-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Justice Department going after anyone who supports ISIS on Twitter/FB/social media
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
I love these threads. You always find which users are for US-style freedom of speech or European-style freedom of speech.
Maintenance
Member
Not you, sorry. I added your comment because it deserved to be shown with the other one.
Kitschkraft
Member
I don't like this.
Barajas_201
Member
This was the first thing that came to mind. I feel disappointed in some gaffers for supporting this without even giving it a little thought.
This also reminds me of PSYCHO-PASS.
Yeah I don't like this either. Free speech should be free, even when you don't agree with it.
Give me a list of what should be illegal to say. Can I support once violent groups that are no longer violent? Can I support violent groups the US government doesn't give a shit about? Should it be illegal to say ISIS is awesome out loud, or only if you type it on the internet?
This is wrong.
The Justice Department's argument hinges on the idea that their messages are terrorism. Reporting what already happened isn't terrorism. Making threats that you will harm others is terrorism. Being the actors who carried out the actions being discussed is terrorism.
The Justice Department doesn't need to protect us from non-threatening messages. We can stand up for ourselves and criticize those who express support for ISIS actions.
That is what we should be doing and the Justice Department should be investigating them to see if they intend to do more than talking. They shouldn't arrest anyone for only being an asshole.
The Justice Department's argument hinges on the idea that their messages are terrorism. Reporting what already happened isn't terrorism. Making threats that you will harm others is terrorism. Being the actors who carried out the actions being discussed is terrorism.
The Justice Department doesn't need to protect us from non-threatening messages. We can stand up for ourselves and criticize those who express support for ISIS actions.
That is what we should be doing and the Justice Department should be investigating them to see if they intend to do more than talking. They shouldn't arrest anyone for only being an asshole.
Yaphett Kotto
Member
Yep. First thought that came to mind when the first few posts supported this when this never worked in the past; just more people wrongly accused or upset because the government is actively invading the hell out of their privacy.
Put these suspected people on watch lists and further questioning if sources match up, but there shouldn't be jail time or anyone going through through someone's privacy because they are likely supporting a terrorist group.
People need to stop getting to caught up in who we are fighting and what disgusting things they do to justify shit like this. This is not how you stop threats.
Yaphett Kotto
Member
The "you can't yell 'fire!'" argument doesn't help here either.
In those situations, you can possibly get someone injured or even killed if you were to yell that because of the panic. That is why arrests are made in those scenarios.
Some Twitter post of someone being a dick and saying how they like that ISIS is killing Christians isn't doing anything and the action (or at least, I guess, recommended) the government should do if someone makes a post like that is to keep a lookout on them.
In those situations, you can possibly get someone injured or even killed if you were to yell that because of the panic. That is why arrests are made in those scenarios.
Some Twitter post of someone being a dick and saying how they like that ISIS is killing Christians isn't doing anything and the action (or at least, I guess, recommended) the government should do if someone makes a post like that is to keep a lookout on them.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Why can't you shout fire in a crowded theatre? Because it's a safety hazard. Because people could be immediately hurt, things could be damaged, etc, in the ensuing panic.
Is someone posting "Go ISIS!" or whatever a safety hazard?
Yup. Part of the genius of free speech is that it allows us to know exactly who to watch out for. I for one think letting these dickheads out themselves is hugely beneficial to stopping them in the future.
HeartlessNobody213
Member
Not a fan of this myself, at first I was a little surprised by all the good responses but after thinking it over I'm actually not.
Personally speaking ISIS are horrible, but I consider them the least of my worries and really only hear about them when I browse GAF. That's maybe because I don't have cable though.
Personally speaking ISIS are horrible, but I consider them the least of my worries and really only hear about them when I browse GAF. That's maybe because I don't have cable though.
Phrozenflame500
Member
Conflicted about this. If somebody directly threatens to kill somebody? Yeah, that's tots illegal and I'm ok with legal action against them regardless of intent.
But advocating a group, even one as disgusting and cowardly as the Daesh? They should be socially shunned and mocked, but not prosecuted. That's not the law's job.
But advocating a group, even one as disgusting and cowardly as the Daesh? They should be socially shunned and mocked, but not prosecuted. That's not the law's job.
Spaced Harrier
Member
Defending the right of people to say things you like is not defending the right to free speech.
Free speech is unequivocal and inherent as part of the human condition. It transcends man made laws.
Free speech is unequivocal and inherent as part of the human condition. It transcends man made laws.
Dude Abides
Banned
How not?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Is this entire thread debating and yelling at people for not supporting/being concerned at a policy that isn't policy?
People are arguing it seems because there are no specifics (again because its not policy) so you create what policy you either fear or support.
People are arguing it seems because there are no specifics (again because its not policy) so you create what policy you either fear or support.
Not really.
