5 ms·

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

by 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.

by dpc59 10y ago

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.