Legal Internet Use by Terrorists

Your'e right, I don't think I was very clear on the line I drew.

I think the line should be drawn where the content actually causes or creates imminent physical violence (as opposed to simply depicting it). It would be very difficult to meet this standard--it would have to be something on the magnitude of outright instruction. For instance, if a terrorist organization were to post a call for its followers to riot at a particular time on a particular street or to assassinate a certain official, we should be able to take that down. I would take this even farther to say that even if the message were hidden--e.g. if the content was ostensibly innocuous, but the government had really good reason to believe it was some kind of "trigger" for a coordinated attack, we should also be able to take that down. On the other hand, if they say that America is bad or simply depict violent actions, I might dislike them, but I do not think that it should be taken down.

YouTube? 's own community standard is much stricter than mine, but I agree with their filtering based on CONTENT rather than by USER.

I'll clear this up in my rewrite. Thanks for the comment!

-- StevenHwang - 06 Dec 2008