'Could' is an important part of that. Shouting fire could do nothing. Why are you for restricting people's freedoms when it's likely to cause no harm at all? While social media support for ISIS definitely did encourage three 15 year old girls to leave the UK in order to join ISIS in Syria. You think they could be hurt?
If I were to say that I support ISIS, that should not be punishable. Yeah, those that do suck, but they aren't being an immediate threat to anyone.
AzureSkies
Member
I would like to complain, but spreading this hatespeech deserves punishment
timetokill
Banned
Yeah, this is a terrible precedent and a seriously disturbing constitutional issue.
Luckily we have a dude who taught constitutional law with a fantastic civil rights record in the oval office.... err, right guys?
Luckily we have a dude who taught constitutional law with a fantastic civil rights record in the oval office.... err, right guys?
He orders extrajudicial killings. Don't bet on it.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
This was the first thing that came to mind. I feel disappointed in some gaffers for supporting this without even giving it a little thought.This also reminds me of PSYCHO-PASS.
I'm sorry but Benj was a moron in that regard. Let's have no security and completely liberty, that'll work out for everyone.
The bigger a society gets, the more restraints it needs lest it falls into chaos.
If I go to a public place and try to recruit people to go kill black people, I will be arrested. Spreading ISIS recruitment propaganda will be treated as such. ISIS membership isnt something you sign a contract for, get a regular paycheck. Its buying into an idea, which anyone is free to do.
How so? Everyone in that thread was making fun of ISIS, not spreading propaganda. It is pretty obvious from the videos
It is useful if you're an expert on the constitution if you need to figure out how to violate it legally.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Nope.
If they want the spreading of ISIS speech to stop on western social media services, put the pressure on the social media companies to more actively policing such comments and accounts. Ban those accounts on FB, Twitter and whatever else. Incentivize these companies to do so if need be. Using those services is a privelidge, not a right. Prosecute only those making clear threats or clearly attempting to recruit.
If they want the spreading of ISIS speech to stop on western social media services, put the pressure on the social media companies to more actively policing such comments and accounts. Ban those accounts on FB, Twitter and whatever else. Incentivize these companies to do so if need be. Using those services is a privelidge, not a right. Prosecute only those making clear threats or clearly attempting to recruit.
so everybody is chiming in and taking sides. I am curious, to those who think this is dangerous and shouldnt be done, i have a question..... How do you stop this? not sure all understand the full implications of what is happening in the middle east and where it can lead. We should let these people recruit and propagate their bs on tiwtter fb etc?? they have carte blanche??
speculawyer
Member
Definitely a tricky area but I think the point is to prosecute them for providing support to terrorists. If you let a couple ISIS guy crash at your house knowing they are going to commit a terrorist attack, that is illegal. So if you edit video and host their propaganda. . . You are supporting them, not just speaking. It's a fine line between the two but I think the courts may figure it out.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Yeah, we certainly need to approach this with caution.
If approached with level-heads it should be ok. My issue is, Islamophobia may cast too wide a net.
The Sarcastic Dude
Banned
Absolutely disagree with this. You should not be thrown in prison just for saying or supporting something.l
ISIS recruiters aren't nearly as threatening as government slowly taking away our rights.
Yaphett Kotto
Member
Dream had a good point outside of the government actively stopping this with investigations or snooping around.
but you have no proofs that the gov is trying to take away your rights...this is ' the gov wants to control us mindless robots ' rethoric is based on half truths....and that brings me back full circle, with the us gov (im canadian btw and not a fan of all the us gov decision), its always damned if you do and damned if you dont. There just is no winning.
mmazurkiewicz
Member
You don't think supporters of Isis are a possible threat?
And the government isnt taking away from us. They're taking away from bad people as they've always done.
Isis beheads and burns alive innocent people but we got intellectuals in here fighting in support of Isis supporters. Great minds.
CrunchyFrog
Member
The thing is though legal prohibition of things like hate speech is already a thing, whether we like it or not. Speech itself has been legally curtailed before, though in most instances its under very specific circumstances, such as this one.
I have a feeling this is likely the only route they could go without it seeming like an overreach. Production or distribution of pro-ISIS media. Though one has to wonder then doesn't this mean Twitter/FB et al have to immediately take down any and all ISIS related propaganda that they're aware of? Or is the govt treating these companies as merely neutral platforms for communication and under no liability for content?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Good thing he wasn't talking about what people asume he was talking about. It had nothing to do with civil liberties (how the term is used now)
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/
I'm sure it's hard for you to understand, but it takes a hell of a lot of discipline to support a person's right to free speech, including bigots/idiots.
The KKK have beheaded, lynched, and burn a hell of a lot of people alive, should we jail anyone who openly support them?
Seems like it fits in the fire in a crowded theater exception. But also seems like it could be abused.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
I don't think someone should be arrested for sharing propaganda. Determining if it threatens or incites violence is a slippery slope. I wouldn't say a beheading video does, unless it's calling for people to do the same.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked