text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Terrorism Bill - Clause 3 - Application of Ss. 1 And 2 to Internet Activity etc. - capability
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Those voting Aye removed a Lords amendment to <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/06055.1-7.html#jS001"> Clause 3</a> of the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/06055.i-iii.html#top"> Terrorism Bill</a></p>
  
  <p>This clause outlines how the "Encouragement of terrorism" and the "Dissemination of terrorist publications" laws (in Clauses 1 and 2) will be applied to the Internet.</p> 
  
  <p>Subsection 3(7) says:</p>
  
  <p class="indent">...[A] statement or an article or record [ie a webpage] is unlawfully terrorism-related if it [contains]... something that is <i>capable of being</i> understood as a direct or indirect encouragement... of acts of terrorism...</p>
  
  <p>The amendment made by the Lords, which was reversed by this vote in the Commons, was to change <i>"capable of being"</i> into <i>"likely to be"</i>.</p> 
  
  <p>The thinking behind the MPs' view is that the police can decide a webpage is unlawful when they believe something is <i>capable</i> of encouraging terrorism, whether or not this is likely or intentional.</p>
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  Original wording of passage within bill:
  
  "The reference in subsection (7) to something that is capable of being understood as an indirect encouragement to the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences includes anything which is capable of being understood as..."
  
  "The reference in subsection (7) to something that is likely to be understood as an indirect encouragement to the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences includes anything which is likely to be understood as..."
  
  I think I've got this right but not sure... Bill info found at:
  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/06055.1-7.html