| | |
|
StevenHwangPaper1 14 - 09 Feb 2009 - Main.StevenHwang
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Legal Internet Use by Terrorists
 | | | In a recent microcosm of the issue, Senator Joe Lieberman demanded that YouTube remove all videos from identified terrorist organizations. YouTube responded by only removing those that were violent enough to violate its own community standards while defending the organizations’ right to post legal nonviolent material as well as the total benefit to society from a diverse range of views. | |
<
< | I tend to agree with YouTube’s approach--filtering by content rather than by user--and believe that content should only be regulated where there is violence, or the imminent threat of some kind of violence in relation to that content. | >
> | I tend to agree with YouTube’s approach--filtering by content rather than by user--and believe that content should only be regulated where there is violence, or the imminent threat of some kind of violence in relation to that content. This is an extremely narrow standard, and I do not believe there has been a clear example of when this would have been allowed in recent history. A hypothetical example of something I would block is if the Department of Defense had clear intelligence that a certain terrorist strike would be triggered by the appearance of certain text on a website. Content alone would rarely if never fulfill the standard--even if the text stated "ATTACK NOW!" this does not mean that we have the requisite intelligence to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact it is a trigger for a real attack. | | | First, when it comes to criminal and terrorist activity, we should regulate the violence they may use to achieve their goals, rather than their beliefs alone. We do not fear people for what they believe or desire; we fear what they might do to us to achieve their goals.
Second, a line drawn too far would simply do more harm than good for national security. Regardless of intent, prohibiting even peaceful communications amounts to outright censorship, which would only strengthen the resolve and hatred of terrorists and their potential supporters. Also, the automated and decentralized nature of the internet would turn most efforts at regulation into a futile game of Whac-A-Mole, with new sites popping up every time another is quashed. Any gain in security achieved by such measures would likely be far outweighed by the sympathy and support terrorists would receive as a result of such censorship. | |
<
< | Finally, I believe the freedom and neutrality that the internet represents is something worth protecting. In many ways it is a technological embodiment of democratic and free-speech ideals, right now allowing me to publish my uncensored thoughts for the whole world to see, regardless of who I am and what I believe. Also, technologically, any filtering methods that successfully block all content from certain would have to be extremely invasive and likely overbroad (given the “Whac-A-Mole” problem stated above). And at the end of the day, the internet would be subject to the discretion of an unelected and largely unregulated body of decisionmakers. | >
> | Third, I believe the freedom and neutrality that the internet represents is something worth protecting. In many ways it is a technological embodiment of democratic and free-speech ideals, right now allowing me to publish my uncensored thoughts for the whole world to see, regardless of who I am and what I believe. Also, technologically, any filtering methods that successfully block all content from certain would have to be extremely invasive and likely overbroad (given the “Whac-A-Mole” problem stated above). And at the end of the day, the internet would be subject to the discretion of an unelected and largely unregulated body of decisionmakers.
Finally, from a constitutional standpoint, such a line does not tread very much on First Amendment free speech. In fact, it requires positive intelligence that the main if not sole intent of the blocked "speech" be a mechanism, rather than the expression of a personal belief or opinion. This type of speech is far from the core of what the constitution attempts to protect. The terrorists may use numbers or random coded symbols to achieve the same goal; any "speech-like" characteristics are a subordinate if not irrelevant purpose of the speech in question. Given (a) that the number of cases of blockable speech would be extremely minimal (if not zero), (b) that the speech itself would not be for the purpose of expressing opinions or ideas, and (c) that there blocking it with the requisite intelligence may help prevent serious harm and death to many citizens, I believe this extremely narrow standard falls far from the core protections of the First Amendment. | | | National security is and should remain a top priority of our nation. However, any line drawn beyond violent content or imminent attack would not only be futile, but actually detrimental to both our security and the principles we’ve fought for since the inception of our country. | | |
- So after you finish advocating military censorship of websites, are we going to discuss the United States Constitution eventually?
| |
>
> |
I have edited my paper to include some of the discussion in the comments as well as a brief discussion of the First Amendment.
-- StevenHwang - 09 Feb 2009 | | |
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="610x.jpg" attr="h" comment="" date="1227005072" name="610x.jpg" path="610x.jpg" size="39117" stream="610x.jpg" user="Main.StevenHwang" version="1" |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |