5 ms·

What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News I think its pretty simple. If a given group has ever claimed

What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News I think its pretty simple. If a given group has ever claimed responsibility for, expressed the intention to commit, or publicly praised, a terrorist act against civilians, that's an extremist group. Whatever can be done to block their communications with the rest of the world should be done. It's no mystery as to who they are - they're very public about it. The same kind of analysis should be done for individuals that desire to enter the US or non-residents already visiting the US. "Oh, you were on Facebook saying how the guy in Orlando was a hero? Sorry, time to go home."

dpc59 10y ago
People protesting against austerity and gentrification have broken windows of banks and stores. Is this terrorism since in the end civilians own those? If it is where do you draw the line on censorship of the people who want the same things but were never involved in those crimes against property?
- downandout 10y ago
  I consider it terrorism when the intent of the act is to hurt or kill people. I think most people, beyond those being deliberately pedantic, define it the same way.
  - arximboldi 10y ago
    First, that distinction is not so clear for many because the word "terrorism" is constantly banalized by conservative politicians that use it to attack protesters of all kinds. We have seen a lot of this during the last few years, where austerity protesters, mobs preventing unfair evictions, etc. have all been called terrorists by right wing politicians and media. The other problem with your definition is that, while it may help distinguishing terrorist actions from other actions, it does not help drawing the line on what kind of communications "are terrorist" or "promote terrorism" to censor? There are many tricky questions, for example: - Do you censor everything that a terrorist group says, or only whatever explicitly advocates terrorist tactics? - Do you censor sympathizers with the terrorist group? - Do you censor people that share the ideas of the terrorist group? Even if they do not defend them with violence? But what if they do not promote violence but they do not publicly condemn the terrorist group? Etc, etc. As you can see, the question is tricky. In Spain this debate has been alive for years with regards to the basque independentist group ETA. This was often a mess, with even certain independentist newspapers being prohibited at times. Sometimes these actions made ETA recruiting easier indeed--it's easy to argue that violence is your only alternative when your political voice is censored. In most absurd cases, people that are not even independentist or anything alike are being prosecuted for posting jokes involving ETA on Twitter. So, it's not about being pedantic. Discriminating what kind of media promotes terrorism and not is hard. The political implications of censoring are huge, and there can be unintended consequences. It basically means drawing a clear political line on the limits of freedom of speech. I would be afraid if these lines are drawn by private entities, secretly, without a public debate on what is tolerable or not, and with the public not even knowing whether they are being censored or not.
    - downandout 10y ago
      You raise some good points, but again I think most of your concerns can be addressed using generally accepted common sense. Yes, I think that everything that a terror group says should be blocked, and yes I think sympathizers should be treated as members of the group when it comes to communications. Let's also remember that in the context of Google and Facebook, we aren't talking about censorship by the government, or private organizations setting laws that all citizens must abide by. These are private organizations that are free to censor anything they wish, and to define their own terms of service. What they are doing seems to be a socially responsible move. People that are unhappy with these services are free to publish their stuff elsewhere.
      - tdkl 10y ago
        Then those private organisations shouldn't advertise those services as pro free speech when it comes in handy.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    What if civilian populations are explicitly targeted during a war or during the planning for a conflict?
  - chrismcb 10y ago
    Terrorism is about terror and fear, not necessarily hurting and killing.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >People protesting against austerity and gentrification have broken windows of banks and stores. Is this terrorism since in the end civilians own those? No, it's "terrorism" because the purpose of "terrorism" laws is to crush domestic political dissent rather than to actually ward off foreign ideological militants.
kabouseng 10y ago
So as an example, block all content regarding Nelson Mandela. He did authorize the church street bomb[1] and the planting of various landmines on civilian farmers roads. Nelson Mandela and the anc was classified as terrorists by the CIA in the 80s, so also no more entry into the USA for most of the current government of South Africa... [1] http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/ http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-...
jaredklewis 10y ago
What about historic works that advocate such? What about Mein Kampf? Communist Manifesto? Also, the US military claims responsibility for civilian deaths quite often. Are their communications ok? What about communication from North Korean government? Saudi Arabia? My point is that there are a lot of morally repugnant groups around, and I wonder if your filter is fair in application.
- shrugger2 10y ago
  Are you implying that the US military is morally repugnant?
Animats 10y ago
"Or publicly praised" No. After the fact, that's a freedom of speech issue. The US has survived two centuries of people mouthing off. It hasn't been a big problem. Censorship, and punishing people for thoughtcrime, is worse. "Maybe they is not evil. Maybe they is just enemies." - Poul Anderson

dpc59 10y ago

People protesting against austerity and gentrification have broken windows of banks and stores. Is this terrorism since in the end civilians own those? If it is where do you draw the line on censorship of the people who want the same things but were never involved in those crimes against property?

downandout 10y ago
I consider it terrorism when the intent of the act is to hurt or kill people. I think most people, beyond those being deliberately pedantic, define it the same way.
- arximboldi 10y ago
  First, that distinction is not so clear for many because the word "terrorism" is constantly banalized by conservative politicians that use it to attack protesters of all kinds. We have seen a lot of this during the last few years, where austerity protesters, mobs preventing unfair evictions, etc. have all been called terrorists by right wing politicians and media. The other problem with your definition is that, while it may help distinguishing terrorist actions from other actions, it does not help drawing the line on what kind of communications "are terrorist" or "promote terrorism" to censor? There are many tricky questions, for example: - Do you censor everything that a terrorist group says, or only whatever explicitly advocates terrorist tactics? - Do you censor sympathizers with the terrorist group? - Do you censor people that share the ideas of the terrorist group? Even if they do not defend them with violence? But what if they do not promote violence but they do not publicly condemn the terrorist group? Etc, etc. As you can see, the question is tricky. In Spain this debate has been alive for years with regards to the basque independentist group ETA. This was often a mess, with even certain independentist newspapers being prohibited at times. Sometimes these actions made ETA recruiting easier indeed--it's easy to argue that violence is your only alternative when your political voice is censored. In most absurd cases, people that are not even independentist or anything alike are being prosecuted for posting jokes involving ETA on Twitter. So, it's not about being pedantic. Discriminating what kind of media promotes terrorism and not is hard. The political implications of censoring are huge, and there can be unintended consequences. It basically means drawing a clear political line on the limits of freedom of speech. I would be afraid if these lines are drawn by private entities, secretly, without a public debate on what is tolerable or not, and with the public not even knowing whether they are being censored or not.
  - downandout 10y ago
    You raise some good points, but again I think most of your concerns can be addressed using generally accepted common sense. Yes, I think that everything that a terror group says should be blocked, and yes I think sympathizers should be treated as members of the group when it comes to communications. Let's also remember that in the context of Google and Facebook, we aren't talking about censorship by the government, or private organizations setting laws that all citizens must abide by. These are private organizations that are free to censor anything they wish, and to define their own terms of service. What they are doing seems to be a socially responsible move. People that are unhappy with these services are free to publish their stuff elsewhere.
    - tdkl 10y ago
      Then those private organisations shouldn't advertise those services as pro free speech when it comes in handy.
- arethuza 10y ago
  What if civilian populations are explicitly targeted during a war or during the planning for a conflict?
- chrismcb 10y ago
  Terrorism is about terror and fear, not necessarily hurting and killing.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>People protesting against austerity and gentrification have broken windows of banks and stores. Is this terrorism since in the end civilians own those? No, it's "terrorism" because the purpose of "terrorism" laws is to crush domestic political dissent rather than to actually ward off foreign ideological militants.

kabouseng 10y ago

So as an example, block all content regarding Nelson Mandela. He did authorize the church street bomb[1] and the planting of various landmines on civilian farmers roads. Nelson Mandela and the anc was classified as terrorists by the CIA in the 80s, so also no more entry into the USA for most of the current government of South Africa... [1] http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/ http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-...

jaredklewis 10y ago

What about historic works that advocate such? What about Mein Kampf? Communist Manifesto? Also, the US military claims responsibility for civilian deaths quite often. Are their communications ok? What about communication from North Korean government? Saudi Arabia? My point is that there are a lot of morally repugnant groups around, and I wonder if your filter is fair in application.

shrugger2 10y ago
Are you implying that the US military is morally repugnant?

Animats 10y ago

"Or publicly praised" No. After the fact, that's a freedom of speech issue. The US has survived two centuries of people mouthing off. It hasn't been a big problem. Censorship, and punishing people for thoughtcrime, is worse. "Maybe they is not evil. Maybe they is just enemies." - Poul Anderson