It is an unprecedented case. And it risks triggering an unprecedented threat to journalism. The UK police have repeatedly tried to obtain the passwords to the phones of the British independent journalist, Richard Medhurst, the first reporter arrested in London under Section 12: his analyses and comments on Israel’s bloodbath in Gaza – which Amnesty International has characterised as genocide – have been interpreted by the police as support for organisations banned from the UK, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
The British journalists’ union, the NUJ, and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) publicly condemned his arrest and the use of anti-terrorism laws against journalists “simply for carrying out their work”.
That’s very easy to clear up. You see Richard Medhurst loves those things and supports the people that do them, and you defend him, so here we are. The video I posted shows him ejeculating over 2 IDF soldiers being shot with one bullet, like it’s a CoD montage, and you defended that too. Cry all you want about whether section 12 of the UK terrorism act should exist, but don’t pretend Medhurst shouldn’t be fully investigated for breaking it, including his phone being searched for even more explicit support of these groups.
Ok so here are the problems with your argument:
No, he doesn’t. Or at least I’ve seen no compelling evidence he does.
No, I didn’t.
If you don’t see the contradiction there idk what to tell you.
Well this is great, you didn’t object to him supporting terrorists, which is the entire point of the law (to support or encourage others to support), and why the cops want to search his phone. What a breakthrough.
When you use the quote tool (>) you’re supposed to actually quote the person. What you have done here is called a “misquote”. Do you understand the concept? Because if you do you will know that it instantly discredits your argument. In this particular case it goes even further and makes your argument unintelligible. It’s impossible to respond meaningfully because it’s nonsense. Either it’s a strategy or an oversight. Either way, not a good look I’m afraid.
Anyway, your second paragraph. Are there no possible ways for a person to get arrested that you wouldn’t object to? Do you think laws are automatically ethically correct and perfectly applied in every case?
Lmao, all that yapping because you contradicted yourself within the same breath. Or are you gonna sperg out about how comments don’t involve breathing now? My use of the quote tool is fine, don’t blow a blood vessel because you look like a fool in your last comment.
Ofc there are unjust laws, usually enforced by people Medhurst cheers for. In this case I’m sure many human rights lawyers are incensed about this UK law, but usually the course correction for laws like this is a bad material consequences and a subsequent rewrite. So unless you have examples of sympathetic victims of this law I don’t care.
It’s a shame you can’t engage in good faith; you might have learned something
You can’t even admit a blatant contradiction, you don’t get to talk about good faith. Also wtf would I learn from you? How to avoid making autists scream and shit their pants with the quote tool?
Anything else? You done? Get it allll out.