curlyfriski
Banned
Interesting how quickly free speech absolutism did once it's speech people don't like.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Justice Department going after anyone who supports ISIS on Twitter/FB/social media
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
EnlightenedMint
Member
The greatest propaganda tool ISIS has in the US is the media. The amount of hysteria it produces is absurd and does nothing but induce fear and make people think ISIS is more of a threat than it actually is.
And this notion of making it illegal to say you support it is a dangerous road to go down. The legality of stating political ideas or beliefs should never be controlled by the government, I'm surprised so many here seem to agree with the censorship.
The double standard is also ridiculous when places like stormfront are allowed to exist who's members have actually committed terrorist attacks on US soil.
And this notion of making it illegal to say you support it is a dangerous road to go down. The legality of stating political ideas or beliefs should never be controlled by the government, I'm surprised so many here seem to agree with the censorship.
The double standard is also ridiculous when places like stormfront are allowed to exist who's members have actually committed terrorist attacks on US soil.
mmazurkiewicz
Member
The KKK? You have proof of any of this still happening?
And yes, anyone who supported them should be jailed.
I'm not exactly sure how bigots have free speech when they're punished for their opinions by society these days, just like ISIS supporters will be, and KKK supporters would if the KKK was still relevant.
But yeh you're right, its hard for me to understand and society should continue to allow supporters of terrorism to have their free speech as if that makes any sense.
i am curious, how much of a threat do you feel isis actually is? all these videos are fake? all these people dying fake? we should let them run rampart because they are not a big deal? The media are reporting on facts that are happening , not creating stories. Sometimes they are spun around to scare people but they are still true.
way more
Member
He never actually said that. He said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
And that wasn't even about rights vs security. He was saying they should allow a colonial assembly to raise taxes even if the local governor didn't want to.
I don't think that's what propaganda is nor do I see hysteria or fear when I look around.
If you consider human history and the historic behavior of governments, it's easy to understand why some people might be uncomfortable with the government deciding who is and isn't a supporter of terrorism.
EnlightenedMint
Member
When did I say any of that is fake?
I'm saying ISIS is not a direct threat to the US, but the media would have you think they will be attacking the mainland in months. Here is a pretty good article on it http://www.thenation.com/article/181880/no-isis-not-threat-us
They still have rallies and such to this day proclaiming white supremacy. They are protected by free speech. Now, of course I disagree with them, but the group and their supporters should not be prosecuted. It's their right to be able to do so.
Their relevance has fuck all to do with my point.
Dude Abides
Banned
It does not fit in the exception at all.
Shouting fire in a crowded theater is making a (1) statement of fact that (2) is very likely to cause (3) specific and identifiable people to (4) immediately do something dangerous.
Tweeting ISIS is great is expressing (1) a political opinion that (2) may or may not cause (3) persons unknown to (4) do something dangerous at some unidentified point in the future.
The two situations are nothing alike.
JackLongRod
Banned
Good
Fuck Isis and anyone that supports them in any way shape or form.
Fuck Isis and anyone that supports them in any way shape or form.
Oh I agree with you. I misread your post.
but its not about attacking america imo. Its about the long term problem this will turn in for the whole world if left unchecked. And to be honest , 2 terrorist attack did happen in canada in the last months, 1 in france....might not be the mighty usa but sure as hell seems like the free world to me.
EnlightenedMint
Member
Every video they put out is propaganda and is used to get as much attention and spread as much fear as possible. http://blogs.cfr.org/davidson/2014/...is-horrifying-and-effective-how-does-it-work/
mmazurkiewicz
Member
Your first post stated the KKK have beheaded, lynched, and burned a hell of a lot of people alive, and now you're arguing that they have hate rallies.
Relevance comes into play when you compare a group who has hate rallies while not causing any harm to anyone since the FBI has effectively shut them down, versus a group who actually beheads/burns people alive.
Maybe it's a bad example to you, but it's not the government's place to decide if you should go to jail over something like this. It's very much against free speech.
I don't like bigots, but people silencing them should be a bigger concern to you and me.
