Digital Propaganda And Online Radicalisation Prosecutions
๐ Understanding Digital Propaganda & Online Radicalisation
Digital Propaganda
This refers to the use of digital platforms โ social media, websites, encrypted apps, video-sharing platforms โ to spread ideological messages that aim to influence individuals or populations. These messages often promote:
Terrorist ideologies
Political extremism
Religious fundamentalism
Hate speech and conspiracy theories
Online Radicalisation
This occurs when individuals are gradually exposed to extremist ideas online and begin to adopt radical beliefs. It often involves:
Echo chambers on forums or platforms like Telegram, 4chan, etc.
Direct contact with radicalisers through DMs or chatrooms
Consumption of extremist videos, manifestos, or social media content
Key Legal Charges Typically Used
Terrorism Act violations (UK: Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006)
Material support for terrorism (US: 18 U.S. Code ยงโฏ2339B)
Encouragement of terrorism or glorification of terrorism
Possession or distribution of terrorist publications
Online incitement to violence or racial hatred
Use of encrypted or anonymised tech to spread propaganda
๐ Five Detailed Case Studies
1. R v Mohammed Gul (UK, 2012)
Citation: [2012] EWCA Crim 280
Facts:
Mohammed Gul, a law student in the UK, uploaded videos to YouTube showing Taliban attacks, glorifying terrorist acts against Western forces, including suicide bombings and IED attacks.
Prosecution Argument:
Gul glorified terrorism and attempted to influence others to adopt extremist ideologies through propaganda videos. He was charged under Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (dissemination of terrorist publications).
Judgment:
He was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, stating that freedom of expression does not protect terrorist propaganda.
Significance:
This case set a clear precedent in the UK for prosecuting online glorification of terrorism, even when not directly inciting violence.
2. U.S. v. Ali Shukri Amin (USA, 2015)
Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Virginia
Facts:
A 17-year-old from Virginia used Twitter and blogging to promote ISIS, teach followers how to use Bitcoin to fund the group anonymously, and help another American travel to Syria.
Charges:
He pled guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization under 18 U.S.C. ยงโฏ2339B.
Judgment:
He was sentenced to 11 years in prison, with conditions for de-radicalisation.
Significance:
First high-profile case in the U.S. involving digital financing of terrorism via cryptocurrencies and online radicalisation of minors. Demonstrated how social media can be weaponised for extremism.
3. R v Safwaan Mansur and Aabid Ali (UK, 2020)
Jurisdiction: UK Crown Court
Facts:
Both individuals operated a pro-ISIS Telegram channel. They distributed a digital magazine and instructional materials including how to make bombs, hide identities, and travel to Syria. The content was intended to radicalise and recruit.
Charges:
Multiple counts under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006, including:
Dissemination of terrorist publications
Encouragement of terrorism
Possession of terrorist materials
Judgment:
They received significant prison sentences (Mansur: 10 years, Ali: 8 years).
Significance:
The case highlighted the use of encrypted messaging apps and anonymous publishing to spread propaganda. The judgment emphasised that indirect encouragement of terrorism is prosecutable.
4. The Anjem Choudary Case (UK, 2016)
Facts:
A British cleric and radical preacher, Choudary was convicted for urging support for ISIS, particularly after it was proscribed as a terrorist group in 2014.
Key Evidence:
He used social media, YouTube videos, and private messaging to encourage followers to support ISIS and legitimised the caliphate in public speeches.
Charges:
Convicted under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 โ inviting support for a proscribed organisation.
Judgment:
Sentenced to 5 years and 6 months imprisonment.
Significance:
Even indirect support or verbal endorsement of terrorist groups through online platforms can be prosecuted. Also showed how charismatic figures can use the internet for mass radicalisation.
5. U.S. v. Tnuza Jamal Hassan (USA, 2021)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota District Court
Facts:
A college student tried to recruit fellow students to join Al-Qaeda. She also attempted to set fire to her college as a symbolic act against U.S. involvement in Muslim countries. She had authored and distributed pro-Al-Qaeda documents.
Charges:
Attempting to provide material support to Al-Qaeda
Arson
Use of online resources to promote terrorist ideology
Judgment:
Sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Significance:
Demonstrated how digital radicalisation can move into offline violence, and how online propaganda can be linked with actual terrorist attempts.
โ๏ธ Legal and Policy Takeaways
Digital activity = Real-world consequences: Courts treat online extremism as seriously as physical involvement in terrorism.
Free speech vs incitement: While freedom of expression is protected, it has limits when it comes to incitement or glorification of terrorism.
Use of encryption and anonymity is aggravating in sentencing โ showing deliberate concealment and intent to radicalise covertly.
Minors can be prosecuted: As in the Amin case, youth is not a shield if the actions are serious and propagandist.
Platform liability is evolving: Governments are increasingly pressuring tech companies to take down terrorist content and monitor users.
RELATED Blog
0 comments