Countering online radicalisation: Is government censorship effective?

[davidbfpo]

Tim Stevens, co-author of a report called Countering Online Radicalisation and Dr Peter Neumann from the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence at King's College London look at the challenge of tackling online radicalisation and support for terrorist groups, and ask whether government censorship is an effective solution.

This is a short podcast for The Independent newspaper and an interesting summary: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-1700048.html

The original report, from May 2009 is: http://www.icsr.info/news-item.php?id=21

davidbfpo

[drewconway]

And for those that do not know, Tim Stevens maintains a very interesting blog at http://ubiwar.com

I highly recommend it!

[George L. Singleton]

A quick reading has Tim Stevens mentioning in his postings that Brits are more sensitive to some U-Tube postings of folks brandishing guns.

With both friends and family living in the UK I understand that our US death penalty is not liked in UK, but the reality of guns being used to kill folks, including in UK, is a reality of life.

As the police in UK have to have back up weapon equipped units due to the sad reality of the real world, when or if news censorship crosses the line to duck the reality of use of weapons by terrorists, as well as gangsters and thugs of other stripes, it would seem that this sort of sensitivity/censorship is harmful to dealing with world and UK realities.

Just a quick surface reaction on this one point gleaned from a quick read of some of Stevens postings.

George Singleton

[Tim Stevens]

George,

If I read you right, then I agree. I don't think censorship serves anyone well and I have repeatedly said that in public to people who sometimes need to hear it.

The issue of YouTube is different. The British sensitivity is a cultural thing. We do not have the same experience as the US as regards constitutional protection of free speech, which is merely a tradition here. Consequently, protection is offered on an ad hoc and politically expedient basis, and is consequently often abused. I said on my blog that I think platforms like YouTube should show more spine and refuse to take down videos just because someone claims to be 'offended' by what is usually pretty innocuous content. They have overhauled their reporting procedures, at least in the US, and should continue to refine them to community advantage.

I might not like what people say but I defend their right to say it, short of illegality. In the UK, 'glorification of terrorism' is an appalling piece of legislative nonsense and should never have made it on to the statute books. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it, despite warnings from the EU and UN that the Terrorism Act (2006) is a flawed document potentially prejudicial to human rights. One of those rights is the freedom of speech and expression...

Tim

[George L. Singleton]

The self evident truths in life are the best answer to the phoney Internet postings of terrorists and their fellow travelers.

It has taken quite a long time but now a growing number of Northern Pakistan tribes are rising up and fighting the Taliban and al Qaida. This has been enabled in large part, my view, by the recent and still strongly on going Pak military attacks on the Taliban and al Qaida in what I surely hope is fight to their death, the death of the violent Taliban and all al Qaida types.

Use of Pakitani helicopters in past two days to support ground ops by tribal militias against the Taliban is very encouraging to me, at least.

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.

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.

Cheers, otherwise.

[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

[Blackjack]

Article 2, Code D'honneur Du Légionnaire

Chaque légionnaire est ton frère d'arme quelle que soit sa nationalité, sa race, sa religion. Tu lui manifestes toujours la solidarité étroite qui doit unir les membres d'une même famille.

We discuss some controversial subjects here on SWJ, some topics are outside our comfort zone of others at times. Issues of tribalism, factionalism and religious roles in small wars are a common topic here. It would be a shame if the well informed opinion of one person is seen as hate speech and that person were prosecuted under the law in another nation in absentia. The whole idea of laws against hate speech and banning offensive content are a double edged sword. I do not think this would be an effective tool in combating anything.

The first amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights does protect those sorts of things. It was specifically designed to protect speech that was inflammatory. Gitlow v. Ney York, Yates v. United States, Brandanburg v. Ohio shows a situations where free speech is not covered. The majority opinion stated that only when words that, "by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state," is it lawful to suppress their usage. Most items, if not all that are considered hate speech in Europe simply do not meet that criteria in the United States.

Speech that is not protected, like advocating the violent overthrow of the USG are covered by the Smith Act and other laws. Attempts to regulate communication on the internet have been struck down time and time again in the United States for the same reason the Communications Decency Act were declared unconstitutional. The laws were overly broad and presented difficulties when reconciling them with Article I of the Bill of Rights, enforcement, jurisdiction and a myriad of other things. In the United States blanket statements, though disturbing to the victim are protected under the law. Group libel is also protected under law in the United States. The only exceptions to this is when a person advocates the violent overthrow of the USG, threatens violence or grievous bodily harm, or incites a riot.

The European Convention on Cybercrime states that "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors." However, those laws are not accepted, nor acceptable in the United States for several reasons. The NAZI memorabilia matter is mentioned in the thread. It is legal to sell memorabilia and reproductions of NAZI materials in the United States. That is not the case in germany, or France. In fact the policies of these three governments differ to such a degree that the official policy of the USG not extradite individuals who sell NAZI memorabilia online from the United States ,regardless of its criminality in other nations. Another odd example of enforcement difficulties comes form online games from what I hear. They have these Chinese sweat shops companies called gold farmers, who are known to use child labor. It is sort of a hybrid crime and a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children. Yet again, unenforceable due to jurisdiction, and cooperation with the country that the crimes took place in. I point these matters out to show the complication of enforcement of national, regional or international law on the internet.

As some one who has lived in France and went through regularization of situation I can tell you that hate speech laws are used as punching bags typically. Group X says or prints something group Y finds offensive. Group Y files a criminal complaint in the courts. The court battle ensues and a verdict is reached. Group X files counter complaint and another battle in the courts takes place. Rinse repeat ad nauseum! The same appears be the case for internet based crimes so far.