| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| ISIS Gives Us No Choice but to Consider Limits on Speech |
| 2015-12-16 |
| The author of this excrement is a Gawd Damn fascist in my estimation. [Salon] It has become increasingly clear that terrorist groups such as ISIS can extend their reach to American territory via the Internet. Using their own websites, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, they lure young men and women to their mission—without having to risk the capture of foreign agents on U.S. soil. The Americans ensnared in ISIS’s net in turn radicalize others, send money to ISIS, and even carry out attacks. ISIS is a pesky bunch, to be sure. Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective way—and by this I mean ideas that lead directly to terrorist attacks that kill people. The novelty of this threat calls for new thinking about limits on freedom of speech. "Dangerous ideas". The language about an individual who just wants their views to be heard. The language of a tyrant. What can we do? Proposals that Internet companies “shut down” dangerous communications have been met with howls of laughter from Silicon Valley. It’s easy for determined jihadis to replace shuttered websites with new ones and hard for Internet companies to keep track of billions of communications. Using the law to force Facebook and Twitter to do more to block ISIS propaganda would make sense but also falls short of what is needed. No approach is perfect, but there is a way to deal with these problems. Ideas are not problem. If you dislike an idea, there's a solution. Consider Ali Amin, the subject of a recent article in the New York Times. Lonely and bored, the 17-year-old Virginia resident discovered ISIS online, was gradually drawn into its messianic world, eventually exchanged messages with other supporters and members, and then provided some modest logistical support to ISIS supporters (instructing them how to transfer funds secretly and driving an ISIS recruit to the airport). He was convicted of the crime of material support of terrorism and sentenced to 11 years in prison. Amin did not start out as a jihadi; he was made into one. Researchers at George Washington University identified 300 U.S-based ISIS sympathizers who use Twitter and other social media to lure Muslim Americans into the arms of ISIS. These American citizens and residents—themselves the fruit of the recruiting efforts of foreign ISIS members as well as of other Americans—frequently use a graduated approach so as to avoid alarming people who are merely curious about Islam: A good approach for any entity that wants to attract new blood. But there is something we can do to protect people like Amin from being infected by the ISIS virus by propagandists, many of whom are anonymous and most of whom live in foreign countries. Consider a law that makes it a crime to access websites that glorify, express support for, or provide encouragement for ISIS or support recruitment by ISIS; to distribute links to those websites or videos, images, or text taken from those websites; or to encourage people to access such websites by supplying them with links or instructions. Such a law would be directed at people like Amin: naïve people, rather than sophisticated terrorists, who are initially driven by curiosity to research ISIS on the Web. In other words: destroy the very rights upon which this country was born. The law would provide graduated penalties. After the first violation, a person would receive a warning letter from the government; subsequent violations would result in fines or prison sentences. The idea would be to get out the word that looking at ISIS-related websites, like looking at websites that display child pornography, is strictly forbidden. As word spread, people like Amin would be discouraged from searching for ISIS-related websites and perhaps be spared radicalization and draconian punishment for more serious terrorism-related crimes. The law would not deter sophisticated terrorists who send one another encrypted messages. That’s not its point. ISIS seeks to recruit Americans on American soil; in order to recruit from the public, it obviously cannot act secretly. It must instead broadcast widely and rely on surrogates to broadcast widely, in order to reach an audience of nonradicalized Muslims. This is a vulnerability. When people discover ISIS websites and circulate them by Twitter, Facebook, and other public websites, those people often disclose their identities. Many are too naïve to use pseudonyms; others reveal their identities to their ISPs, which can be forced to cough them up to police. Teenagers who are curious about ISIS but not yet committed to it are unlikely to use complicated encryption technologies to mask their identities from ISPs. Laws directed at this behavior would make a dent in recruitment, and hence in homegrown radicalism, even if they do not solve other problems. Laws such as this execrable proposal would also destroy the fabric of the Constitution, which I can easily infer is the whole purpose behind the law. One worry about such a law is that it would discourage legitimate ISIS-related research by journalists, academics, private security agencies, and the like. But the law could contain broad exemptions for people who can show that they have a legitimate interest in viewing ISIS websites. Press credentials, a track record of legitimate public commentary on blogs and elsewhere, academic affiliations, employment in a security agency, and the like would serve as adequate proof. Ah yes, exemptions. "You have my permission to read or study about something as long as it is used for government approved purposes." Do you not see something wrong with this proposal? The obvious problem with this law is that the courts could strike it down under the First Amendment. Under current doctrine, such an anti-propaganda law is unconstitutional because it would interfere with the right of people to receive or read political information—as would proposed laws that would require Internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter to remove ISIS-related propaganda from their websites. The Supreme Court has held that the government can ban political speech only when it poses an immediate threat to public safety, as when an orator encourages a crowd to go on a rampage. Speech that blasts the American constitutional system and praises America’s enemies has been held constitutionally protected time and again. However, these rules go back only to the 1960s. Before then, in the United States, people could be punished for engaging in dangerous speech. The U.S. government prosecuted Nazi sympathizers during World War II, draft protesters during World War I, and Southern sympathizers in the Union during the Civil War. It’s common sense that when a country is embroiled in a war, it should counter propaganda that could populate a third column with recruits. The pattern in American history—and, in the other democracies as well, even today—is that during times of national emergency, certain limits on speech will be tolerated. And those convictions and laws were unconstitutional on their face. Dredging up past unconstitutional practice do not justify their resurrection now. We do not currently face a national emergency comparable to a world war, but anti-propaganda laws may nonetheless be warranted because of the unique challenge posed by ISIS’s sophisticated exploitation of modern technology. In the old days, radicals handed out crudely mimeographed leaflets at street corners. Today, the Internet makes possible the constant circulation of captivating videos, vivid images, and extremist text, creating a “radicalization echo chamber.” It is the change in technology, more than the change in the nature of foreign threats, that has given rise to a historic and unprecedented danger from foreign radicalization and recruitment. The Internet reduces government control over information, and to this guy, that's a problem. Radicalization, or just an invite to join a recipe sharing group, the only acceptable counter to ISIS' propaganda is better ideas, freely expressed. The major justification for freedom of speech is the marketplace of ideas—the claim that if people can say whatever they want, the best ideas will flourish. But just what is it that we can learn from ISIS? The social value of beheading apostates? The finer points of crucifixion? Those who regard free speech as fundamental need to consider whether legal principles that arose centuries ago make sense in the age of Snapchat. It is possible, as Cass Sunstein has explained in Bloomberg View, to modify the current test for free speech violations so as to advance public safety without throwing out important protections for dissent. A simple balancing test would permit laws to target dangerous speech that does not advance public debate. They made sense when they are applied as to free speech, when they are applied. It’s possible that the propaganda threat from radical Islam will peter out on its own. Many Internet companies already censor pro-ISIS websites and accounts—which they can do because the First Amendment does not require private companies to protect the speech of their customers. And law enforcement authorities have used the material support statute aggressively, as in the case of Amin, to crack down on anyone who takes a step beyond mere advocacy. My colleague Geoffrey Stone has argued that the U.S. government has usually overreacted to foreign threats by cracking down on civil liberties, hurting people who would never have caused harm. During World War I, for example, the government punished dissenters who merely criticized the war and were not spreading German propaganda or trying to recruit agents. If Stone is right, we should be careful to avoid overreacting again. You are overreacting with this proposal. But like it or not, the West is engaged in a propaganda war with ISIS. Our own distaste for ISIS’s views should not blind us to the fact that it appeals to thousands of Americans. A narrowly tailored anti-propaganda law that reduced the ranks of homegrown jihadis would not only enhance public safety. It would also protect American Muslims like Ali Amin from the virus of ISIS’s ideology. "Narrowly tailored" laws have a nasty habit of becoming the fascist monsters that destroy rights and societies. The only tried and true counter to terrible ideas are better ideas, freely expressed. Her 'narrowly tailored law' will be tailored sufficiently to be used against domestic political opponents. Ask Lois Lerner... |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #8 Here’s Why Trump Is Right About ‘Shutting Down’ Parts Of The Internet You don't have to limit American's right to free speech. But you can block internet traffic to and from certain parts of the world. Syrians, Chechens and the like are not American citizens and have no such rights here. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2015-12-16 16:13 |
| #7 Ok, I'll consider it... By
There. Limit to speech enacted! | |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-12-16 11:52 |
| #6 Funny how whatever happens, it's just another reason to enact the Leftist agenda. |
| Posted by: Blinky Whigum1398 2015-12-16 11:43 |
| #5 ISIS Gives Us No Choice but to Consider Limits on Speech of the Right FIFY. Somehow fascism is always falling on America but always ends up promoted by the Left. The major justification for freedom of speech is the marketplace of ideas—the claim that if people can say whatever they want, the best ideas will flourish. Sort of missed whats been happening on America's campuses. And just who is shutting down the 'market place of ideas'? /rhet question |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-12-16 10:12 |
| #4 Currently, there is far too much focus in D.C. on bogus global warming. If we can't disrupt, confuse, and destroy ISIS communications, we are too focused on bullshit leftist notion such as climate change. This piss ant caliphate should have been destroyed long ago and left in rubble. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2015-12-16 09:50 |
| #3 to modify the current test for free speech violations so as to advance public safety Say, doesn't science denial threaten public safety? |
| Posted by: Matt 2015-12-16 09:38 |
| #2 Sounds not too unlike a modern extension and expansion of the Communist Control Act. The effect would be to perpetuate an endless cycle of whack-a-mole that would effectively divert attention from and thus prevent addressing the real problem. Said real problem, of course, being Islam as demonstrated by the correlation between the level of religiosity of its adherents and those persons propensity to engage in violence against everyone else. Hack at the root or hack at the branch, both are anathema to the Constitution. Or sit back and enjoy the escalating violence. |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Foreign Affairs Division 2015-12-16 08:52 |
| #1 That's why leftards like Muzzies so much |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-12-16 01:22 |