ENOUGH is enough, said Theresa May. There are too many “safe spaces”, she says, where Islamic extremist ideas are exchanged and terrorists recruited the the cause of jihad. I thought I’d take a look at some of these safe spaces myself.

It takes about 60 seconds via al-Malahem Media to Google editions of Inspire, the English language journal of al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula. This offers helpful advice on making incendiary devices. There I found links to a video from Qasim al-Rymi, a 38-year -ld Yemeni, urging Muslims in the West to attack non-believers whenever possible with whatever means available.

“If every operation against the Muslims”, he says, “were to be retaliated by a single Muslim living in the West and resulting in the killing of many Americans, then what do you think will happen?”.Well, the obvious answer is that they’d be tracked down and killed like the London Bridge attackers. But al-Rymi believes the West’s resolve in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan will be weakened if every Muslim death there is matched by random murder here.

The claim that Muslims have no choice but to retaliate for Western attacks is everywhere on the internet. Al Mujiharun presents itself as a source of historical literature about jihad, but it’s really a recruiting site for contemporary mujihadeen. Idealistic young Muslims are invited to read documents like 39 Ways to Help Jihad. Written in English in vaguely biblical language this claims “An invading enemy has occupied your lands, violated honour…the only way to come to an understanding of this enemy is through the language of force and revenge.”

Islamic State (IS) videos are legion, and take you in seconds on to the front line of jihad. Professionally shot and edited videos from real battles in Syria and elsewhere show happy suicide bombers driving to their doom tracked by drone footage. Spend a few hours watching this stuff, with its hypnotic music, and it’s hard not to get drawn into the jihadi mindset. For alienated young Muslim men looking for some kind of meaning in life, it must be very compelling.

Muslim fundamentalists believe there is a global war between Christian crusaders and the Muslim Ummah, that can only be resolved by the extinction of non-believers. This propaganda is dressed up with declarations of doctrinal authority and illustrated with videos of phosphorous bombs being dropped on Mosul, corpses of women and children killed by Western air strikes.

What should governments do about all this stuff? A lot of it is perfectly legitimate. Much is recycled by legitimate news websites, which can’t resist showing IS in action. But you can’t help feeling something should be done to impede the spread to impressionable young minds of some of the most immersive, and evil, propaganda every created.

Mrs May has suggested that “the big companies that provide internet-based services”, like Google and Facebook, could be made legally responsible for the material posted on their sites. The BBC could not allow IS to post jihad videos on iPlayer, so why YouTube? The Herald would be prosecuted for publishing bomb-making recipes, or running articles calling for Jews and-non believers to be murdered. But social media companies claim they are not publishers, merely neutral “platforms” or “pipes”.

Google, Facebook et al shelter behind so called “safe harbour” laws in the United States that give them immunity from prosecution for material published on their sites. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Act lays down that: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”.

If Mrs May is serious about tackling the safe spaces on the internet she’ll be challenging some of the richest and best-connected corporations around. Their business model would be ruined if they had to monitor – as newspaper websites must – all the millions of comments on their sites and the thousands of hours of video uploaded to YouTube. The battle for control of cyberspace has begun.