
ISIS Gives Us No Choice but to Consider Limits on Speech - patcheudor
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2015/12/isis_s_online_radicalization_efforts_present_an_unprecedented_danger.single.html
======
bediger4000
Why should I be punished for what someone else (ISIS) might be doing, or might
have done? That's bullshit. You're using claims of another human's misbehavior
to punish the wrong people. Fuck you.

~~~
patcheudor
On the surface it's a horrible proposal with massive free speech and technical
implementation implications. In fact, the first thing I thought of was:
"ISISrolling" where people are tricked into visiting ISIS websites in iFrames
and what-not in order to set them up for a visit by the police. However, as I
thought about it more something struck me. We already have such laws on the
books for child pornography.

~~~
jgeorge
Oh, I hesitate to get into this discussion but... :-)

Almost by definition though child pornography requires the exploitation of
someone who can't consent to it - that's really the crux of the illegal part
(the non-consentuality), not the pornography part. Once the participants are
of consentual age, the pornography part is completely legal.

[Yes, I know there are issues surrounding drawn/animated images of children,
and of-age adults portraying themselves as children, but the point I'm trying
to make is geared toward the free speech issues WRT ISIS and not the flaming
hairball that is pornography law.]

What bothers me most about this article is the completely serious tone in
which Slate decides that we're so afraid of a foreign enemy attacking us that
it's only natural for us to seriously consider dismantling the very foundation
of what these enemies hate about us. Think ISIS is a big supporter of free
expression? Of course not. Think that governmental limitation of freedom of
speech, assembly, religion, etc., is something that ISIS would like to have in
their own little Sharia world? They do indeed, and demonstrate that interest
often and in brutally medieval ways.

The answer to "our enemy hates us because of the freedoms we have" is NOT
"...so we should give up those freedoms", the answer is that we should
exercise those freedoms MORE. Free speech? Tell the world what you think of
ISIS. Why hide it? Religious freedom? Pick a deity and pray to one, just for
the heck of it. Pick a different one every week, not because you believe in
anything those deities stand for, but because you can do so without
persecution. Make macaroni art of Buddha, invite Robert Mappelthorpe to
fingerpaint Jesus on the side of your home. Go nuts. Do it because you CAN,
and because ISIS doesn't WANT you to.

Why we feel the need to placate ISIS is beyond me - what do they stand for
that makes so many of us collectively want to prostrate ourselves in front of
them, so as to not hurt their feelings?

If they attack us, but we've been sensitive to their beliefs and have given up
chunks of our own freedoms to try to placate them, what do you think will
happen? Maybe they'll let us all off by only killing us a little bit?

I really hope Slate is trolling us all and will laugh at people like me who
take them seriously - enough of the "news" nowadays is some sort of trolling
that it may actually be the case. But judging from Slate's typical slant, I
don't think they're trolling.

