ISIS Influence on Web Prompts Second Thoughts on First Amendment | Hacker News Reader

ISIS Influence on Web Prompts Second Thoughts on First Amendment

nytimes.com

46 pointsilamont64 comments

The US survived the Communist Party of the USA. It survived the German-American Bund and Hitler Youth camps on Long Island. It survived Lindbergh endorsing Hitler. ISIS is a nuisance compared to those.

Here's ISIS's magazine.[1] Read what the other side has to say. Their layout, photography, and typesetting are quite good. That's upsetting some people. Most nut groups can't format a newsletter.

[1] http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-p...

Don't forget the whole eugenics movement. The likes of Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant were very popular in their day, but ultimately subsided and in retrospect are derided. The NSDAP did borrow a lot from them, though - Lindbergh was hardly the only one endorsing Hitler, he was an intellectual featherweight relative to many others.

If WW2 hadn't occurred we would probably have our own n-tier master race at home by now. Obedient, diligent worker drones powering our own corporate fascist ship.

We largely did. The elites just decided it was more profitable to have most of the drones in countries with cheaper labor and looser regulations. ;)

> “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.

Also 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?

If 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.

I 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.

Fair 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.

And ideas are bulletproof.

That'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.

What 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.

Current 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.

Since 2001 more more people have died on US soil from toppling vending machines than from terrorist attacks.. Yet we are constantly told we need to scrap the entire bill of rights to stay safe. It's ridiculous. Who does this serve?

Do you have a citation for this? I'd love to share it with a friend of mine who is afraid of being a victim of terrorism in the US.

The statistic comes from Dr. Cosio, who looked at newspaper reports and talked to emergency room doctors.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don't keep track of vending machine deaths, so we're left with Dr. Cosio's less than perfect methods.

Full paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1602339

http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/08/how-are-sharks-less-dange... might be good?

You could also remind them that ~90 people die every day from car crashes. Each month more people die from car crashes than have died in terrorist attacks on the US.

A similar number of people (to the number that die in car crashes) die from gun violence in the US.

Terrorism should realistically be so far down on someone's lists of cars that they shouldn't be able to justify any ounce of worry on it. Driving more cautiously would be a better use of the anxiety.

Detailed data is here:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

I'm guessing terrorism is under one of the homicides. On most years, slips in bathtubs and bee stings kill more people than terrorists. Drowning, motor vehicles, chemical poisoning, half the crap in the grocery store, too much drugs/surgery... all sorts of things Americans aren't asking for censorship or intervention for that are what kill them en masse.

Terrorism? That just kills freedom when we pass laws to stop it. Just as it's partly intended to. ;)

"Terrorism? That just kills freedom when we pass laws to stop it. Just as it's partly intended to."

So true. I don't think even bin Laden himself could have dreamt of the amount of damage we would do to ourselves here in the US as a result of his attacks. The self-induced aftermath is worse than the actual carnage of the attacks themselves and seemingly has no end in sight. Just as it was intended to, but on a whole other, much larger scale, no doubt.

What's bad is that it was predicted, albeit more severely, in a movie about terrorism called The Siege. Starred Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis. Had attacks, the cell model of operation, the cops (Denzel) unable to do stuff, and the military (Bruce) called in to declare martial law. Some of the stuff Denzel said in the movie apply to America today. I highly recommend it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzLQOc-B0Ys

Note: Key difference is America became both a surveillance state and a dual state. Dual state is when two governments, public and secret, operate in parallel with one able to bend/break rules to hit certain targets. This model is less likely to cause a revolution given most people never see the other side of things.

What about non-Western victims of terrorist attacks?

Then would have to expand the other side of the comparison to include the whole world as well. It would not surprise me if the comparison remained true. There are likely only 5-10 countries in the world where terrorism has killed more people than soda machines falling over: especially with the 2001 date restriction. While there more than 200 countries depending on how you count. Even if you extended it to go back to the 1880s , when the first modern vending machines were used, I would suspect the number of countries where terrorism had killed more people than soda machines, I suspect it would still stand true even though most countries have experienced terrorism during that time. Of course summing that all up would be rather hard / impossible.

The people who get the extra powers, of course; it makes them appear important, and ensures that they keep a steady, large paycheck.

It's basically the Prisoner's Dilemma; they can screw us over for more money, and that aligns with their goals, so they do. The real problem is that, due to the way we vote, we're pretty much only letting people into office if they take the asshole choice in the first place.

"His proposal would make it illegal to go onto websites that glorify the Islamic State or support its recruitment, or to distribute links to such sites. He would impose graduated penalties, starting with a warning letter, then fines or prison for repeat offenders, to convey that “looking at ISIS-related websites, like looking at websites that display child pornography, is strictly forbidden.”"

Christ, what an asshole.

So, if I trick my friend into clicking on the link, they go to jail? What if I'm a college student who wants to research the site? What if I'm just a thorough investigator who wants to read all sides?

What if I'm deeply anti-war and I want to understand the most troubled people in order to reach them and make peace?

Should I go to jail because I navigated to their propaganda site?

How fucking ridiculous.

Mens Rea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

This is terrifying.

Eric Posner, quoted in the article, isn't some far right nutjob. He's a well respected law professor, son of the famous Judge Richard Posner (7th Cir.), and one of the most cited legal scholars in the country.

I'm not one to sound the alarm, but I'm actually worried about the First Amendment for the first time in my life.

And for the former ombudsman of NPR thought that blasphemy should not be constitutionally protected free speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

A similar thread ties the San Bernardino shooters, the Paris attacks of a few months ago and the Charlie Hebdo shooters and many others. The attackers weren't known as being particularly devout, but they weren't known for having much of a life outside the Jihadi cause.

By the time an impressionable, disheartened recruit is on the Internet looking for violent hate speech to adopt, many things have already failed socially for them: a real sense of belonging, dignified prospects, hope for a future, a nurturing, generative ethos, a stable family. They are a socially shattered coterie. Jihad gave them a sense of significance they never had but always wanted.

People underestimate a preference to die on one's feet over living on one's knees. Not to mention fighting for a cause larger than oneself, right or wrong.

Because a direct challenge to Constitutionally protected speech is unlikely, I predict the Communications Decency Act from the 1990s -- specifically, Section 230 which protects web services from many liability claims associated with comments posted by users (1) -- could be targeted for repeal or a major rewriting.

1. http://technology.findlaw.com/modern-law-practice/understand...

As if marking a certain brand of speech as forbidden, without being able to do more than a tiny smidgen to actually prevent its dissemination (as must be the case given the unfiltered nature of our Internet - unlike in the past with paper materials, not that censorship worked out so well then either), would reduce its effectiveness on vulnerable young people questioning their worldviews, as opposed to making it seem more attractive!

Yeah, that's the biggest problem here. Taking down a lecture from a Muslim extremist isn't going to somehow dissuade a young, easily-influenced person from looking for it. They're going to want to learn what "the government doesn't want you to see!", and will find the video through different means.

Maybe Youtube should instead modify those videos to still show them, but also provide some kind of pop-up or page inject with links to counter-arguments. This is still invasive, but a lot more reasonable, I think. When something has strong potential to turn some people into mass murderers, I think it's okay to be a little invasive.

Youtube already shows you related videos, and on the home page suggests videos based on your viewing history. It would not be difficult to modify those algorithms to attempt to suggest videos with the intent of influences the viewers belief (as opposed to maximizing their time on the site). Similarly, Google can do this with their main search engine as well. Of course, when thought about in the abstract, this seems highly distopian, but the time maximizing goal also has political effects (namely, the "search bubble" and radicalization).

It does feel a bit dystopian, but it's not trying to prevent supposed societal "ills" like "the gays" or "socialism". Violent terrorism and extremism are real global ills and negatively impact every society.

Calls for violence aren't considered valid free speech and can be directly banned. Calls for things that can eventually lead to violence are a much murkier area. They shouldn't be outright banned, but they should be mitigated.

> Violent terrorism and extremism are real global ills and negatively impact every society.

I strongly disagree, with the inclusion of "extremism" in particular.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, which I think any clear-thinking person would identify as an extreme ideology. Do you wish to silence me? Is my telling people that they should engage in voluntary association and reject the initiation of force a "real global ill"?

To put it another way, in the words of Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Maybe extremism wasn't the right word.

In this case, I meant extremist Islamic fundamentalism.

tl;dr The pinnacle of establishment propaganda suggests we should continue to pretend we can trade freedom for safety. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

Would banning known venues for such communication make it go away? No, it would just make it harder to track. So many officials wanting to appear like they're doing something, but it's all security theater. Now taking it to the point of directly attacking the first Amendment? Scary times.

Scarier than you think. Many of these these proposals have already made it in Europe. It may come to the US too in the future given Millennials support for these kinds of measures:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...

There's still a huge difference between a proposal to ban racist speech, and a proposal to ban videos preaching Islamic extremism. The latter is a lot more likely to lead to physical harm and death.

Depends, what's the likelihood of dying from a racist assault compared to a terrorist assault? And how do you measure the effect racist and terrorist speech has on these assaults? And who decides for us what's ok to watch and what's not? And once you decide it's ok to censor, well, we all know where that leads.

>Depends, what's the likelihood of dying from a racist assault compared to a terrorist assault?

I think both are incredibly low odds, but globally, the chance of dying in a terrorist assault is probably higher. Most racist media does not advocate violence or death towards minorities; just discrimination and isolation, typically.

For example, probably one of the most popular racist websites out there is http://www.dailystormer.com, and they have a large disclaimer:

>We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, systemic change will be inevitable and unavoidable. Anyone suggesting or promoting violence in the comments section will be immediately banned, permanently.

You can find similar disclaimers on websites like Stormfront.

But lectures from people like al-Awlaki? They're both more powerful messages, because they're objective directives ("God DEMANDS you do this"), and directly call for violence towards non-Muslims.

I think both send awful messages, but the latter is worse for society in general.

> globally

Sure, globally that's probably true. It's a bit more complicated because some of the terrorist groups are openly racist.

> You can find similar disclaimers on websites like Stormfront.

That's partly because of the years of right wing terrorism happening in the brought considerable attention to sites like Stormfront.

When you have the FBI listing your members on the top-ten list you either put up warnings or go underground.

But even so,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)#Controver...

> According to a 2014 two-year study by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)'s Intelligence Report, registered Stormfront users have been disproportionately responsible for some of the most lethal hate crimes and mass killings since the site was put up in 1995. In the five years leading up to 2014, Stormfront members murdered nearly 100 people.[23][24][25][26] Of these, 77 were massacred by one Stormfront user, Anders Breivik, a Norwegian terrorist who perpetrated the 2011 Norway attacks.[27]

It seems the disclaimer doesn't do much.

That's fair. Racist attacks are definitely a big problem. But these are racist members of racist websites mostly acting of their own initiative, and not reading violent instructions or declarations from the website. In contrast, Islamic extremist websites do specifically tell people to kill people. That's why censorship of those resources could be a bit more justified.

While I am certainly worried about the growing movement towards universal safe spaces, it's also important to realize that Europe has pretty consistently had laxer free speech protections than the United States. Nowhere in Europe is it considered an absolute right in the way it is for the states.

That is what will happen when kids that were raised by helicopter parents grow up to become lawmakers...

Freedom of Speech is the right to assemble and disseminate ideas though. Curtailing Free Speech is literally putting a limit on your ability to change your mind. I don't like the thought of what ideas I'm allowed to have being approved and administered by some centralized authority.

We're on the road to a totally homogenized monoculture, and historically there are some really despicable stops along that road.

Why aren't we teaching our children the responsibilities of freedom instead of attempting to take freedom away?

The only thing historically unique about ISIS is the historical overreaction to it. Posner's absurd histrionics are a case in point.

The Founders could not have imagined the internet, so I'm not sure how the 1st Amendment even applies to it.

/sarc

Sarcasm or not, that's effectively the argument that's being presented here.

This article apparently presumes that the US "owns" the Internet and that laws passed here apply to people in other countries...

As much as I despise Daesh, this is not the right way to do things.

Don't bury the ISIS message, we should give them 10 minutes a day on VoA at least. I watched the 700 club as a kid, the crystal cathedral, what is the fucking difference?

> what is the fucking difference?

Funny, I can't remember Pat Robertson or Robert Schuller putting people in cages, dousing them with diesel and burning them alive.

Did you have cable?

Our allies in various counter-insurgencies over the years have done such things, and many of those wars have been enthusiastically supported by the religious right.

Since this is a technical site, let me point out that if you're down-voting this because you believe that neither we nor our allies have done such things, then you need educate yourself on the modern history and conduct of warfare and counter-insurgency. If this strikes you as an outrageous claim, then your model of the world and of how we wage war is just wrong.

If you're down-voting for other reasons, well, have at it.

Jabavu, we are now friends.

Reminds me of Gaiman's "Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech" http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-...

Remember, ISIS wouldn't be around if it weren't for the US.

And even as late as 2014, the Saudis prevented the US from attacking ISIS.

So the US helps create ISIS and stands by while it consolidates power ... and I am supposed to pay for it with my First Amendment?!?

I'd like to see the constitutional amendment that would get written. If written in general it could probably be used to throw most of the politicians in jail. Wouldn't advocacy for gun laws be generally inciting violence, how about violent video games? Wouldn't calling for going to war be considered generally inciting violence? The bible talks a lot about violence should it be outlawed?

Related reading: Mike Hume's Trigger Warning. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trigger-Warning-Offensive-Killing-Sp...

I'm actually in the middle of reading it now.

If ISIS didn't exist, some government agency would have to create it.

Why are Americans so afraid? You are the most powerful nation in the history of the planet. You routinely bend the rest of the world to your will. Your military kills civilians with relative impunity.

What are you so afraid of? Just chill the fuck out, m'kay?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com