Countering online radicalisation: Is government censorship effective?

[Tim Stevens]

A couple of quick comments:

One area of censorship I do support, however, to be clear. Attemtping to spread racial and ethnic hatred should be flatly "shut down" as in blacked out in my book. No reason to use the excuse of free speech for that type of human garbage thinking and language.

Yes, but only where this is supported by existing, tested legislation. Just because people don't like Islamists is no reason to close their forums. The First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect the sorts of things you're talking about, nor do the laws in most countries.

In particuarl I note of late sputtering on various Pakhtun websites (worldwide) against European national laws disallowing talk and promotion of Nazism and ani-Semitism...5 years in prison for such stuff. Fully agree with this specific style and type of censorship, as it has helped clean up Europe ever since WW II.

I'm no fan of that type of legislation, and it's also questionable whether it works. However, I would say that this is perhaps the exception rather than the rule. Also, citizens in those countries are very much behind those laws - there is a public mandate for them, and I therefore support them. There would not be the public appetite for most other types of expression, save for paedophilia.

Tim

[George L. Singleton]

Tim:

You may want to do a little historical research. These Europen individual country national laws exist as part of the end of WW II studied fix to hate crimes and left over Nazism attitudes, being a carry forward of the thrust of the Nuremburg War Trials. Focus then and now is to perpetuate the truthful horrible history of the Holocaust and never again allow such awful anti-Semitic hate mongering in their nation(s). A prison term of 5 years for attempting to promote or spread anti-Semitism and revisionist history related to same is perhaps too lenient.

On the other topic you mentioned, regarding First Amendment Rights, foreigners outside the US are not entitled to the benefits of the US Constitution unless living inside the US as US citizens. Foreigners inside the US have limited rights vs. citizens of the US, otherwise, what is the value and purpose of US citizenship in the first place?

You are mistaken to allude to folks being anti-Islamic. Many people, and I am one, are anti-terrorist. I/we have Muslim friends both here in the US and overseas, in Pakistan to be specific. Their views and mine/ours are the same when it comes to opposing terrorism, radicals, and the use of thuggery and murder.

In the case of Paksitan, the use of illegal FM radio broadcasts to coordinate murder and mayhem is a legal issue there, inside Pakistan, and it is a wartime issue there. Pakistan's efforts to control and stop broadcasting banditry has nothing to do with freedom of speech in the USA whatsoever, but fighting a terrible ideology which "attempts to use" the label of a religion to murder, suppress, and hold down grassroots decent Muslim citizens who want a better life for themselves and their children.

Perhaps you might take time to note your premises as you seem to have prejudged or formed an opinion which you put on SWJ as a "what do you think" question, suggesting you wanted a defacto opinion poll? You should of course note that as you are a graduate student in England/UK your perspective is shaped by your national laws and moraes which are not identical with either other European nations nor idential with the laws here in the US.

I'm no fan of that type of legislation, and it's also questionable whether it works. However, I would say that this is perhaps the exception rather than the rule. Also, citizens in those countries are very much behind those laws - there is a public mandate for them, and I therefore support them. There would not be the public appetite for most other types of expression, save for paedophilia.

Tim

[Tim Stevens]

George,

If you're not going to play nicely then this thread is finished. I'm going to take the trouble to point out exactly where you're wrong in your assessment. I'm tired of having to correct people who blatantly mispresent what others say/write.

You may want to do a little historical research. These Europen individual country national laws exist as part of the end of WW II studied fix to hate crimes and left over Nazism attitudes, being a carry forward of the thrust of the Nuremburg War Trials. Focus then and now is to perpetuate the truthful horrible history of the Holocaust and never again allow such awful anti-Semitic hate mongering in their nation(s). A prison term of 5 years for attempting to promote or spread anti-Semitism and revisionist history related to same is perhaps too lenient.

Yes, George, I've heard of WWII and the Holocaust, and I deeply wish neither had happened. My point re censorship was a generic one. My second point was that I support the measures that these European countries have taken because of their uniquely horrendous experiences during that period. That is the 'exception rather than the rule' approach to censorship. On this issue you may want to do some research of your own and find out how many 'nazi' candidates have been voted in in certain countries and ask yourself whether this censorship really works. That's not a reason for not banning this type of material or expression but it does show that the effects of censorship are somewhat debatable and almost never clear cut.

On the other topic you mentioned, regarding First Amendment Rights, foreigners outside the US are not entitled to the benefits of the US Constitution unless living inside the US as US citizens. Foreigners inside the US have limited rights vs. citizens of the US, otherwise, what is the value and purpose of US citizenship in the first place?

Correct. That is why British neo-Nazis and holocaust deniers who's websites are hosted in the US are not protected by the First Amendment, and are prosecuted in the UK as a result. Your comment re the 'value and purpose of US citizenship' is a curious one.

You are mistaken to allude to folks being anti-Islamic. Many people, and I am one, are anti-terrorist. I/we have Muslim friends both here in the US and overseas, in Pakistan to be specific. Their views and mine/ours are the same when it comes to opposing terrorism, radicals, and the use of thuggery and murder.

'Anti-Islamic'? Your term, not mine. I used the term 'Islamist' which a quick scan of the voluminous literature on the subject should reveal what I mean. 'Islamic' does not equate to 'Islamist' - the conflation of the two is partly why we're in this mess in the first place.

In the case of Paksitan, the use of illegal FM radio broadcasts to coordinate murder and mayhem is a legal issue there, inside Pakistan, and it is a wartime issue there. Pakistan's efforts to control and stop broadcasting banditry has nothing to do with freedom of speech in the USA whatsoever, but fighting a terrible ideology which "attempts to use" the label of a religion to murder, suppress, and hold down grassroots decent Muslim citizens who want a better life for themselves and their children.

Has that comment, while true, got anything to do with what I wrote? No. Sounds like it's a favourite topic of yours, and about which you know far more than me, hence the fact I didn't address it in this thread.

Perhaps you might take time to note your premises as you seem to have prejudged or formed an opinion which you put on SWJ as a "what do you think" question, suggesting you wanted a defacto opinion poll?

I'll forgive that on the basis that you don't know me. Those who do, and who read my blog, will know that I'm not a judgemental type and that I'm far happier mulling over an issue than firing off ill-thought missives, particularly on subjects I know little about. And what is this 'de facto opinion poll' thing? I thought we were having a conversation but it's certainly taken a weird turn.

You should of course note that as you are a graduate student in England/UK your perspective is shaped by your national laws and moraes which are not identical with either other European nations nor idential with the laws here in the US.

Wow, thanks Teach. I may live on a rock off the coast of Europe with the other monkeys but I like to think that in the numerous comparative situations that arise in academia/life I'd got some idea that things were different elsewhere. Heck, I've even been to France. Guess I know nothing though.

Anyway, sorry you got the wrong end of the stick.

Tim

[George L. Singleton]

Tim,

Civility is always in order and I believe survives in what I have written.

I have both family and friends in UK, cousins of three generations now. Separately my Goddaughter, an American married to the American head of a European and African ops for a large US corporation, lives in suburban London. My wife and I were in Europe the end of April, first part of May, and always enjoy our European vacations.

One of my English cousins is an Oxford PhD living and working in London. Young fellow in his mid-30s.

Not to dwell on what you might see as miscommunication previously, my mention of illegal FM broadcasting inside Pakistan, to me, is relevant as putting it down is a very direct part of the whole concept of censorship, whereas you have a different defintion of censorship.

I think in the interest of discussion it is OK to broaden the topic a bit, as communication is communication, being myself an former US television station Promotion Manager from my younger days.

Yes, but only where this is supported by existing, tested legislation. Just because people don't like Islamists is no reason to close their forums. The First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect the sorts of things you're talking about, nor do the laws in most countries.

The above quote from you previously is what I was referring to in my previous reply, which I believe you misunderstood. To me, at least, it seems and seemed you jumped to the conclusion when I mentioned anti-Semitic commentary on Pakhtun Internet blog sites that my observation amounts to, your above wording "Just because people don't like Islamists is no reason to close their forums." The forums I referred to are operating in large part out of Canada, in fact. and the "Islamists" I was referring to are a mixture of Taliban Pakhtuns and Pakhtuns who are very specifically anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, using those hateful views to try to encourage violence against "all Jews."

I am educated by your comments to the effect that some European nations will and do use thier anti-Nazi/anti-Semitism laws to seek prosecution of what may be their nation's citizens broadcasting or writing on the Internet from outside their specific European country in an anti-Semitic manner.

In a time of actual hot war, which the war on terrorism is today and for the forseeable future I will say that we cannot control al Jazeera )staffed in part by ex-BBC broadcast journalists) as a major outlet for bin Laden and other AQ speakers and videographers from time to time. I have encouraged better use of Voice of America to combat the malarky AQ puts out, as well seeing VOA both TV and radio broadcasts to condemn as the murder videos the Taliban periodically put on the Internet.

In Pakistan, I was shocked by a Pakistani journalist writing in a Pakistani daily newspaper recently bragging that he had been in the home of a senior North Pakistan area provincial government official who hosted some of the most wanted Taliban leadership there within the past two weeks...same journalist using his column to attack the Government of Pakistan as being "to blame" because a local Pakistani governor met with top Taliban leaders. This is an issue of Pakistani censorship or lack of censorship you might want to include in your discussion as technically the US, UK, and Pakistan are all supposed to be allies, which should include dealing with censorship issues.

Be interested to read what others have to say as you lay out your additional premise(s) to encourage more theory of censorship vs. practice of censorship dialogue.

I hope these additional remarks clarify my opinions and in the process nothing personal was or is ever meant.

George

[Tim Stevens]

George,

No, that's cool. No point talking past each other, I agree. I'd be interested to hear more about Pakistan - perhaps a new thread?

I think you flag up a very crucial point: between the theory and practice and censorship, where are we? It seems to me that a good starting point is the various international human rights conventions to which most countries are signatory or have ratified.

For example, the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR). It allows for 'individual freedom of belief, speech, association, freedom of press, right to hold assembly'. It also offers 'protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination' and codifies the right to engage in political activities.

Liberal theory would also protect these rights as long as they do not infringe upon those same rights as possessed by others. This is actually very similar to certain US constitutional protections and exemptions as mentioned by Blackjack below (for which, thanks for the post!).

Blackjack also makes the very pertinent observation that 'hate speech' laws in Europe simply don't wash in the US. These laws are often used in ways for which neither the original legislation intended nor which are true to the international rights framework. When Drew originally posted my Ubiwar story about YouTube users in the UK being twitchier than most web users this is part of the same phenomenon. It's almost a case of: we'll try and apply this legislation to anything we don't like. Hence my comment about Islamist forums.

The difference is that YouTube are capitulating to takedown requests on material that it's really not designed to deal with. Most YouTube spats do not make it to court in the UK, so the laws that actually do protect people are rarely tested. In Europe more generally ###-for-tat legal battles do take place, and these cases degenerate into slanging matches that last for years.

I should make the point that there are 'vigilante' YouTube groups who make it their business to try and remove any video of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of content or context. YouTube often complies, and these group brag about their glorious role in the 'war on terror'. Puerile and pointless.

Anyway, practice vs theory. In practice, censorship is often knee-jerk. Something happens and governments and communities suddenly decide that 'something must be done', regardless of any legal or human rights considerations. No cost-benefit analysis, no overrarching strategy, nothing. Just mutterings about security, radicalisation, terrorism and the assumption that someone viewing an IED explosion on video is a hollow shell inevitably to be filled with violence. Sure, there are some who are this passive but most net-actors are exactly that, active consumers of information and capable of making their own minds up. Not all, unfortunately, although it's still only a very small minority.

All this speaks of complexities that fill whole books and policy documents, as well as the long careers of many academics. We can only scratch the surface here...

Tim

[George L. Singleton]

I should make the point that there are 'vigilante' YouTube groups who make it their business to try and remove any video of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of content or context. YouTube often complies, and these group brag about their glorious role in the 'war on terror'. Puerile and pointless.

I am one of the folks across the pond who take offense to the use of the term "insurgents" vs. use of the terms terrorist, thugs, murderers, etc. Bias works two ways, but the open "manifesto" of both the Taliban and al Qaida is not in doubt.

What is the law of the land in UK regarding what you see as "vigilante" groups? Curious.

The Independent View on Internet Censorship
Posted in ubiwar by Tim Stevens on 9 June 2009
The Independent is running a video feature on me and Peter Neumann of the ICSR, Countering online radicalisation: Is government censorship effective? It’s also featured on the King’s College London news page. Can’t wait to see how the debate degenerates on The Independent’s comments site…

This prejudgement of differences of opinion to come in THE INDEPENDENT sounds discouraging of other points of view. What in UK today is the law of the land on censorship, comared to maybe Iran, to be onery on my part?

More importantly why aren't others on SWJ jumping into this discussion?