Harry's Place

Timely post.

It should be pointed out that Sheppard and Whittle had many supporters, including one, Lady Renouf.

You will remember her, she’s is a close associate of Holocaust denier, David Irving, an attendee at the 2006 neo-Nazi shindig in Tehran and an acquaintance of ex-Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you will remember is the figure so beloved by certain types of “anti-imperialists” :)

The pair were charged with publishing racially inflammatory material, distributing racially inflammatory material and possessing racially inflammatory material with a view to distribution.

Why are these things crimes?

Why are these things crimes?

I’d tend to agree and object vociferously to the eventual (arggh! detest this word in EU parlance) ‘harmonisation’ of the continent’s holocaust denial laws with the UK…but, in this case, and yes it could be a slippery slope, these two vile individuals excreted their hate online in the UK where brainwashing can occur…I agree that it does smack of minority report though…is someone who uploads filth in France aiming at a British audience any less guilty than these two?…hmmmm

Now, I didn’t know that, Modernity! Got a link?

Mesquito, because they had passed over the thresh-hold of merely thinking repellent thoughts to actively canvassing for violence against and mistreatment of Jews, blacks, Asians.

I have some misgivings about how this may affect Britain-based bloggers using foreign hosted blogs to write revealing missives about litigous inidviduals.

This is another case I haven’t been following closely enough. Does anyone have clues on how, if at all, this ruling will relate as he accessed the Pentagon servers from within the UK?

“Remember places
fash scum faces
they’re paying for their crimes!”

With no apologies to Redwatch.

“Why are these things crimes?”

Because they should be, so they are.

Why are these things crimes?

Because real people suffer as a result.

Mesquito, because they had passed over the thresh-hold of merely thinking repellent thoughts to actively canvassing for violence against and mistreatment of Jews, blacks, Asians.

Have they? I think the only thresh-hold they passed was between thinking and publishing/distribution. What the hell does “canvassing for violence” mean, anyway?

Yeah, it’s a rather delicious cummuppance for a founder of Redwatch to fall foul of this.

Alec,

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/lady-renouf-neo-nazis-and-presstv/

Because real people suffer as a result.

Really? Who?

The case is also different because they printed and posted leaflets from inside of Britain, so it would be a mistake to see this entirely in terms of the internet.

On the freedom of speech issue, every country in the world which actually has a Government has certain restrictions on freedom of speech. It just depends where you draw the line. The famous “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” attempts to draw it where people are maliciously or mischeiviously using free speech which has a high chance of causing harm to people. These race hate laws draw the line in a similar place.

What the hell does “canvassing for violence” mean, anyway?

Ask a victim of Redwatch ‘canvassings’. I haven’t seen all the prosecution evidence but I think it’s safe to assume that, as the BBC article states, they were deemned to have been more than simple odd-balls (e.g. Nick Kollerstrom), it was concluded that a founder of Redwatch knew about marrying the promotion of repellent thoughts to doing repellent deeds.

Ta’, Modernity. Off to read.

thanks AM,

Yes Alec, there is a video of Lady Renouf drumming up support for those two neo-nazi thugs, I won’t link to it, but it ain’t hard to find.

I forgot to add when Lady Renouf is not making videos for Sheppard and Whittle, helping David Irving or touring the world pushing Holocaust denial, she can be found on PressTV, that friend of neo-Nazis outfit and prime “anti-imperialist” TV channel.

….it was concluded that a founder of Redwatch knew about marrying the promotion of repellent thoughts to doing repellent deeds.

So the repellant thoughts must be punished?

The thing is, I’ve noticed that outrage at repellant thoughts is highly selective and depends on particular political allignments.

Really? Who?

People who are victims of racial attacks.

People who are victims of racial attacks.

I thought as much. Everyone and no-one. No free expression until everything is made perfect for Andrew Adams. You people seriously need a First Amendment.

POLICE will be ordered not to charge Muslim extremists in many hate crime cases – to stop them becoming more militant.

Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts.

Officers will be advised not to proceed when evidence of lawbreaking is “borderline”.

That’s the kind of thing I mean by political selectivity.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/113182/Take-it-easy-on-Muslim-extremists-police-told

“The thing is, I’ve noticed that outrage at repellant thoughts is highly selective and depends on particular political alignments.”

Got a point there.

These two assholes got what they deserved, in my view, maybe the United Nations should build a world community prison and we could send all the deranged Racial, Theological, Ideological lunatics there and let them fight it out themselves.

It would have to be big though wouldn’t it? in my opinion about the size of the pacific ocean would be about right because there are so many of these fucking lunatics about these days anything smaller would just be window dressing.

You people seriously need a First Amendment.

I wasn’t aware that the first amendment allowed unrestricted freedom of speech. I guess I can go to the States and shout fire in that crowded theatre then.

Aye, Modernity, but you forget she also attends StWC rallies.

Yes, we have to be very careful. I’ve no problem with these two ending up in jail because it seems clear to me there was a degree of incitement and targetting. But believing and writing the holocaust didn’t happen, or if it did happen it was a good thing, should never be crimes. It is a thin end of very unpleasant wedge that ends with government control over what we are allowed to think and say, as in China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Belarus and Zimbabwe.

The threshold for prosection should be incitement to commit a crime against people or their property. If that that has happened, then I agree with the prosecution. If it has not, then this is a dangerous development for civil liberties. (The BBC report didn’t make this very clear.)

Being offensive should not be criminalised.

If I were to declare that all the clergy are stinky scrofulous frauds, that is an opinion.

If I were to say that the ArchBishop of Westminster is a thief, that would be dafamation of character, for which I would deserve to be sued.

If I encourage anyone to burn down the ArchBishop’s privet hedge, or steal the knickers from his laundry line, or tap his ‘phone, I would deserve to be prosecuted.

And vile as Press TV is, I know of no specific instance in which it has broadcast incitement to crime. If it does so, it should be banned from roadcasting into the UK, and it’s officials should be prosecuted.

Did anyone listen to Alan Hart earlier on Press TV? “Something is definitely rising, don’t know if it’s antisemitism…”

yeah Alec, I had forgotten :)

But it seems that people here are unduly ignorant of Redwatch and its activities.

I do appreciate that neo-nazis are probably more common in the US, causing less alarm but encouraging the growth of neo-Nazis (or any other violent racists) is not a good idea, imho

Redwatch http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=37

The case against Redwatch http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=174

Web of hate http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/oct/04/news.g2

Might I suggest that posters read the above links and familiarise themselves fully with Redwatch’s methods.

I do appreciate that neo-nazis are probably more common in the US, causing less alarm but encouraging the growth of neo-Nazis (or any other violent racists) is not a good idea, imho

Really? Based on what? I mean, you guys are the ones electing them to office. : )

I’ve never met a neo-nazi here in Texas. I’m sure they’re here somewhere, but they keep an extremely low profile. (We don’t much like nazis.)

Mesquito, such perceptions are probably based on the louis theroux vision of America

I’m rather with Mesquito on this, we do need a first amendment that protects speech and writing short of incitement.

Mesquito, such perceptions are probably based on the louis theroux vision of America

[googlegooglegoogle]

Yeah.

Ahh so it’s redwatch. Why didn’t you just say so in the first place? Can’t see any reason for sending people to jail for bad taste jokes about the holocaust though.

mesquito, why do you argue so much? you know I wouldn’t say it if there wasn’t evidence?

Terror from the Right
75 plots, conspiracies and racist rampages since Oklahoma City

http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=383

Hate watch map of the US:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp

For Texas, http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp#s=TX

Hate Group Numbers Up By 54% Since 2000

http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=366

That’s just a selection.

Mod, one of those redwatch links goes to a report concerning a family who’s home address and car details were published on a website without their knowledge. I think that was a form of incitement to commit crime. A website which insults and humiliates a person is one thing, but you don’t need to display that sort of detail to achieve that. The address was published, therefore, to achieve something else, an attack on that address. And it provided useful information to enable any subsequent crime. So that publication was self-evidently a crime in itself, regardless of whether anyone responded or not.

