotiators, such as Choudary, in prison, that there will be no other option than to disavow the Crown, and hence:
