Due to the severity of the situation and the fast flowing news cycle, we have decided to create a general megathread for discussion regarding the conflict.
Informal/Satirical news sources are not allowed on the main feed of the community but you are free to post them in this thread.
Please remember that all community and instance rules apply to this thread hence keep is civil.
I read the source article but I’m not seeing a reference to what you’re quoting? It mentions that the government are planning to create an “independent” regulatory body that oversees media outlets and can issue them fines if they don’t behave in a way that the “independent” body sees fit, i.e. what the current government thinks is right or wrong, but I didn’t see anything about this being actual policy or anything mentioning hamas websites.
I don’t think the original article is the best source on its own, but…
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67100274
That’s the current UK policy, which of course condemns discussion on the massacres of babies (of which no proof has been given and which the White House has been forced to retract statements regarding) as “glorifying terrorism.”
Netanyahu is further to the right than the Tories, is more emotionally invested in the conflict, and has more to lose if pro-Hamas sentiment spreads. Moreover, given the context of how the Israeli government has enforced media laws in the past, it’s not that far of a stretch. The big leap being made I think is that the government is “planning” to do this, not that it’s already done so.
Does it condemn discussion of Hamas or does it condemn glorification of Hamas? There’s definitely a difference. I would find it hard to believe there’s an explicit law that prevents people discussing the massacres of babies.
From the article:
Emphasis mine. He’s not in trouble for discussing Hamas, he’s in trouble for glorifying the massacre. Not really the same thing as visiting a website.
But anyway, this is a bit of a distraction as we’re talking about Israeli policy, not the UK’s. I was just clarifying that the parent user made a statement as if it were a law, but it’s not, and the link to the article doesn’t mention anything about it being a crime to visit a Hamas website. From what I understand from the article the planning is about fining media outlets that I assume won’t toe the party line, not individual people for visiting websites. Yes, I agree, it’s not a stretch to assume this could be a thing in the future, but based on the linked article it doesn’t seem to be the case right now.