The common law, and prosecutions arising, must be rational.

Good post Alec.

I agree with Nick. We most assuredly need a clear definition of free speech and the limits of the law.

You give me a bunch of Morris Dees links, Mod. I know what he does. Now tell me, how do you know that neo-nazis are more common in America than G.B.?

The Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC’s most lucrative nemesis, has shrunk from 4 million members in the 1920s to an estimated 2,000 today, as many as 10 percent of whom are thought to be FBI informants . But news of a declining Klan does not make for inclining donations to Morris Dees and Co., which is why the SPLC honors nearly every nationally covered “hate crime” with direct-mail alarums full of nightmarish invocations of “armed Klan paramilitary forces” and “violent neo-Nazi extremists,” and why Dees does legal battle almost exclusively with mediagenic villains-like Idaho’s arch-Aryan Richard Butler-eager to show off their swastikas for the news cameras.

From: The Church Of Morris Dees, by Ken Silverstein, Harper’s, November 2000

While I abhor what these bastards stood for, I am deeply disturbed by my country’s (U.S.A.) complicity in enforcing your country’s blasphemy laws.

Ta’, Seismic.

What if I said the Bishop of Southwark was a piss-head who stole children’s toys? Could I be sued?

Also, so not to be greedy with these Your View things, but still on the subject of Jew-baiting on e-mail and the web, here are some people who I don’t think deserve to be gaoled. Just sacked.

Alec:

“What if I said the Bishop of Southwark was a piss-head who stole children’s toys? Could I be sued?”

Only in a civil defamation suit, and only by the Bishop of Southwark. And if he really stole childrens toys or got rat-arsed, you’d win.

But even if you lost, you would not be at risk of losing your liberty.

“Now tell me, how do you know that neo-nazis are more common in America than G.B.?”

Good question, I am going out on a limb but as:

1) most neo-nazi web sites in the world are hosted in the US
2) neo-nazis in the UK don’t go around wearing Nazi outfits and waving the swastika (much), Skokie? Greensboro?Toledo?
3) cos there are legal organizations in the US called the American Nazi Party and the National Socialist Movement
etc

I appreciate that it is a modern American way to be ‘inclusive’ and not even leave out Hitler lovers, psychopaths and assorted cranks, but from over the pond it seems kinda strange.

Here, even.

Alec you have forwarded us to an instance of workers abusing their employers e-mail facilities. I see no reason why they should not be dismissed for their misconduct. They abused something that did not belong to them. You don’t get to help yourself to the stock, wherever you happen to be working.

But it isn’t a free speech issue.

Indeed, Monty. My main thought was of Mulla’s escape.

Plus, I suspect I may find it easy to substantiate the allegations against the Bishop of Southwark.

Actually, we – the UK – need a written constitution to protect us from the Harriet Harmans of this World.

mesquito:

–I agree with you that the US is fortunate to have the First Amendment, and I think it’s a good thing to allow free speech, no matter how hateful, that doesn’t cross the line to incitement to violence. The best response to hate speech is speech that persuasively denounces and condemns it.

–Even if you don’t care for Morris Dees, the SPLC’s report on 75 racist and far-Right plots and violent acts is nothing to sneeze at. I don’t think they made any of it up.

“The best response to hate speech is speech that persuasively denounces and condemns it.”

Gene, great idea and most of the time I would agree with you, but and this is a big but, such a strategy tends to fail when you are dealing with the excessively bigoted (ingrained BNPers, Neo-Nazis, etc).

By virtue of their extreme prejudices they are often not able to reason, understand or change their view accordingly, NO matter what arguments you put forward.

I give you, one example:

Anti-Israeli boycotters in the UK, most are highly educated, most are well versed in argumentation, yet I doubt you will find many, if any, occasions where they or their supporters have been won over by a mountain of arguments.

Just look at the silly goings-on in the lecturers union, UCU as evidence.

Sometimes argumentation does not work. I wish it did but the evidence shows otherwise.

Past HP threads contain a few examples of that too :)

Gene, Harper’s, which as you’d probably guess is not one of my favorite mags, pretty much eviscerated Dees. As far as “75 racist and far-right plots” are concerned, my reaction is: so? In the country the size of ours, as Thomas Sowell says, unlikely things are not only possible, they are inevitable..

1) most neo-nazi web sites in the world are hosted in the US
2) neo-nazis in the UK don’t go around wearing Nazi outfits and waving the swastika (much), Skokie? Greensboro?Toledo?
3) cos there are legal organizations in the US called the American Nazi Party and the National Socialist Movement
etc

Well, hell. That still doesn’t tell me that neo-nazis are more common in the U.S. It just tells me that they may operate more openly, protected by the bad ol’ First Amendment. Swastikas are extremely photogenic and play well in breathless documentaries about The Dark Side Of America. They just aren’t that common.

The fact remains that someone who expresses pro-nazi views is pushed far, far from the mainstream of American life and is reviled and shunned. That’s how liberty* works.

I appreciate that it is a modern American way to be ‘inclusive’ and not even leave out Hitler lovers, psychopaths and assorted cranks, but from over the pond it seems kinda strange.

I sure wish you lefties would someday realize that, if it’s easy, it ain’t tolerance. When there is a virtue you attribute to yourselves and deny in others, you might bother to find out what it means.

* See the very tippity-top of this page.

Yeah, I would mostly agree with you, but it depends *where* you draw the line.

Me? I draw it when neo-Nazis pop into the picture.

“Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”

I heard that somewhere once…

I look forward to the CPS going after Anjem Choudary in the same way. I wont hold my breath as I could be waiting a very long time.

ps There is no blasphmey law in the UK anymore. The issue here is whether the words amounted to incitement under the Public Order Act and whether the Public Order Act is Article 10 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) compliant.

Incitement is different to offensive. I’d say islamists going to troop welcome home parades with “Soldiers are baby-killers” etc placards is incitment – funny how none of them were arrested.

“ps There is no blasphmey law in the UK anymore.”

Isn’t there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Art 10 (2). The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Did the written words need to be silenced in the interests of national security? No, not a secret.

A “public safety” or prevention of disorder or a crime? Usually these scenarios are considered prevention of disorder – Hence the Public Order Act.

But the Public Order Act goes too far. Incitement to violence should be a crime – incitement to hatred should not.

Sorry, by the Government should not be in the business of attempting to control people’s thoughts, no matter how unpleasant.

http://www.englishpen.org/news/_1645/

Blasphmey’s gone.

No, it’s just been re-defined.

Thought crime.

No it has not, Bubba Thudd. Furthermore, the is an unwritten rule here that mentioning the blog tagline unvalidates the speaker’s argument in all but the most exceptional circumstances (e.g. when Graham and I use it).

Orwell was referring to unconvenient truths. Are you suggesting that there was some merit to Sheppard and Whittle’s publictions? Or are you simply being a twit?

I’ll give the American dissenters the benefit of the doubt, and assume they don’t necessarily catch the Redwatch reference. It was emphasized that this was not the work of a couple of oddballs, or simply unpalatable thoughts – cf. Nick Griffin’s acquittal – but the potential for real violence. For instance, I don’t think Nick Kollerstrom should face criminal charges.

Furthermore, they went beyond publishing to a webpage, and dispatched the offensive material to at least one private address.

I’ll give the American dissenters the benefit of the doubt, and assume they don’t necessarily catch the Redwatch reference.

I admit it. I don’t have a clue what “Redwatch” is.

Alec, they were clearly prosecuted for their views and opinions, regardless of whatever legal cover was pinned onto the proceedings. In fact, given the way the case was prosecuted you could also add “show trial” to “thought crime”.

Anyway, it is surely a fact that a consensus will change over time, and just because your left-liberal views might be the consensus now does not mean that they will be for all time. What happens when it is your view, and perhaps this website, that is seen as “offensive”? Surely the past can be our only guide to the future? And the past doesn’t support a view that today’s multi-culti social democratic stasis will remain predominate for ever, or even in the long term. To let others produce laws that could one day be used against you by a Government or by society that no longer wants to tolerate your view must be a bad move? If you think laws like New Labour has produced can’t one day be used against you then I think you must be wrong, these things are a matter of degree. One day they come for Griffen and his ilk, perhaps tomorrow they will use the same laws against you.

Redwatch is a site where british nazis posted photographs, home and work addresses, car registration numbers etc of british anti fascists, some of those people featured subsequently had their cars burned out etc.
It ended up hosted in the USA where it hid behind the 1st amendment.
Seems to me the judgement here is suffering from the same credibility problem that child porn cases have, the media won’t repeat the evidence to the general public so no one knows where the line these two crossed is.
Still not clear to me whether this case included redwatch though.

That’s a point, Jon. How may this affect those maintaining the site from this country?

Yes, it’s not clear whether this case involved Redwatch, but both Sheppard and Whittle have form with that sort of incitement, so it’s not unreasonable to assume they extended it to this.

“A side-note to a post-Shoah manifestation of calumny of a baleful wandering Jew – 9/11 Truthers – occurred in May 2008.”

ROFLMAO ! What? The Shoah finished 64 years ago. What does it have to do with anything? Mossad is one of the most efficient intelligence services in the world involved in ops around the world.

You relly are suggesting that anyone who questions the official US govt version of 9/11 is the same as a guard at Aushwitz!!! Does this refer only to 9/11? What about the Kennedy assasination or the Iraq war

So HP believes criticising Mossad is the same as being a Nazi concentraion camp guard

Only on HP!

And your supporting the jailing of these two anti-semites while strongly supporting people who preach hatred against Muslims under the guise of “freedom of speech” is typical of your hypocritical double standard

Hi, Bob!!!

As far as “75 racist and far-right plots” are concerned, my reaction is: so? In the country the size of ours, as Thomas Sowell says, unlikely things are not only possible, they are inevitable..

And I assume you’d be equally sanguine about 75 Islamist plots and violent acts, or 75 far-Left plots and violent acts.

Mod:

“Yeah, I would mostly agree with you, but it depends *where* you draw the line.

Me? I draw it when neo-Nazis pop into the picture.”

Well all I can say is thank heaven you aren’t allowed to draw the line, because you would criminalise folk because of their opinions, and not on the basis of what they have done. Not only is that profoundly illiberal, it is a very dangerous weapon to hand to any legislature.

And I assume you’d be equally sanguine about 75 Islamist plots and violent acts, or 75 far-Left plots and violent acts.

Not only am I sanguine, I have little doubt they are being hatched as I type this.

Monty,

You seem confused, I am NOT a liberal, I am an antifascist. I do not want them to succeed, that I suspect is the big difference between us.

Now please excuse me, if I continue to ignore your remarks I find them neither helpful, informed or humorous.

You seem confused, I am NOT a liberal…

No kidding. The state should be used mercilessly to stomp out fascism. Or anything resembling fascism. Or anything that has the potential to someday resemble fascism.

mesquito,

No, I disagree with you, the State can’t stamp out fascism, it won’t work. People must do that themselves, NOT the State.

I do think that the State is right to enforce laws against the dissemination of racist material, and material which could incite racial violence, but that’s a bit different :)

I do think that the State is right to enforce laws against the dissemination of racist material, and material which could incite racial violence, but that’s a bit different :)

Really? *Could* incite racist violence? My, that’s rather broad. And what the hell is “racist” material? A speech by David Duke? Or Sonya Sotomajor? Or Jeremiah Wright? Perhaps the material must display a swastika?

It is the broad academic consensus in my country that people like me (race, gender, home State, stated political allignment) are proto-fascist, or crypto-fascist, or just plain Nazis. My expressed opposition to racially preferentially policies *could* incite violence, either from my allies or my opponents. Should I be hauled into court?

Our standard, one I think works pretty well, is:

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Brandenburg v Ohio

“I do think that the State is right to enforce laws against the dissemination of racist material”

You are so obsessed with racism, and making anti-racism your entire political stance, that you would rather see a totalitarian state than a free and harmonious one. And it makes you miss the point.

