Online Radicalisation Prosecutions
⚠️ What is Online Radicalisation?
Online radicalisation refers to the process by which individuals are exposed to extremist ideologies or propaganda via the internet and social media platforms, often leading to involvement in terrorism or violent extremism. Laws against online radicalisation seek to criminalize activities such as:
Spreading extremist material
Inciting violence or terrorism
Recruiting members for terrorist groups
Using the internet to facilitate terrorism
⚖️ Key Case Laws on Online Radicalisation Prosecutions
1. R v Muhammad [2012] EWCA Crim 1215
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts:
Mohammed was convicted of sending offensive messages through a public electronic communications network. He had posted messages online glorifying terrorism and calling for violent jihad.
Legal Issue:
Whether online postings constituted "sending offensive messages" and if freedom of expression could be limited in the context of online radicalisation.
Ruling:
The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that freedom of expression does not protect calls to violence or terrorism. The messages were intended to incite violence and hatred.
Importance:
Established that online extremist propaganda can be criminalized under laws like the Communications Act 2003 (Section 127).
Showed that courts take a strong stance against incitement online.
Highlighted the balance between free speech and public safety.
2. R v Shafiq [2010] UKSC 17
Jurisdiction: UK Supreme Court
Facts:
Shafiq was convicted for possessing and disseminating terrorist publications online, including material instructing on bomb-making and encouraging terrorism.
Legal Issue:
Application of the Terrorism Act 2006, specifically Section 2 (encouragement of terrorism) and Section 3 (dissemination of terrorist publications).
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, ruling that the materials constituted an encouragement of terrorism. The fact that the dissemination was online made it accessible to a wide audience, increasing the potential harm.
Importance:
Confirmed the use of terrorism legislation against online dissemination of extremist content.
Underlined the seriousness of internet platforms as tools for radicalisation.
Clarified that intention to encourage terrorism can be inferred from content and context.
3. R v Abu Hamza al-Masri [2014] EWCA Crim 521
Jurisdiction: UK Court of Appeal
Facts:
Abu Hamza, a radical cleric, was convicted of inciting terrorism and soliciting murder through sermons broadcast online and via satellite.
Legal Issue:
Whether sermons delivered through online means amounted to incitement to terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2006.
Ruling:
Conviction was upheld; the court found that the online broadcasts had clear intent to incite terrorist acts and recruit followers.
Importance:
Demonstrated that online broadcasts are subject to terrorism laws.
Highlighted prosecution of high-profile individuals using the internet to spread extremist ideologies.
Reinforced that online platforms are no safe harbor for incitement.
4. R v Anjem Choudary [2016] EWCA Crim 1538
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Facts:
Anjem Choudary, an extremist preacher, was convicted of inviting support for ISIS via public online speeches and social media.
Legal Issue:
Whether public online speeches that encourage terrorism fall under "inviting support" as proscribed by the Terrorism Act.
Ruling:
The court upheld his conviction, confirming that public online encouragement of terrorist organizations is criminal.
Importance:
Demonstrated the criminal liability of public figures who use online platforms for radicalisation.
Affirmed that online content, speeches, and social media posts encouraging terrorism are prosecutable.
Showed judicial commitment to curbing online extremist influence.
5. United States v. Farooqi (2013) (U.S. Federal Case)
Jurisdiction: United States Federal Court
Facts:
Farooqi used online forums to recruit and train individuals for terrorist activities, including providing instructions on weapons and explosives.
Legal Issue:
Prosecution under laws prohibiting material support for terrorism and use of the internet to facilitate terror.
Ruling:
Farooqi was convicted. The court found that online recruitment and training materials amounted to material support to terrorist organizations.
Importance:
Illustrated U.S. approach to prosecuting online facilitation and recruitment for terrorism.
Emphasized that online radicalisation can include provision of training and material support.
Highlighted international legal alignment on tackling online radicalisation.
🧾 Summary of Legal Principles from the Cases
| Legal Principle | Key Case | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Online extremist propaganda is criminal | R v Muhammad | Posting messages inciting violence is illegal. |
| Dissemination of terrorist publications online | R v Shafiq | Sharing bomb-making instructions is criminal encouragement. |
| Online broadcasts can incite terrorism | R v Abu Hamza | Internet sermons calling for violence prosecuted. |
| Public online encouragement is punishable | R v Anjem Choudary | Social media and speeches supporting terror groups prosecuted. |
| Online recruitment = material support | US v Farooqi | Internet used to train and recruit terrorists is criminal. |
🧩 Conclusion
Online radicalisation prosecutions show how courts adapt traditional terrorism laws to the digital age. The internet’s reach means extremist content can spread rapidly, making prosecution essential for public safety. Courts have clearly established that incitement, recruitment, or encouragement of terrorism via online platforms are criminal acts subject to serious penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments