3 ms·
And clearly the best way to win the information war against an adversary who says we've traded away our values for comfort, riches, and decadence is to throw aw
by mapgrep 11y ago
And clearly the best way to win the information war against an adversary who says we've traded away our values for comfort, riches, and decadence is to throw away the First Amendment because "propaganda works."
Keep in mind, we're not just talking about accounts used by actual terrorists to coordinate actual attacks. We're talking about "pro-ISIS" Twitter accounts.
How will we decide who is pro-ISIS? I propose a system of hearings, with the most important ones conducted by a senate committee. The most important question at these hearings will be "are you now or have ever been a sympathizer with Islamic State." If they "fail" the hearing we could put them in some kind of database used by employers and government hiring agents and so forth. A sort of blacklist, if you will.
And anyone on the blacklist doesn't get to use corporate media platforms. It's not a First Amendment violation, you see, because it's VOLUNTARY. Just ask these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
- meowface 11y agoCalling for mass murder isn't a valid case of free speech. And even if it were, Twitter can ban accounts for any reason.
- nkassis 11y ago"Calling for mass murder isn't a valid case of free speech." To be pedantic, yes it is, free speech isn't conditional on the message. Your second statement is true, 1st amendment applies only to the government ability to restrict speech.
- meowface 11y agoI should have said "isn't a valid case of legal free speech in the United States".
- arbitrage 11y agoThe first amendment applies to the government, not to private corporations.
- logn 11y agoBut in this case the government is coercing companies, which violates the first amendment. See https://theintercept.com/2015/12/01/court-ruling-against-chicago-sheriff-proves-thuggish-anti-wikileaks-blockade-was-unconstitutional/ https://theintercept.com/2015/12/01/court-ruling-against-chi...
- jcromartie 11y agoTwitter deciding that they don't want ISIS supporters using their application violates nobody's 1st Amendment rights.
- random_rr 11y agoIt was a House committee, not Senate. It's in the name ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_C...
- golergka 11y agoI answered the question "why shut them down, when they provide valuable information". I didn't say that I want all pro-terrorist accounts to be shut down. I only explained the reasons behind it. The fact that some position has valid reasons behind it doesn't mean that there aren't reasons against it. It also doesn't mean that it's necessarily the right position. Please, don't argue with a position you assume some commenter expresses and argue with a position someone actually expresses. Case in point: I don't know whether we should or shouldn't close all pro-terrorist accounts. And I know about first amendment, thank you.