Inertia Creeps
Banned
Saudi Arabia lashes, beheads and stones people regularly in public and yet I don't see any criminalization of speaking in support of them.
so if i get this right , bigots, potential killers , terrorists, hate propagandists = i dont like
people silencing them = big concern?
what am i missing here?? its a sad day when we lost such total and complete confidence in the people governing us.
RustyNails
Member
I don't see how Americans are subject to Saudi Arabia's penal code...?
You should never have complete confidence in the people governing you. Distrust and skepticism is key to a healthy democracy.
way more
Member
That article says the spread is dependent almost entirely on social media, not traditional news media. I guess when you said their greatest propaganda tool is the media it's true if you are talking about social media.
oh i 100% agree with you....but there is a difference between not having commplete confidence and what i am seeing here. Hey look those people are spreading hate, encouraging behadings, recruiting our kids to do so....Gov tries to stop them , people reactiong : fuck gov is trying to take control again and thats bad....just sad is all. as i said earlier , damn if you do , damn if you dont.... the day they do reach our shores and create an even bigger problem , people will condemn the gov for closing their eyes.
M0nochromatic
Member
"There are massive problems with what you'r doing, they are wrong"
vs
"I'm in support of killing anyone like you and divine retribution will fall on your head soon"
Not all speech in America is free, if it incites violence it's a no no. On some level, I'm okay with silencing the outright ignorant, like anti vax and climate change deniers, but society isn't at the level where that wouldn't cause massive issues, so I'm fine with just stopping hate mongers.
vs
"I'm in support of killing anyone like you and divine retribution will fall on your head soon"
Not all speech in America is free, if it incites violence it's a no no. On some level, I'm okay with silencing the outright ignorant, like anti vax and climate change deniers, but society isn't at the level where that wouldn't cause massive issues, so I'm fine with just stopping hate mongers.
It's because rhetorical support and material support are two drastically different things. One is stupidity, the other is a legitimate crime. Speaking out in support of a terrorist group will earn you an addition to countless watch lists, but it shouldn't earn you time in a federal prison.
It's not that I've lost complete confidence in the government, the problem is that this government we have now has absolutely demonstrated that they can abuse their power.
well rest assured they will be leaving office soon?
people fail to see we dont live in the 80s or 90s. This world we created is so SO much more complex than it was no less than 15 years ago. Governing in the age of the internet is not as simple as it seems. Governing in the age of terrorism is not as simple as it seems either.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
What constitutes as "supporting ISIS"?
This looks like a way to get people to agree on it while it's used mainly for non-ISIS related cases. Why? Let's be realistic. This isn't just for ISIS. You have to be downright foolish to think this will be applied to ONLY the group known as ISIS.
This looks like a way to get people to agree on it while it's used mainly for non-ISIS related cases. Why? Let's be realistic. This isn't just for ISIS. You have to be downright foolish to think this will be applied to ONLY the group known as ISIS.
Inertia Creeps
Banned
What?? But the last time the US government eroded the civil liberties of it's citizens in order to fight "terrorism" worked out so well! After the wonderful Patriot Act was passed, we never had any more problems whatsoever with violent Islamic extremist- oh wait...
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Uhm, have I entered bizarro world where I'm the one arguing that something involving the internet might be government overreach? I would really need to know more about how specifically "support" is defined before I would be comfortable with this. People come out in support of murders and criminals, organized and independent, all the time.
way more
Member
I'm not sure I understand this line of thinking present in this thread.
The issue of whether or not to prosecute based on speech alone is an incredibly sticky wicket unless you're some kind of hardcore pragmatist, but I think that it's pretty clear that this restriction on free speech -- as that's what it is -- is fairly unreasonable because it comes down to drawing ideological lines in the sand, which is about the most dangerous, Orwellian restriction imaginable.
Of course, it's also worth noting that supporting a group that rapes and pillages is not the same as raping and pillaging and furthermore is not the same as saying you're going to rape and pillage. It's so far removed from the act itself that, while deplorable, it's bizarre to define it as criminal.
Of course, it's also worth noting that supporting a group that rapes and pillages is not the same as raping and pillaging and furthermore is not the same as saying you're going to rape and pillage. It's so far removed from the act itself that, while deplorable, it's bizarre to define it as criminal.
It's really more of a "there are some specific cases where the law can be broken" not "anyone who supports ISIS on Twitter/FB/social media" kind of answer.
The actual talk is here:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324471-2/assistant-attorney-general-john-carlin-cybersecurity
The actual talk is here:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324471-2/assistant-attorney-general-john-carlin-cybersecurity
Eh, I don't think I like this. The furthest I might be comfortable with making illegal would be the production of propaganda in support of a terrorist organization. Not the sharing of it. Propaganda is designed to prey on people. I'm also not particularly comfortable with the justice department getting to decide what's a terrorist organization and what isn't, so I'd like to reserve the right to at least be able to discuss things (ISIS is obviously scum, but I'm sure you can see my concern). The absolute minimum of what needs to be preserved is the ability to advocate that an organization is removed from their list.
Just try watching the channel and you'll see what I mean. ISIS throws out a new video and CNN rolls clips of it all day. Almost as if ISIS has it's own news network to promote themselves. I was not really being serious about CNN being first on some kinda jail list lol but rather just pointing out the ridiculousness of the network and how it relates to this.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Just as I said here. This is a horribly written story that completely goes against what was said.
This is not what the Daily Beast article claims. The author pretty much made up a policy himself and pretended the FBI said it was policy.
This is NOT voicing support for ISIS. That's not who they are going after (though your likely to be put under watch. )
Supporting ISIS online already comes with consequences - getting on a list of people that's monitored by feds of some organization or another. If you don't think a precedent such as this could be abused in the future you have no perspective at all. We see laws meant for anti-terrorism used against regular citizens nearly daily, and you don't think this would be a bad idea? Please.
Luckily, the article says that there is push-back, and hopefully what Mr. Carlin won't get his way on this matter.
Edit: even if the article was written poorly and 1st amendment rights aren't in danger, I'm still appalled by the support it has in this thread.
Luckily, the article says that there is push-back, and hopefully what Mr. Carlin won't get his way on this matter.
Edit: even if the article was written poorly and 1st amendment rights aren't in danger, I'm still appalled by the support it has in this thread.
Elfforkusu
Member
.
Getting closer and closer to thoughtcrime.
ISIS is intellectually and morally repugnant, but if we're going to selectively press charges against hateful rhetoric... well, that's not a good road to go down if we're aspiring to be a free society.
SteveWinwood
Member
im not sure why people are talking about precedence
pretty sure people have been arrested for treason before
understand that twitter isnt just a forum of communication, its their recruiting platform youre actively helping them get more members
pretty sure people have been arrested for treason before
understand that twitter isnt just a forum of communication, its their recruiting platform youre actively helping them get more members
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
Because that's all the United States does, right? Unlike ISIS, the USA is not a terrorist organization, but instead a massive country with both good and bad qualities. The fuck is good about ISIS?
I would feel pretty terrorized by the US if I lived in Pakistan.
Some asshole shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre can directly lead to injury to other people. It's not quite the same with people being transparent about shitty organisations they support.
The Westboro Baptist Church are the scum of the earth, and yet they have a right to be as hateful and moronic as they want to be, because that's the kind of society we live in, one that doesn't silences oppition and censures dissent - or rather, that's the society we supposedly live in.
I understand the desire to deny ISIS and its supporters a platform, because they're lunatics, but if we decided to pick and choose what is and isn't okay to say to the point you can't be open about your personal views or organisations you support, that sets us upon a slippery slope I am not comfortable with.
Relentless 757
Member
This isn't really anything new, see: the Red Scare. Any support of Communism was seen as treason essentially.
Though, I guess you could argue that this is different, because this "scare" could prove legitimate. Anyone spreading ISIS propaganda is pretty damn suspicious in my eyes.
Though, I guess you could argue that this is different, because this "scare" could prove legitimate. Anyone spreading ISIS propaganda is pretty damn suspicious in my eyes.
Obviously , because its a 'slippery slope' you feel its ok (not ok in the sense that you support it but more that they have the right to do it)for those people to recruit kids to become killers, propagande terrorism,rape , murder etc....
then what do you propose? we let them go....see where it leads? see what happens?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked