NationStates Jolt Archive

I was watching a documentary about how terrorists use internet media to distribute propaganda. I was wondering whether this sort of thing should be legal, if it will lead to violence. The way I see it, it's the same as yelling fire in a packed theater. Distributing media which incites violences and seeks to aid violent groups should be illegal.

Your thoughts?

And, pray tell, who decides what "terrorist speech/propaganda" is?

And, pray tell, who decides what "terrorist speech/propaganda" is?

The Jury?

Hmmm, let's see..."distributing media which incites violences and seeks to aid violent groups". What...you mean like army recruitment ads?

And, pray tell, who decides what "terrorist speech/propaganda" is?
The people towards which said speech/propaganda is directed.

The people towards which said speech/propaganda is directed.
like, say, printing pictures of the prophet, making chocolate Jesuses, not agreeing that Israel can do no wrong...

yup, slipperiest slope ever.

Ah yes, censorship as the way to make sure we're free.

Hmmm, let's see..."distributing media which incites violences and seeks to aid violent groups". What...you mean like army recruitment ads?

lol

The Jury?

That's where your judicial system fails.

Hmmm, let's see..."distributing media which incites violences and seeks to aid violent groups". What...you mean like army recruitment ads?

hahahahahaha! that's sig-worthy :D

That's where your judicial system fails.

Explain.

http://just4yucks.com/images/5x/51009h.gif
One step away from silencing dissent.

like, say, printing pictures of the prophet, making chocolate Jesuses, not agreeing that Israel can do no wrong...

yup, slipperiest slope ever.

It could be, however I would be in favor of a strict defining line. Saying that Israel's government is doing things which are deplorable is far cry from calling on people to kill Israelis civilians.

Explain.

"30 Helens Agree" is not the basis for a logically or morally valid judgement.

Explain.

It puts the protection of unpopular ideas in the hands of the populace that deems them unpopular. Not to mention, of course, the silliness in letting a bunch of yokels with no legal competence decide on the law...

"30 Helens Agree" is not the basis for a logically or morally valid judgement.

But Kids in the Hall have taught us so many valuable lessons...

"30 Helens Agree" is not the basis for a logically or morally valid judgement.

It puts the protection of unpopular ideas in the hands of the populace that deems them unpopular. Not to mention, of course, the silliness in letting a bunch of yokels with no legal competence decide on the law...

So are you guys against trial by jury?

So we are talking censorship now? Unless the speech is to cause "imminent lawless action" than how can you suppress it? If you can publish abortion doctors pictures with names and addresses with targets on their faces than you can certainly give out information that "may" incite violence against the U.S. I wouldn't mind knowing where you would draw the line, since any news story about a dead Arab by the hands of an American soldier could be argued as "pro-terrorist material".

It may be done, but "inciting violence" and "seeking to aid violent groups" must be clearly and rather conservatively defined. The freedom of speech must only be limited within reason.

So: No way in hell it should be left up to the jury. This is purely a job for the legislature.

So we are talking censorship now? Unless the speech is to cause "imminent lawless action" than how can you suppress it? If you can publish abortion doctors pictures with names and addresses with targets on their faces than you can certainly give out information that "may" incite violence against the U.S. I wouldn't mind knowing where you would draw the line, since any news story about a dead Arab by the hands of an American soldier could be argued as "pro-terrorist material".

I agree, my choice of language was bad. I was talking about media which directly calls for people to act violently against others, the abortion doctor things you mentioned would fall under this category.

So are you guys against trial by jury?

I am, I don't know about the other poster.

So: No way in hell it should be left up to the jury. This is purely a job for the legislature.

So how would one go about trying this if they can't use a jury?

Censorship is teh fail.

I can work out for myself the reasons why blowing people up is a bad idea. I don't need some commission or board deciding what or who I can't read or listen to.

Anyways, how exactly would a state's legislaion prevent 'pro-terrorism media' being accessed on the web? China-style mass blocking? No thankee.

I agree, my choice of language was bad. I was talking about media which directly calls for people to act violently against others, the abortion doctor things you mentioned would fall under this category.

Like I said. Recruitment ads? Or are those okay, because someone sanctions that violence?

So how would one go about trying this if they can't use a jury?

You misunderstand me: Juries may be used in answering the question about guilt (Though I am against the current jury system I'm talking about working with the system we have today) but juries should not be the ones who decides what "terrorist speech/propaganda" is. That needs to be very clearly defined in advance and that is the job of the legislature. Using the jury to define those legal terms would only end up in arbitrary and random judgements.

I misread the question and therefore voted yes when in fact I meant no.

Noone can decide what should be defined as terrorist media. For some, people might be terrorist for others they are freedom-fighters. How will people know if they are spreading terrorist propaganda when they say what they feel?

When the goverment starts to censor the free speech things tend to get out of hand.

Like I said. Recruitment ads? Or are those okay, because someone sanctions that violence?

Recruitment ads seek to recruit people into the armed services(duh), which are organizations that don't intend to commit unlawful violence against civilians. Militarys are created to fight other militarys, not to commit crimes against civilians. The fact that it is illegal for militarys to commit violence against civilians is not under question.

Censorship is the first step in the remarkably short path to dystopia.

You misunderstand me: Juries may be used in answering the question about guilt (Though I am against the current jury system I'm talking about working with the system we have today) but juries should not be the ones who decides what "terrorist speech/propaganda" is. That needs to be very clearly defined in advance and that is the job of the legislature. Using the jury to define those legal terms would only end up in arbitrary and random judgements.

I agree. Sorry for the confusion.

Censorship is the first step in the remarkably short path to dystopia.

Is it censorship to prevent speech which will inevitably lead to violence?

Is it censorship to prevent speech which will inevitably lead to violence?

Yes.

I agree, my choice of language was bad. I was talking about media which directly calls for people to act violently against others, the abortion doctor things you mentioned would fall under this category.

There is plenty of such material out there by other groups, not just for those supporting terrorism. Calling for violent action is nothing new and while I hardly approve it is protected as it does not qualify as an immediate threat and there is certainly no guarantee any violence will result at all. Besides, silencing these people just gives them legitimacy. Best to simply ignore them.

Recruitment ads seek to recruit people into the armed services(duh), which are organizations that don't intend to commit unlawful violence against civilians. Militarys are created to fight other militarys, not to commit crimes against civilians. The fact that it is illegal for militarys to commit violence against civilians is not under question.

Aha, so it's only wrong if it's ILLEGAL violence.

You didn't specify that part in your original post.

What difference does it really make? Sure, militaries are INTENDED to fight other militaries. They just happen to be GOOD at killing innocent civilians and overthrowing civilian governments. A bonus, like. Shrug dismiss?

I agree. Sorry for the confusion.
Cheers :)

You might want to draw parallells to hate speech in your argument...

Is it censorship to prevent speech which will inevitably lead to violence?

How do you determine inevitability? Or the level of influence the text has on the violence?

It puts the protection of unpopular ideas in the hands of the populace that deems them unpopular. Not to mention, of course, the silliness in letting a bunch of yokels with no legal competence decide on the law...

the jury doesnt decide the law. the legislature does that.

the jury decides if the state has proven that a particular individual has broken the law. if the state can't convince 12 yokels beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused deserves to go free.

Is it censorship to prevent speech which will inevitably lead to violence?

Most definitely.
The slippery slope comes to mind again. After censoring this, it won't be so bad to censor something else. And then something else, and oh, how about this? Coupled with propaganda, there will be a day when it's looked down upon and illegal to discuss, oh I don't know, politics in general.
So, yes.

Aha, so it's only wrong if it's ILLEGAL violence.

You didn't specify that part in your original post.
I know, I fucked up the OP, you don't need to rub it in....

What difference does it really make?
Well, a soldier knows full well that he/she could be killed in action, yet they've volunteered to do so anyway. Civilians, however are another story.

Sure, militaries are INTENDED to fight other militaries. They just happen to be GOOD at killing innocent civilians and overthrowing civilian governments. A bonus, like. Shrug dismiss?
If a military is killing civilian then it should stopped, with force if necessary. And yes, an entity designed to be able to kill armed and combat trained people will also be very good at killing unarmed and untrained people. And please don't give me the "well it should be legal to kill cops" argument, it's a totally different situation.

Is it censorship to prevent speech which will inevitably lead to violence?
Of course it is. You are censoring the speech, whether it incites violence or not.

Most definitely.
The slippery slope comes to mind again. After censoring this, it won't be so bad to censor something else. And then something else, and oh, how about this? Coupled with propaganda, there will be a day when it's looked down upon and illegal to discuss, oh I don't know, politics in general.
So, yes.

The slippery slope is a fallacy. This is about keeping the peace, if certain speech will inevitably cause an action that is a threat to peace, then it is just as bad as the action itself, is it not?

How do you determine inevitability? Or the level of influence the text has on the violence?

Inevitabily would be when propaganda is spread in the media making people think that Iraq had WMDs and therefore making them support actions that has taken half a million lives. But I heavily doubt that it is what he meant.

The slippery slope is a fallacy. This is about keeping the peace, if certain speech will inevitably cause an action that is a threat to peace, then it is just as bad as the action itself, is it not?

If you believe the slippery slope is a fallacy, then I'm afraid you have a very optimistic view of the political process. Unsavory political types would use the passing of that kind of legislature to pass their own.

The slippery slope is a fallacy. This is about keeping the peace, if certain speech will inevitably cause an action that is a threat to peace, then it is just as bad as the action itself, is it not?
Why, do those who incite violence use magic words that force listeners to obey their commands?

You, and every other human, have an impressive brain. Folks should use it more often.

Inevitabily would be when propaganda is spread in the media making people think that Iraq had WMDs and therefore making them support actions that has taken half a million lives. But I heavily doubt that it is what he meant.

I actually think that would land under incitement.

The slippery slope is a fallacy. This is about keeping the peace, if certain speech will inevitably cause an action that is a threat to peace, then it is just as bad as the action itself, is it not?It can't not be one, as the state has the monopoly on violence. And just to complicate things, standards for what's socially acceptable varies wildly.

I think what you're suggesting is the first enormous step towards fascism, no matter who you're trying to silence.

Hmmm, let's see..."distributing media which incites violences and seeks to aid violent groups". What...you mean like army recruitment ads?

Army recruitment ads and Terrorist videos are hardly the same. Also, since hate videos are legal, I suppose terrorist one's should be too.

Army recruitment ads and Terrorist videos are hardly the same.Depends on the army.

The slippery slope is a fallacy. This is about keeping the peace, if certain speech will inevitably cause an action that is a threat to peace, then it is just as bad as the action itself, is it not?

Not nearly. You see, humans tend to have something called free choice.... Silencing only one side of a debate is a dangerous thing to do, in any case. It tends to indicate bias... with maybe a touch of fascism.

Army recruitment ads and Terrorist videos are hardly the same.
Maybe not, but both could be found guilty of inciting violence. One of the many absurdities of censorship.

Why, do those who incite violence use magic words that force listeners to obey their commands?
Of course not, but if their speech persuades, encourages, or pressures people to commit violence, then they're inciting violence and are guilty of a crime.

You, and every other human, have an impressive brain. Folks should use it more often.

Nevertheless, the rational aspects of us can easily be suppressed by the power of the situation.

The slippery slope is a fallacy. This is about keeping the peace, if certain speech will inevitably cause an action that is a threat to peace, then it is just as bad as the action itself, is it not?

I don't see how you can know that it is a certainty that any material will cause violence inevitably. Censoring what "could happen" is not what you do in a free state. It is hardly a case like someone inciting a crowd to riot. There is no clear, obvious danger to these materials.

I don't see how you can know that it is a certainty that any material will cause violence inevitably. Censoring what "could happen" is not what you do in a free state. It is hardly a case like someone inciting a crowd to riot. There is no clear, obvious danger to these materials.

Well, obviously we will not prosecute someone if no violence occurs.

Of course not, but if their speech persuades, encourages, or pressures people to commit violence, then they're inciting violence and are guilty of a crime.
They're guilty of a crime if inciting violence is a crime. And I'd more easily point the finger of blame at those people who actually committed violence. I don't have much sympathy for those too weak-willed to figure out their own rationale for their actions.

Nevertheless, the rational aspects of us can easily be suppressed by the power of the situation.
'Easily' be suppressed? Poor you. I can't remember the last time someone convinced me that destroying life was a good thing.....

It's an oldie but a goodie: If someone told you to jump off of a cliff, would you?

They're guilty of a crime if inciting violence is a crime. And I'd more easily point the finger of blame at those people who actually committed violence. I don't have much sympathy for those too weak-willed to figure out their own rationale for their actions.
Absolutely the person who carried out the violence should be prosecuted.

'Easily' be suppressed? Poor you. I can't remember the last time someone convinced me that destroying life was a good thing.....

It's an oldie but a goodie: If someone told you to jump off of a cliff, would you?

it's not about how weak-willed you are, it's about being human. Given the right situation, a buddhist monk can easily become an SS einsatzgruppen. Stanford Prison anyone?
http://www.prisonexp.org/

it's not about how weak-willed you are, it's about being human. Given the right situation, a buddhist monk can easily become an SS einsatzgruppen. Stanford Prison anyone?
http://www.prisonexp.org/
Ooh, ooh! Unlikely psychological situations devoid of real-life situations! Yaaay!

Humans must be evil! We can't let anyone bad say anything upsetting, else all of humanity will be killing one another.

Yup, we're all secretly Nazis.

Well, obviously we will not prosecute someone if no violence occurs.

Ah. So we are only talking about prosecuting those whose material led to someone to commit violence? We aren't talking about the material itself being illegal but the actions of someone else because of the material would means the publisher should be held accountable? So we wouldn't actually be banning such media?

I'd be curious though to see an attorney convince a jury that it was that particular material that was the direct cause to the violent act. It wouldn't be hard for the defense to offer many other possibilities for what actually led to that other person to decide to commit his/her crime.

Ah. So we are only talking about prosecuting those whose material led to someone to commit violence? We aren't talking about the material itself being illegal but the actions of someone else because of the material would means the publisher should be held accountable? So we wouldn't actually be banning such media?
Nope.
I'd be curious though to see an attorney convince a jury that it was that particular material that was the direct cause to the violent act. It wouldn't be hard for the defense to offer many other possibilities for what actually led to that other person to decide to commit his/her crime.

Good point.

Ooh, ooh! Unlikely psychological situations devoid of real-life situations! Yaaay!

Humans must be evil! We can't let anyone bad say anything upsetting, else all of humanity will be killing one another.

Yup, we're all secretly Nazis.

http://www.saulmoran.com/strawman.jpg
Hmmm?

What?
Strawman eh?

The SPE was a mangled, unscientific psychological experiment that shows nothing about human behaviour or human nature. It's a text-book example of how not to run a scientific experiment; incediably subjective observations, unscientific controls, improper screening of participants - an overall mess.

Using it to suggest that in certain situations anyone can be easily swayed to do unspeakable acts is the real fallacy.

Nope.

Your thread title seems to indicate otherwise. Besides, if we are only going after publishers whose material results in violence it really would not make much sense. Either the material is causing violence and all should be banned or the publisher should not be held accountable for the actions of others.

Strawman eh?

The SPE was a mangled, unscientific psychological experiment that shows nothing about human behaviour or human nature. It's a text-book example of how not to run a scientific experiment; incediably subjective observations, unscientific controls, improper screening of participants - an overall mess.

Using it to suggest that in certain situations anyone can be easily swayed to do unspeakable acts is the real fallacy.

No, it shows that people's behavior can be changed by situations.

Your thread title seems to indicate otherwise. Besides, if we are only going after publishers whose material results in violence it really would not make much sense. Either the material is causing violence and all should be banned or the publisher should not be held accountable for the actions of others.


I cannot in my heart of hearts, justify prosecuting someone for doing/causing nothing. I think the material that caused the violence should be banned and the people who created it should be prosecuted for incitement.

No, it shows that people's behavior can be changed by situations.
At the very most it shows that Philip Zimbardo is a crappy psychologist.

I'll go so far as to give you an example. Half of the 'guards' helped the 'prisoners', rather than abuse their positions of power. Yet Zimbardo ignored this behaviour, instead focusing on the one or two 'guards' who started abusing the 'prisoners'. If a different psychologist was conducting the experiment he or she could quite easily portray the experiment as a clear example of a loving, caring human spirit.

I cannot in my heart of hearts, justify prosecuting someone for doing/causing nothing. I think the material that caused the violence should be banned and the people who created it should be prosecuted for incitement.
Your talking in very convaluted hypotheticals, which is getting a bit hard to follow. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're suggesting retroactively banning material that incites volence, but leaving potentially violence-inciting material well alone?

And how would you show the direct causal link between the material and the violence? Legislation as vague as you propose would be likely to ban material such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which is claimed by certain foaming-mouthed reactionaries to incite violence.

Not only that. For example, I wouln't be able to study Locke's Two Treatise of Government, as it had a major influence on the American revolutionaries, inciting them to violence, and helping in kick-starting a war in which guerrilla terrorist action was used effectively.

I was watching a documentary about how terrorists use internet media to distribute propaganda. I was wondering whether this sort of thing should be legal, if it will lead to violence. The way I see it, it's the same as yelling fire in a packed theater. Distributing media which incites violences and seeks to aid violent groups should be illegal.

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure. Freedom of expression in return for the probable increased safety of our asses...pretty dicey situation.

Your talking in very convaluted hypotheticals, which is getting a bit hard to follow. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're suggesting retroactively banning material that incites volence, but leaving potentially violence-inciting material well alone?
Quite right, I can't justify it to myself to ban something just because it might cause violence.
And how would you show the direct causal link between the material and the violence? Legislation as vague as you propose would be likely to ban material such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which is claimed by certain foaming-mouthed reactionaries to incite violence.
GTA does not encourage, or try to persuade kids to be violent.

Not only that. For example, I wouln't be able to study Locke's Two Treatise of Government, as it had a major influence on the American revolutionaries, inciting them to violence, and helping in kick-starting a war in which gorilla terrorist action was used effectively.

heh.

Well, I don't imagine that Locke encouraged people to be violent did he?

4k, w00t!

GTA does not encourage, or try to persuade kids to be violent.
According to you. I agree, but many people say the opposite; that its portrayel of violence encourages violence. So you see the trouble you start to get into once you are banning material that 'incites' violence. There are many definitions of 'inciting', explicitely or implicitely.

Well, I don't imagine that Locke encouraged people to be violent did he?
He most certainly did; Locke said citizens had the right to violent overthrow of their government if it was failing in its duty to protect life, liberty and property, or more generally when the government was abusing power. And the American revolutionaries used this justification, among others, to violently rebel against the British state; using terrorism as a key weapon against the state.

4k, w00t!
Weel done, Cutty-sark!

While it would be nice to rid the information superhighway of that stuff, I would be very worried about puting the power of censorship into the hands of a few people.

So No.

He most certainly did; Locke said citizens had the right to violent overthrow of their government if it was failing in its duty to protect life, liberty and property, or more generally when the government was abusing power. And the American revolutionaries used this justification, among others, to violently rebel against the British state; using terrorism as a key weapon against the state.


Source please.

If what you say is true, I concede defeat, no way in hell am I banning political philosophy.

Guess that includes Machiavelli doesn't, it? Well damn, I lose.

*sulks*

I also just realized that I'd have to ban The Torah, The Bible, and The Q'uran. I retract all this, I've changed my mind.

Source please.

If what you say is true, I concede defeat, no way in hell am I banning political philosophy.

Guess that includes Machiavelli doesn't, it? Well damn, I lose.

*sulks*

Don't be so quick to concede. His example applies to those who want to overthrow the government, but it doesn't to violent groups whose primary purpose is not overthrowing the government, but inciting violence against another group.

If the KKK came out with a memorandum to their members saying "Kill All Niggers, Jews, etc", and the FBI knew about it, I think it's fully appropriate for the government to take all necessary action to prevent that. Same goes for a group like al-Qaida that wants to kill or convert all infidels.

I also just realized that I'd have to ban The Torah, The Bible, and The Q'uran. I retract all this, I've changed my mind.

True, but not realistic.;)

The U.S and British governments distributed lies in order to garner support for invading Iraq and Afganistan. They used national media and their political and public standing to promote wars which have killed more people than any terrorist. I say let them get on with it. The internet is a level playing field where the politiians have no more clout than the freedom fighters/warlords/jihadists.

^

So it's perfectly fine for christian extremists to call for the assassination of hugo Chavez, Morales and Castro, and various Muslims, but it's a big no-no for any questioning of US and Israeli foreign policy, and questiong US imperialism?

So it's perfectly fine for christian extremists to call for the assassination of hugo Chavez, Morales and Castro, and various Muslims, but it's a big no-no for any questioning of US and Israeli foreign policy, and questiong US imperialism?

1.) That is a giant strawman.


2.) the debate is over completely, I've changed my position completely.

And, pray tell, who decides what "terrorist speech/propaganda" is?

/agree. This is the crux of the problem with the "War on Terror." There's no "there" there, so who decides?

Is it censorship to prevent speech which will inevitably lead to violence?

IS there such a thing as speech that will inevitably lead to violence? Don't people have free will?

The slippery slope is a fallacy. This is about keeping the peace, if certain speech will inevitably cause an action that is a threat to peace, then it is just as bad as the action itself, is it not?

Censorship to keep the peace is counter productive, I doubt I would be the only person brought to open armed rebellion by excessive censorship.

Read the thread.

No, it shows that people's behavior can be changed by situations.

Since Chumblywumbly gave us a whole paragraph of why (s)he thinks it doesn't, could you please provide us with a more convincing argument than "Yes it does"?

I was watching a documentary about how terrorists use internet media to distribute propaganda. I was wondering whether this sort of thing should be legal, if it will lead to violence. The way I see it, it's the same as yelling fire in a packed theater. Distributing media which incites violences and seeks to aid violent groups should be illegal.

Your thoughts?
Apparently, the Pentagon has a new group dedicated to attacking and taking down such websites.

The terrorists should have the freedom to put up their asinine stuff, and the Pentagon should have the legal right to attack their sites.

He most certainly did; Locke said citizens had the right to violent overthrow of their government if it was failing in its duty to protect life, liberty and property, or more generally when the government was abusing power.

I would go further and call it an obligation.

And, pray tell, who decides what "terrorist speech/propaganda" is?Who decides?
The same people deciding "what/who is a Tewrrorist and who is not.."
of course.
The people at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington.

Define "pro-terrorist" media."

Yes, it should. There is no reason to promote the killing of innocent people.

Ooh, ooh! Unlikely psychological situations devoid of real-life situations! Yaaay!


Um, devoid of real-life situations?

You are saying there are no authorities, and no one is ever persuaded by said authorities to harm other people?

Or are you just being deliberately obtuse and saying that because the specific situation down to the pebbles in the floor of Stanford are not replicated, the whole thing has no meaning.


Humans must be evil! We can't let anyone bad say anything upsetting, else all of humanity will be killing one another.

Yup, we're all secretly Nazis.

It's not about "evil" or just the nazis. It is simply a fact that people can be persuaded to go against their normal ethics, in a relatively easy manner, up to and including committing great bodily harm on other humans.

I don't know what the poster was getting at nor really care, but your comments here seem more emotional than reasonable.

I think television advertisements for national military recruitment are just as bad as any so called 'terrorist' media.

Apparently, the Pentagon has a new group dedicated to attacking and taking down such websites.any link?

any link?

I found one for them.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/

Is it censorship to prevent speech which will inevitably lead to violence?

Yes by its very definition

You may think it is justified censorship, that does not make it any less censorship

Apparently, the Pentagon has a new group dedicated to attacking and taking down such websites.

The terrorists should have the freedom to put up their asinine stuff, and the Pentagon should have the legal right to attack their sites.

Sense when have the right to free speech = The right to attack someone elses resources?

The two are not equivalent at all

Not to mention hypocritical, I seem to remember a few people being prosecuted across boarders for electronic attacks on US government resources.


Edit: that having been said should it be legal for them to attack USG sights that are promoting things they do not agree with? Do you have any idea how easy it is to carry out a DDOS attack these days? it is hard enough stopping this sort of thing without it being promoted by one side or another.