Radicalisation And Online Propaganda Offences
What is Radicalisation and Online Propaganda?
Radicalisation: Process by which individuals adopt extreme political, social, or religious ideologies that can lead to violence or terrorism.
Online Propaganda: Use of internet platforms (social media, websites, forums) to spread extremist messages, incite hatred, recruit members, or plan attacks.
Legal Framework
Laws typically criminalise:
Incitement to terrorism or violence,
Dissemination of terrorist publications,
Glorification of terrorism,
Membership or support of terrorist organisations,
Distribution of extremist propaganda.
Countries rely on statutes like the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 & 2006, Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, and laws against hate speech.
The challenge is balancing national security and freedom of expression.
Typical Offences
Posting extremist material online.
Sharing instructions or bomb-making guides.
Recruiting or encouraging others to commit terrorist acts.
Supporting proscribed organisations.
Glorifying terrorism or acts of violence.
⚖️ Landmark Cases on Radicalisation and Online Propaganda Offences
1. R v. Rahman (2012) (UK)
Facts:
Mohammed Rahman was convicted for posting extremist videos online which glorified terrorism and encouraged violent jihad.
Legal Issue:
Whether online posts amounted to “encouragement of terrorism” under the Terrorism Act 2006, Section 1.
Ruling:
The court found Rahman guilty, holding that material that glorified terrorism and incited others to commit acts of terror is criminal.
Significance:
First major UK conviction for online radicalisation.
Established that online material can be prosecuted as terrorism encouragement.
Emphasized the responsibility of internet users.
2. United States v. Farooqui (2016) (USA)
Facts:
Farooqui was charged with providing material support to terrorists by posting bomb-making instructions and extremist propaganda online.
Legal Issue:
Whether sharing instructional content on the internet qualifies as providing material support.
Ruling:
The court held that dissemination of bomb-making guides with intent to aid terrorism constituted material support under U.S. law.
Significance:
Clarified the boundary between protected speech and illegal support.
Emphasized intent behind online propaganda as crucial.
3. R v. Islam (2017) (UK)
Facts:
Zahid Islam was convicted of disseminating terrorist publications by uploading extremist videos and propaganda on social media.
Legal Issue:
Whether uploading such content constitutes an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 2.
Ruling:
The court found Islam guilty, stating that sharing terrorist publications online contributes to radicalisation and is punishable.
Significance:
Affirmed the reach of terrorism legislation to modern social media platforms.
Stressed the dangers of viral extremist content.
4. European Court of Human Rights — Gündüz v. Turkey (2003)
Facts:
Mr. Gündüz was prosecuted in Turkey for giving a speech containing extremist content considered supportive of terrorism.
Legal Issue:
Whether conviction for speech supporting terrorism violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the conviction was justified and necessary in a democratic society due to the speech’s incitement to violence.
Significance:
Balanced freedom of expression with preventing incitement.
Provided international precedent for restricting extremist speech.
5. R v. Choudary and Rahman (2016) (UK)
Facts:
Anjem Choudary and others were convicted of inviting support for ISIS by disseminating extremist material and urging violent jihad online.
Legal Issue:
Whether online calls to support a proscribed terrorist organisation amounted to a criminal offence.
Ruling:
The court convicted Choudary and others, holding that publicly inviting support for a terrorist group online is unlawful.
Significance:
High-profile conviction demonstrating that online recruitment and propaganda are punishable.
Sent a strong message about the limits of extremist speech on the internet.
📊 Summary Table
| Case Name | Jurisdiction | Key Legal Issue | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Rahman (2012) | UK | Online encouragement of terrorism | Conviction for glorifying terrorism online |
| US v. Farooqui (2016) | USA | Sharing bomb-making instructions online | Material support conviction |
| R v. Islam (2017) | UK | Dissemination of terrorist publications | Guilty for sharing extremist videos online |
| Gündüz v. Turkey (2003) | ECHR | Freedom of expression vs incitement | Upheld conviction for incitement to violence |
| R v. Choudary & Rahman (2016) | UK | Inviting support for ISIS online | Conviction for online recruitment propaganda |
🔑 Key Takeaways
Online radicalisation offences are prosecuted based on content and intent.
Terrorism legislation has been adapted to cover social media and internet communications.
Courts uphold convictions where online speech crosses into incitement or encouragement of violence.
There is a delicate balance between protecting public safety and safeguarding freedom of speech.
Governments and platforms increasingly monitor and act against extremist online content.
RELATED Blog
0 comments