We aren’t likely to convert racists to our point of view. So what? Our task is to counter their arguments in the public domain, and win the public to our stance. The greatest assets a society can have, are a common law which is principled and rational, and a public which treasures liberty and fairness.

A law founded on rational principles seeks to prosecute people for what they have done, not for what they think. As a result, it can only sensibly discriminate between incitement to crime, and offensiveness. The former as a crime, the latter not so.

The law needs to protect the most reviled among us, and it needs to do so in a principled manner. For example, the killers of Jamie Bulger. It should be legal to voice disgust and contempt against them. But anyone inciting violence against them, including the publication of their addresses, should be prosecuted.

As another example, take that internet film that was being hawked around by Kollerstrom, and promoted by the folk at a mosque. It was a conspiracy theory about the 7/7 bombing, and it sought to cast British and Israeli intelligence services as perpetrators in a “false flag” operation for which the four islamists were subsequently blamed.

There were at least two aspects of that film which were arguably incitements. They named one man (a security advisor) and a controlled demolition firm, as being part of the “plot” to defame muslims. Those innocent parties were placed at some considerable risk as a result. The film producer and promoters should face prosecution.

If you join in a protest march with a placard saying “Death to [insert name here]” you should be prosecuted. If you shout “Hamas! Jews to the gas” you should be prosecuted. Also if you shout “Israelis to the gas.”

But if you are on a picket line, you get to shout “scab” at anyone who crosses your line. But publish the scab’s address, or where his kids go to school, and the book should be thrown at you.

“Really? *Could* incite racist violence? My, that’s rather broad.”

I’ll leave you with this, people who study these type of political sociopaths tend to suggest that it isn’t an overnight conversion from a peaceful individual into someone who loves Adolf Hitler and throws bombs into Pubs.

It is a drip drip effect, virulent racist material inflames these twisted individuals until a point is reached when they act on the demons in their minds.

Now you might suggest that no one does anything until the point is reached where they lob dynamite into a black church or plant bombs in a street market, but clearly it is possible to nip these things in the bud.

And if you believe that stopping racial violence is a good idea, I am hoping that you do, thus the question is when to act and on what basis.

As for the precise crimes, I think that the victims of racial crime, the police and the Courts should sort it out between themselves, as I have no specialised expertise in this area, but I personally would prefer if these cranks could be stopped before they inflict violence. I’m sure you’ll agree :)

mesquito

I agree with you about political selectivity

and forgive me for a mild case of ‘whatabout’ but the embargo on Cuba?

Where US citizens are not allowed the free movement and free association inherent in a democracy and are actually outlawed from visiting another country, US media and communications corporations are prohibited from operating in Cuba and hence allowing free speech .

‘Why are these things crimes?’

Oh and I cannot buy sterile water and insulin needles in the US, because they may also be used by drug abusers.

‘Why are these things crimes?’

Mod:

“Now you might suggest that no one does anything until the point is reached where they lob dynamite into a black church or plant bombs in a street market, but clearly it is possible to nip these things in the bud….

I personally would prefer if these cranks could be stopped before they inflict violence.”

Horrendous….

People who don’t agree with your point of view must be nipped in the bud? Are you serious?

Modernity obviously harbours a significant degree of visceral hatred to some sectors of the human race. This is dangerous, because left to his own devices, who knows what violence he might unleash.

Perhaps he should be nipped in the bud…

Fuck me sideways, it’s mettaculture!

…US media and communications corporations are prohibited from operating in Cuba and hence allowing free speech .

Are you sure about that? It seems I was treated to a fresh Castro interview every few months for the last 40 years. And CNN had a Havana bureau bach when I used to watch them.

(I think it’s time to lift the embargo, btw.)

It’s good to see Metta back.

Amen. Welcome back Metta.

” website had been hosted on servers in California, where the equivalent of British race-hate legislation did not exist, it was concluded that the point of distribution occurred when he and Whittle had uploaded the material from their locations in the UK.”

An exact parallel with the Judicial decision saying that downloading in England and Wales constituted publication within the jurisdiction of the Court. That Judge was not going to waste time discussing where the server was located or where the Internet Service Provider was registered as a Company.