Countering online radicalisation: Is government censorship effective?

[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