That such a prosecution could be brought under illustrates how dangerous these anti-terrorism laws are to the public. To leave a crucial section of the Act open to such a broad range of interpretation is inviting misuse of the Act.

It strikes me as reminiscent of laws drawn up by dictators and the Kremlin. Such laws surely have no place on a true democracy's statute book.

Even where I live in Bucharest legislation is written to tighter principles than this.

Edwin, Bucharest,

While I wholly condemn terrorism, I am equally fervent about supporting democracy and the right to free speech. Today is a great day for democracy in Britain where the judiciary has stood up for fundamental human rights. No one should be arrested for what they say or read unless there is a clear and proven intent to commit a crime. It is better for extremists to be able to express their views, and for these to be challenged openly, rather than driving them underground where their activities may take a more sinister turn.

If the threat of terrorism changes the rules of the game and allows the state to become oppressive and dictatorial, then the very democracy we claim to defend is weakened.

Haroon Abbasi, London,

How come the jury in the first trial had no difficulty in convicting these men?

I think the world is going mad and appeasement is the name of the game.

leila, manchester, uk

Excellent news !

Undoubtedly, UK law's are the fairest in the world.

However, sometimes it depends on what type of judge you get (lottery). These guys have been very lucky. This judge has been extremely reasonable.

Mohammed, London, UK

What do the "wigs" care about England and the English? - if only we had the French or US sort of people looking after the good of this country.....................

Marty, London, England

The best evidence that someone is moving from merely holding terrorist ideas to actually engaging in terrorist activities is catching them in the act. The courts seem to be moving toward that as the only surely defensible cause for intervention.

The government now seems to have created the worst of several worlds: little control on who comes into the country, full benefits once they are here, free access to all types of radicalizing influences whilst here, "no go" zones where this radicalization is allowed to mature, English religious leaders who see this radical view of the rule of law (Sharia) as part of England's future, and no ability to take protective action against violent radicals until that moment at which they become physically violent.

Maybe the binge drinkers and street yobs will turn their wrath from normal citizens to these radicals and the two groups will hold each other off for a while.

Carson, Leatherhead,

In Afghanistan, there is a young man under sentence of death from an Islamic. His "offence" was downloading information on women's rights.

It would be interesting to know what these young men's views are on his case.

Ray, Dartmouth,

After today's excellent ruling the Appeal Court seems to be at least one bastion of common sense. Still the Law Lords to go, though, possibly. Not much left between us and the Gulag, is there?

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

Its good to see some reason in todays sea of emotion, bias and predudice.

Possestion of information of use to a terrorist can not possibly be a crime, we all have some, the Prime Minister (e.g.) more than most.

Planning to fight British soldiers can not be an act of terrorism if those soldiers have invaded yiur country by force.

I was a British soldier.

Bill Miller, Leicester,

If any of these people go on to kill anyone, how damn silly will the law look then?

David, St Albans, UK

The ruling has the following quotation:-

"‘Terrorism’ is defined by section 1 of the 2000 Act as including the use of firearms or explosives that endangers life for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."

One could argue from this definition that bombing for the purpose of spreading democracy is therefore terrorism. Certainly for the people on the receiving end it most certainly is.

richard mullens, London, Europe

One of those will be the next one to blow up another part of London.

Joe, newtown,

PC Madness. Ah well, we'll just wait to arrest them when they blow someone up then. What part of modern day society do these peoeple play a part in. Worse still the people that got them off.

Liberty... for all those but the innocent.

James, London,

Is anyone going to securely protect us from another July 7th bombing?

John Tomlinson, Brentwood, Essex

Thanks God! At last it seems like British Justice System is awaking up and catching up for the freedom of speech, thought and expression. UK is slowly becoming like any Banana Republics of Africa for the freedoms which have been achieved within the last century and are in seriously question abel position. This country will never go down if justice system is awake and working.

Javed Javed, Cardiff, UK

Thank goodness for a detached apolitical judiciary. After the irrational anti-muslim and anti-intellectual rantings of the past few weeks, this reasoned, intelligent decision gives some hope to those appalled by the idiocy of our national discourse in the past few weeks.

Dave, Glasgow,

Sam Bollinger, taking your argumne to its logical conclusion then viewing child pornography is simply a "thought crime" that should go unpunished.

These individuals may have dodged a bullet here, but they will be very closely watched by the security services for the next 40 yeers anyway.

JPM, Boston, Boston, USA

"“This is a landmark judgment in a test case over the innocent possession of materials, including books and speech""

Ok i agree, I collect read and collect material on modern weaponery, doesnt mean i'm going to acquire a weapon and use it......

....BUT isnt the possession of inflamatory material such as books and speeches on Jihad etc the starting point of potential terrorist actions or serious threats? Just look at the past. The 7/7 criminals didnt do their act by reading GQ they read, heard ,collected material that these guys possessed and went on to commit their crime.

This country is doomed if it continues to have ambigious laws on terrorism and worse still judges who are too soft. And even worse with human rights activists who clearly are not in touch with reality.

AD, Reading,

Absolutely ridiculous........so while most Jihadi material calls for death and destruction, I could download a pirated movie from some dodgy website and get hauled up by the FBI and face a $10k fine or something like that. Scotty beam me outta here mate.........

AD, Reading,

Thank god for British justice that thought crimes are not permitted.

Izhar, aberdeen,

Just as the article itself makes clear, it is understandable why the jury convicted these men who were prosecuted under the Terrorism Act 2000. Indeed, the terrorist attacks that we have witnessed and suffered over the past years, coupled with the political and social situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, have meant that the UK has taken a hard line with respect to such opponents and regimes. In fact, the tension over this issue is such that there is being conducted, at this very time, a House of Commons Counter-Terrorism Committee meeting. Yet, the fears and tensions we experience should not cloud our judgments. It seems that this has happened, to an extent, in the present instant. In similar such cases there would be, presumably, a willingness to convict on a matter that is remotely “terrorist” related. The Court of Appeal’s decision today reveals a real an understanding that such concerns are important, but that nevertheless, in these circumstances, conviction would be unjust.

Marcin Roth, London, UK

Fair play to them!! They never should have been locked up in the first place!!!! I wish them every success in suing the PTB for compensation!!!

Jake Maverick, Sheffield,

I believe that the judges made the correct call in this case. The relevant issue in the statute was whether the articles possessed were being used for a purpose in connection with the preparation, commission or instigation of acts of terrorism. Lord Phillips points out, I believe correctly, that if you construe the word 'connection' too widely, then it can encompass almost anything, and becomes very imprecise.

As a result, he delimited the application of that particular provision, sensibly so. The law needs certainty, and until Lord Phillips' judgment, it had none. In any case, this is hardly a massive blow to the law enforcement agencies, since there are provisions relating to this kind of situation under s.2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 which will provide an alternate means of attack.

I've analysed this case on my blog at http://notesfromasmallworld2007.blogspot.com/; feel free to take a look if you want...

Rob Miles, Cambridge, UK

I wonder why I feel that being an anglo saxon I do not feel safe in this country anymore, god forgive these liberals who do not represent the heirs of this this wonderful country (england) for what they are doing to us, our traditions, our beliefs and our religion, but I suppose I am not allowed to say this, unless of course I am muslim.

james, southampton,

Oh good....... let's set them all free and we'll go to jail, it seems like the only safe place to be

Barbara Miller, Newcastle, Uk

The 9/11 jijackers didnt go on to do what they did by reading Penthouse

Andy, Preston,

One hopes the "learned" judges will not regret their decision at a later date. Time will tell and then the public will judge them!

R.B., Leicester,

Finally some common sense!
This was long overdue. According to the letter of the law a history professor or antiquarian could have been convicted for owning a copy of "Mein Kampf".
I don't care one bit whether or not these kids are stupid or dangerous or neither. The idea of having a law that determines what one can read and what not and that threatens you with prison if what you read contravenes the wishes of the government, in other words a law that establishes the concept of "thought crime" is abhorrent and a shame for a country that once considered freedom, not security its greates value.
Churchill once wrote: "Thus an administration more disastrous than any in our history saw all its errors and shortcomings acclaimed by the nation. There was, however, a bill to be paid, and it took the new House of Commons nearly 10 years to pay it."
How cowardly have we become? It is time to return to our core value of freedom. Security is worth nothing of we pay for it with our freedom.

Sam Bollinger, London, UK

I believe that they were found guilty by 12 good people of a jury made up of a cross section of multicultural UK today and released by a bunch of out of touch judges trying to apply the theory of the law. Popular beat combo mulord !!!!!!!!!!!

sppots, london, england

At last sane men speak and act in defence of our rights to freedom of thought and expression. But deeply worrying it had to go to appeal for the right judgment to be reached. Does this mean that the thousands alleged to be plotting against the state are actually in the main students interested in studying terrorism in a purely academic fashion? MI6 needs to revise its criteria in view of this judgment and start talking more sense than frightening us with bedtime stories.

john walter, bonn, Germany

Mens rea - that's all that's needed, and it's clear that all of the defendants posessed it. It's not a thought crime, it's an intent to commit a crime. Killing British soldiers, or intending to do so, is the crime for which they were originally imprisoned.

Bill Q, Derby,

The law was always an ass.

Zak, London, UK