
ISIS Influence on Web Prompts Second Thoughts on First Amendment - ilamont
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/isis-influence-on-web-prompts-second-thoughts-on-first-amendment.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
======
Animats
The US survived the Communist Party of the USA. It survived the German-
American Bund and Hitler Youth camps on Long Island. It survived Lindbergh
endorsing Hitler. ISIS is a nuisance compared to those.

Here's ISIS's magazine.[1] Read what the other side has to say. Their layout,
photography, and typesetting are quite good. That's upsetting some people.
Most nut groups can't format a newsletter.

[1] [http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-
isil-p...](http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-
propaganda-magazine-dabiq#)

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Don't forget the whole eugenics movement. The likes of Lothrop Stoddard and
Madison Grant were very popular in their day, but ultimately subsided and in
retrospect are derided. The NSDAP did borrow a lot from them, though -
Lindbergh was hardly the only one endorsing Hitler, he was an intellectual
featherweight relative to many others.

~~~
sitkack
If WW2 hadn't occurred we would probably have our own n-tier master race at
home by now. Obedient, diligent worker drones powering our own corporate
fascist ship.

~~~
nickpsecurity
We largely did. The elites just decided it was more profitable to have most of
the drones in countries with cheaper labor and looser regulations. ;)

------
unimpressive
> “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,” Mr. Posner wrote. The Islamic State’s ability to spread
> “ideas that lead directly to terrorist attacks,” he said, “calls for new
> thinking about limits on freedom of speech.”

This seems to me like the keystone of the argument, and I'm fairly sure a good
bout of research into anarchist and communist terrorism/propaganda around the
turn of the 20th century would show it false.

~~~
reverius42
If we, as a society, believe it is possible for an _idea_ to be dangerous --
not a person, nor a thing, but an _idea_ -- then we have already lost the
purpose of the right that the First Amendment is supposed to protect.

~~~
alexbecker
I think most people agree that an idea can be dangerous. As I understand it,
the first amendment exists because we believe that this danger is outweighed
by the dangers of censorship and the benefits of the marketplace of ideas.

~~~
jon_richards
And ideas are bulletproof.

~~~
busterarm
That's exactly it though.

We defend against dangerous ideas by dragging them out into the light of day
and examining them.

Sticking them underground does the exactly opposite of that.

------
gregatragenet3
Since 2001 more more people have died on US soil from toppling vending
machines than from terrorist attacks.. Yet we are constantly told we need to
scrap the entire bill of rights to stay safe. It's ridiculous. Who does this
serve?

~~~
lfam
Do you have a citation for this? I'd love to share it with a friend of mine
who is afraid of being a victim of terrorism in the US.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Detailed data is here:

[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf)

I'm guessing terrorism is under one of the homicides. On most years, slips in
bathtubs and bee stings kill more people than terrorists. Drowning, motor
vehicles, chemical poisoning, half the crap in the grocery store, too much
drugs/surgery... all sorts of things Americans aren't asking for censorship or
intervention for that are what kill them en masse.

Terrorism? That just kills freedom when we pass laws to stop it. Just as it's
partly intended to. ;)

~~~
joesmo
"Terrorism? That just kills freedom when we pass laws to stop it. Just as it's
partly intended to."

So true. I don't think even bin Laden himself could have dreamt of the amount
of damage we would do to ourselves here in the US as a result of his attacks.
The self-induced aftermath is worse than the actual carnage of the attacks
themselves and seemingly has no end in sight. Just as it was intended to, but
on a whole other, much larger scale, no doubt.

~~~
nickpsecurity
What's bad is that it was predicted, albeit more severely, in a movie about
terrorism called The Siege. Starred Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis. Had
attacks, the cell model of operation, the cops (Denzel) unable to do stuff,
and the military (Bruce) called in to declare martial law. Some of the stuff
Denzel said in the movie apply to America today. I highly recommend it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzLQOc-B0Ys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzLQOc-B0Ys)

Note: Key difference is America became both a surveillance state and a dual
state. Dual state is when two governments, public and secret, operate in
parallel with one able to bend/break rules to hit certain targets. This model
is less likely to cause a revolution given most people never see the other
side of things.

------
rsync
"His proposal would make it illegal to go onto websites that glorify the
Islamic State or support its recruitment, or to distribute links to such
sites. He would impose graduated penalties, starting with a warning letter,
then fines or prison for repeat offenders, to convey that “looking at ISIS-
related websites, like looking at websites that display child pornography, is
strictly forbidden.”"

Christ, what an asshole.

~~~
s_q_b
This is terrifying.

Eric Posner, quoted in the article, isn't some far right nutjob. He's a well
respected law professor, son of the famous Judge Richard Posner (7th Cir.),
and one of the most cited legal scholars in the country.

I'm not one to sound the alarm, but I'm actually worried about the First
Amendment for the first time in my life.

~~~
busterarm
And for the former ombudsman of NPR thought that blasphemy should not be
constitutionally protected free speech.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2015/02/11/outgoing-npr-ombudsman-seems-to-have-some-words-in-
favor-of-restricting-blasphemy/)

------
nickbauman
A similar thread ties the San Bernardino shooters, the Paris attacks of a few
months ago and the Charlie Hebdo shooters and many others. The attackers
weren't known as being particularly devout, but they weren't known for having
much of a life outside the Jihadi cause.

By the time an impressionable, disheartened recruit is on the Internet looking
for violent hate speech to adopt, many things have already failed socially for
them: a real sense of belonging, dignified prospects, hope for a future, a
nurturing, generative ethos, a stable family. They are a socially shattered
coterie. Jihad gave them a sense of significance they never had but always
wanted.

People underestimate a preference to die on one's feet over living on one's
knees. Not to mention fighting for a cause larger than oneself, right or
wrong.

------
ilamont
Because a direct challenge to Constitutionally protected speech is unlikely, I
predict the Communications Decency Act from the 1990s -- specifically, Section
230 which protects web services from many liability claims associated with
comments posted by users (1) -- could be targeted for repeal or a major
rewriting.

1\. [http://technology.findlaw.com/modern-law-
practice/understand...](http://technology.findlaw.com/modern-law-
practice/understanding-the-legal-issues-for-social-networking-sites-and.html)

------
comex
As if marking a certain brand of speech as forbidden, without being able to do
more than a tiny smidgen to actually prevent its dissemination (as must be the
case given the unfiltered nature of our Internet - unlike in the past with
paper materials, not that censorship worked out so well then either), would
reduce its effectiveness on vulnerable young people questioning their
worldviews, as opposed to making it seem more attractive!

~~~
meowface
Yeah, that's the biggest problem here. Taking down a lecture from a Muslim
extremist isn't going to somehow dissuade a young, easily-influenced person
from looking for it. They're going to want to learn what "the government
doesn't want you to see!", and will find the video through different means.

Maybe Youtube should instead modify those videos to still show them, but also
provide some kind of pop-up or page inject with links to counter-arguments.
This is still invasive, but a lot more reasonable, I think. When something has
strong potential to turn some people into mass murderers, I think it's okay to
be a little invasive.

~~~
gizmo686
Youtube already shows you related videos, and on the home page suggests videos
based on your viewing history. It would not be difficult to modify those
algorithms to attempt to suggest videos with the intent of influences the
viewers belief (as opposed to maximizing their time on the site). Similarly,
Google can do this with their main search engine as well. Of course, when
thought about in the abstract, this seems highly distopian, but the time
maximizing goal also has political effects (namely, the "search bubble" and
radicalization).

~~~
meowface
It does feel a bit dystopian, but it's not trying to prevent supposed societal
"ills" like "the gays" or "socialism". Violent terrorism and extremism are
real global ills and negatively impact every society.

Calls for violence aren't considered valid free speech and can be directly
banned. Calls for things that can eventually lead to violence are a much
murkier area. They shouldn't be outright banned, but they should be mitigated.

~~~
LyndsySimon
> Violent terrorism and extremism are real global ills and negatively impact
> every society.

I strongly disagree, with the inclusion of "extremism" in particular.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, which I think any clear-thinking person would
identify as an extreme ideology. Do you wish to silence me? Is my telling
people that they should engage in voluntary association and reject the
initiation of force a "real global ill"?

To put it another way, in the words of Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in the
defense of liberty is no vice."

~~~
meowface
Maybe extremism wasn't the right word.

In this case, I meant extremist Islamic fundamentalism.

------
jakeogh
tl;dr The pinnacle of establishment propaganda suggests we should continue to
pretend we can trade freedom for safety.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM)

------
andrewclunn
Would banning known venues for such communication make it go away? No, it
would just make it harder to track. So many officials wanting to appear like
they're doing something, but it's all security theater. Now taking it to the
point of directly attacking the first Amendment? Scary times.

~~~
patrickaljord
Scarier than you think. Many of these these proposals have already made it in
Europe. It may come to the US too in the future given Millennials support for
these kinds of measures:

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-
millen...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-
ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/)

~~~
meowface
There's still a _huge_ difference between a proposal to ban racist speech, and
a proposal to ban videos preaching Islamic extremism. The latter is a lot more
likely to lead to physical harm and death.

~~~
patrickaljord
Depends, what's the likelihood of dying from a racist assault compared to a
terrorist assault? And how do you measure the effect racist and terrorist
speech has on these assaults? And who decides for us what's ok to watch and
what's not? And once you decide it's ok to censor, well, we all know where
that leads.

~~~
meowface
>Depends, what's the likelihood of dying from a racist assault compared to a
terrorist assault?

I think both are incredibly low odds, but globally, the chance of dying in a
terrorist assault is probably higher. Most racist media does not advocate
violence or death towards minorities; just discrimination and isolation,
typically.

For example, probably one of the most popular racist websites out there is
[http://www.dailystormer.com](http://www.dailystormer.com), and they have a
large disclaimer:

>We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution
through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the
people, systemic change will be inevitable and unavoidable. Anyone suggesting
or promoting violence in the comments section will be immediately banned,
permanently.

You can find similar disclaimers on websites like Stormfront.

But lectures from people like al-Awlaki? They're both more powerful messages,
because they're objective directives ("God DEMANDS you do this"), and directly
call for violence towards non-Muslims.

I think both send awful messages, but the latter is worse for society in
general.

~~~
DanBC
> globally

Sure, globally that's probably true. It's a bit more complicated because some
of the terrorist groups are openly racist.

> You can find similar disclaimers on websites like Stormfront.

That's partly because of the years of right wing terrorism happening in the
brought considerable attention to sites like Stormfront.

When you have the FBI listing your members on the top-ten list you either put
up warnings or go underground.

But even so,

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)#Controver...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_\(website\)#Controversies)

> According to a 2014 two-year study by the Southern Poverty Law Center
> (SPLC)'s Intelligence Report, registered Stormfront users have been
> disproportionately responsible for some of the most lethal hate crimes and
> mass killings since the site was put up in 1995. In the five years leading
> up to 2014, Stormfront members murdered nearly 100 people.[23][24][25][26]
> Of these, 77 were massacred by one Stormfront user, Anders Breivik, a
> Norwegian terrorist who perpetrated the 2011 Norway attacks.[27]

It seems the disclaimer doesn't do much.

~~~
meowface
That's fair. Racist attacks are definitely a big problem. But these are racist
members of racist websites mostly acting of their own initiative, and not
reading violent instructions or declarations from the website. In contrast,
Islamic extremist websites do specifically tell people to kill people. That's
why censorship of those resources could be a bit more justified.

------
delinka
Why aren't we teaching our children the responsibilities of freedom instead of
attempting to take freedom away?

------
vannevar
The only thing historically unique about ISIS is the historical overreaction
to it. Posner's absurd histrionics are a case in point.

------
brandonmenc
The Founders could not have imagined the internet, so I'm not sure how the 1st
Amendment even applies to it.

/sarc

~~~
LyndsySimon
Sarcasm or not, that's effectively the argument that's being presented here.

------
mrbill
This article apparently presumes that the US "owns" the Internet and that laws
passed here apply to people in other countries...

As much as I despise Daesh, this is not the right way to do things.

------
sitkack
Don't bury the ISIS message, we should give them 10 minutes a day on VoA at
least. I watched the 700 club as a kid, the crystal cathedral, what is the
fucking difference?

~~~
panarky
> what is the fucking difference?

Funny, I can't remember Pat Robertson or Robert Schuller putting people in
cages, dousing them with diesel and burning them alive.

~~~
JabavuAdams
Our allies in various counter-insurgencies over the years _have_ done such
things, and many of those wars have been enthusiastically supported by the
religious right.

~~~
JabavuAdams
Since this is a technical site, let me point out that if you're down-voting
this because you believe that neither we nor our allies have done such things,
then you need educate yourself on the modern history and conduct of warfare
and counter-insurgency. If this strikes you as an outrageous claim, then your
model of the world and of how we wage war is just wrong.

If you're down-voting for other reasons, well, have at it.

~~~
sitkack
Jabavu, we are now friends.

------
Chirael
Reminds me of Gaiman's "Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech"
[http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-
of-...](http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-
speech.html)

------
discardorama
Remember, ISIS wouldn't be around if it weren't for the US.

And even as late as 2014, the Saudis prevented the US from attacking ISIS.

So the US helps create ISIS and stands by while it consolidates power ... and
_I_ am supposed to pay for it with my First Amendment?!?

------
sharemywin
I'd like to see the constitutional amendment that would get written. If
written in general it could probably be used to throw most of the politicians
in jail. Wouldn't advocacy for gun laws be generally inciting violence, how
about violent video games? Wouldn't calling for going to war be considered
generally inciting violence? The bible talks a lot about violence should it be
outlawed?

------
busterarm
Related reading: Mike Hume's Trigger Warning.
[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trigger-Warning-Offensive-Killing-
Sp...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trigger-Warning-Offensive-Killing-Speech-
ebook/dp/B00QPTAUBE)

I'm actually in the middle of reading it now.

------
staunch
If ISIS didn't exist, some government agency would have to create it.

------
JabavuAdams
Why are Americans so afraid? You are the most powerful nation in the history
of the planet. You routinely bend the rest of the world to your will. Your
military kills civilians with relative impunity.

What are you so afraid of? Just chill the fuck out, m'kay?

