5 ms·

By the time the United States Senate held its "Jihad 2.0" hearing in 2015 [1], social media companies were already working to prevent ISIS and other terrorist g

By the time the United States Senate held its "Jihad 2.0" hearing in 2015 [1], social media companies were already working to prevent ISIS and other terrorist groups from spreading their messages or media. If there was any pressure from government and the general public, it was to the effect that social media companies weren't censorious enough regarding this sort of content. I personally fall on the "maximal free speech" side of preferences. If an ISIS video isn't calling for imminent lawless action [2], then I don't want YouTube deleting it. But I don't think that YouTube should be legally required to keep hosting an ISIS video that is technically legal under the First Amendment, and I also understand that my preference is unpopular. I'd be surprised if more than 10% of Americans agreed with me when I say that an ISIS member should be able to publish repugnant, bigoted, propagandistic, even violent videos so long as those videos are legal under First Amendment standards. I personally want minimal filtering on this sort of content because: 1) I'm in no danger of actually being recruited to a terrorist cause. 2) Primary sources, like combat videos from the Syrian civil war (including propaganda videos that compile such clips) can provide more information about ongoing conflicts, combatants, and world events than general purpose news outlets can provide. I think that most people are against dissemination of this sort of content because point 2 is irrelevant to them (they're not news junkies closely following armed conflicts) and, stochastically speaking, a few people who see terrorist propaganda videos will be persuaded to take up terror. Or maybe it's even less calculating: the reasoning could be as simple as "ISIS has a disgusting ideology, and disgusting ideologies shouldn't get free speech considerations." The extreme breadth of speech protected under the First Amendment is more than what the median American wants protected, and spans more than what social media companies want to provide hosting for. High minded commitments to free speech like news outlets publishing a letter by Osama bin Laden in 2002 [3] are more notable for their rarity than for exemplifying a general standard of the time. [1] https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/jihad-20-social-media-in-the-next-evolution-of-terrorist-recruitment/ https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/jihad-20-social-media-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_American_People https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_American_People

jcranmer 3y ago
> I personally fall on the "maximal free speech" side of preferences. If an ISIS video isn't calling for imminent lawless action [2], then I don't want YouTube deleting it. An online video is almost by definition incapable of being incitement to imminent lawless action. The threshold for this magic phrase is roughly along the lines of leading a mob and saying "there is <member of outgroup>, lynch them." Pretty much anything short of that is constitutionally-protected free speech under the First Amendment, and it's virtually impossible for an internet video to be sufficiently imminent for the purposes of incitement to imminent lawless action.
- philipkglass 3y ago
  Interesting, I didn't realize that the "imminent" component disqualified recordings. I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as you hear the message would count. Something like "Here's the home address of a Senator who called for military action against the Islamic State -- go burn his house down now!"
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    > I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as you hear the message would count. That is almost literally the opposite of what Brandenburg v Ohio held! (Many people tend to do this: they assume that the phraseology is meant to limit speech along the lines of Schenck v US or Whitney v California, what is now known as the "clear and present danger" standard, which is what Brandenburg v Ohio was explicitly overturning.) Brandenburg v Ohio held that advocating violent overthrow of the government is free speech, but you need the very direct link between the speech and the illegal actions for the speech to become illegal. The emphasis in "incitement to imminent lawless action" of Brandenburg is meant to be "imminent", and later court cases have generally held that "imminent" is meant to be read in very short timespans.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> stochastically speaking, a few people who see terrorist propaganda videos will be persuaded to take up terror Empirically speaking, we saw more than a few of these people on January 6th.

jcranmer 3y ago

> I personally fall on the "maximal free speech" side of preferences. If an ISIS video isn't calling for imminent lawless action [2], then I don't want YouTube deleting it. An online video is almost by definition incapable of being incitement to imminent lawless action. The threshold for this magic phrase is roughly along the lines of leading a mob and saying "there is <member of outgroup>, lynch them." Pretty much anything short of that is constitutionally-protected free speech under the First Amendment, and it's virtually impossible for an internet video to be sufficiently imminent for the purposes of incitement to imminent lawless action.

philipkglass 3y ago
Interesting, I didn't realize that the "imminent" component disqualified recordings. I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as you hear the message would count. Something like "Here's the home address of a Senator who called for military action against the Islamic State -- go burn his house down now!"
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as you hear the message would count. That is almost literally the opposite of what Brandenburg v Ohio held! (Many people tend to do this: they assume that the phraseology is meant to limit speech along the lines of Schenck v US or Whitney v California, what is now known as the "clear and present danger" standard, which is what Brandenburg v Ohio was explicitly overturning.) Brandenburg v Ohio held that advocating violent overthrow of the government is free speech, but you need the very direct link between the speech and the illegal actions for the speech to become illegal. The emphasis in "incitement to imminent lawless action" of Brandenburg is meant to be "imminent", and later court cases have generally held that "imminent" is meant to be read in very short timespans.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

> stochastically speaking, a few people who see terrorist propaganda videos will be persuaded to take up terror Empirically speaking, we saw more than a few of these people on January 6th.