5 ms·
> “Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effectiv
by unimpressive 11y ago
> “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.
- soared 11y agoAlso I'm not sure the logic is totally sound. Is it really the propaganda and spreading of ideas that lead to terrorists attacks, or the other way around?
- reverius42 11y agoIf 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 11y agoI 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.
- reverius42 11y agoFair enough. Danger is a spectrum, not binary. I agree, a more nuanced view is that we (should?) view censorship as more dangerous than open communication of dangerous ideas. Or at least that's my understanding of why we have a First Amendment in the first place.
- jon_richards 11y agoAnd ideas are bulletproof.
- busterarm 11y agoThat'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.
- meowface 11y agoWhat about someone preaching "kill all black people, kill them in the streets and their homes"? This is an idea, and a potentially dangerous one. The right to free speech does not apply to all possible kinds of speech. Of course racist language should not be illegal. But violent-inciting racist language should be. Anti-Christian or anti-Western language should not be illegal, but language recommending non-Muslims should die is illegal. And many of these websites and lectures promote killing of non-Muslim civilians.
- wnoise 11y agoCurrent law (as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court) allows even for calling for the murder of people, as long as it is not "imminent". Saying that group X should be killed in general at some indefinite time in the future is perfectly legal, but saying "hey, we need to kill this guy right here in front of us, right now" is not.