• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

F0rneus

Tears in the rain
Literally if you associate with/celebrate ISIS, you are very likely to be a dangerous person. I am ok with this.
 

Riposte

Member
Yeah, the same as saying fire in a theater or joking that you got a bomb on the plane.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.



Good. If you even have a single iota of support or sympathy for those thugs, you are a person that should be kept an eye on. If someone goes online and makes a bunch of pro-Hamas posts on social media, I'm not worried that they will be involved in some sort of domestic incident. It could happen, but not at all likely. Someone starts making pro-ISIS comments, now I'm worried. Because attacking civilians are these clown's siren call. Round them up.

This sounds supportive of Hamas, which is classified as a terror organization.
 

Xe4

Banned
Close? They were full on fanboys (Liger05 and kobashi100). I hope EviLore reported them.

Ah. Well I didn't really follow them altogether too much, but they said some stupid shit. I'm glad they got banned, but I hope they haven't done something incredibly stupid yet. Probably on a FBI watch list anyhow at this point with their IP adresses and personal email accounts written down, so I don't think EvilLore reporting them would have done much.
 

The Llama

Member
"Not all speech is free—if it’s in support of ISIS."

Uh, lots of speech isn't free, and for good reason.

That's like the first hour of the first day of an introductory Constitutional Law class.

My con law class in law school didn't cover the first amendment at all.

Not that that matters.
 

Frog-fu

Banned
That supporting terrorist organizations is bad?

Yes and no. Supporting terrorists organisation makes you a dickhead but that doesn't mean your right to freedom of speech should be restricted or that you should be imprisoned for expressing your views or sympathising with you. It's an act that creates no victims.

I'm ok with the precedence...I dont ever want to associate with people that support daesh.

It's ISIS this time. It'll be another group next, one you might be more sympathetic to, and with how untrustworthy the federal government is, who knows exactly what amounts to prolificating terrorist publications or spreading propaganda?

You gain nothing from preventing people outing themselves as supporters of terrorists organisations. It's better to let people be open out their views.

Not really. Isis as a group is a well known terrorist group that actively recruits via social media. The slippery slope argument doesn't work when it's clear as night and day.

Sure it does. ISIS are vile and must face justice for the atrocities they have committed, however, if people are on board with effectively making it illegal to support them, that creates precedent for the next organisation and the next, all of which may or may not even be terrorists. This sets a very real and dangerous precedent, and quite frankly, US citizens have every reason to be skeptical and suspicious of their government.
 
Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites of the sort should not be used as a recruiting tool for radical morons.

30 years ago it was not the case but now; morons get seduced online by these lunatics who use legitimate sites and prey/pray on weak minded folks to join their sick cause.

got put it to a stop.
 
Pretty happy about this!

People from Western countries that support ISIS... Damn, we have it so good over here. Sad people can't see that.
 
It's fucking ISIS. They burn people alive. They crucify people and enslave women and children. Yes everyone who supports them is a piece of shit.

And yet, being a piece of shit is not, in and of itself, illegal. You can't criminalize people for what they are, just what they do.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
It's fucking ISIS. They burn people alive. They crucify people and enslave women and children. Yes everyone who supports them is a piece of shit.

It's the fucking USA. We have killed many, many more women and children than ISIS could ever hope for. Pretty sure we have even killed some ISIS women and children! Everyone that supports the USA is a piece of shit.
 
Huh, I really didn't expect this positive reaction on neogaf. Didn't think I'd see the day where a neogaf thread has majority support for punishing thought crimes.

By the way, saying "WELL ISIS IS REALLY BAD PEOPLE, SO PEOPLE SUPPORTING THEM ARE BAD" is not an argument. Last time I checked 'being a bad person' is not a crime.
 
It's the fucking USA. We have killed many, many more women and children than ISIS could ever hope for. Pretty sure we have even killed some ISIS women and children! Everyone that supports the USA is a piece of shit.


Can't say you're wrong though.
 
Wait, are we arresting people for likely criminal behavior now?

Obviously the Daily Beast is playing up that anyone is gonna be caught up but this seems likely simply going after people who are actively supporting and distributing ISIS propaganda. A US-Based person who is likely in contact with a recruiter/someone in Syria posting videos and attempting to contact US-European based persons to join Jihad. They're clearly not going to even go after people who are just voicing agreement. They can't put that through a court and they wouldn't try.

There's no punishment for thought crimes that's exaggerated non-sense that would get laughed out of court . Distributing propaganda and recruting people for a terrorist group seems like a very good reason to prosecute someone for " adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"
 

Thaedolus

Gold Member
It's the fucking USA. We have killed many, many more women and children than ISIS could ever hope for. Pretty sure we have even killed some ISIS women and children! Everyone that supports the USA is a piece of shit.

Hello false equivalence my old friend...
 

Tesseract

Banned
there's a difference between killing women and children, and killing the people who kill women and children, while accidentally killing women and children in the process

the people who can't see this are obtuse little worms
 
Obviously the Daily Beast is playing up that anyone is gonna be caught up but this seems likely simply going after people who are actively supporting and distributing ISIS propaganda. A US-Based person who is likely in contact with a recruiter/someone in Syria posting videos and attempting to contact US-European based persons to join Jihad. They're clearly not going to even go after people who are just voicing agreement. They can't put that through a court and they wouldn't try.

I realize that they wouldn't be going after everyone who clicks "like" on some asshole Jihadi's (or Jihadi wannabe's) FB posts, if only because of the practical considerations, but the number of people who seem to be in favor of that is kind of alarming.
 
Right, that's what I'm getting from it. It's a bad precedent to set in modern times, even if ISIS does suck and supporting them could be considered dangerous.

But they've really said no such thing. This is the quote their basing everything off of.

Carlin was asked at the conference whether he would “consider criminal charges” against people who are “proliferating ISIS social media.”

His answer: “Yes. You need to look at the particular facts and evidence.” But Carlin noted that the United States could use the material support law to prosecute “technical expertise” to a designated terrorist organization. And spreading the word for ISIS online could count as such expertise.

It was a question asked off the cuff at a conference and doesn't seem to be anywhere near as broad. And I also question if the underlined is inserted by the Daily Beast author because that's quite a leap from the "material support law" cited by Carlin

Everything else is pure color by the Daily Beast inserting the quote into a context that it wasn't offered up in.
 

esms

Member
I'm torn on this.

On one hand, supporting ISIS, even if just rhetorically, makes an individual an immoral psychopath who, given some prodding, would probably commit acts of terror by themselves.

But, on the other hand, it is just speech. I just think it sets a dangerous precedent. We've given up enough of our civil liberties in this farcical "war on terror."

So, no, I don't support jail time for those who might rhetorically support a terrorist group. But I sure as hell support detaining them for questioning or putting them on watch lists.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-r...nadian-woman-to-join-fight-in-syria-1.2970535
ISIS recruiter in Edmonton enlists Canadian woman to join fight in Syria
Staff with the intelligence agency approached the family before Aisha left in the summer, but Rabia says they provided almost no information, aside from pointing out that Aisha’s Twitter account featured the ISIS flag and followed some prominent ISIS members.

"They told us she had been interacting with people they thought were dangerous and were influencing her in a negative way, but they didn't give us enough information and it was all very vague."

"If they had shown me the emails between my sister and this girl. If they had let me listen to the recordings of them planning on going places," Rabia says, it would have given the family more to act on.

"I would have ripped her passport up. There's no way I would have let her leave if I knew now that she was going to the craziest war zone in the world."

The intelligence agency can currently only collect and analyze information and doesn’t have the "mandate to intervene to prevent terror plots from developing," CSIS said in a statement.

While CSIS currently can’t intervene in such a way, it can work with law enforcement partners like the RCMP to detain people believed to be involved in terrorist activities.

Canada has in some major cities integrated national security enforcement teams made up of agencies like the RCMP, local and municipal police, the Canada Border Services Agency and CSIS, which are meant to increase co-operation and information-sharing on national security threats.

so, to all of you Snowdon fanboys and Freedom of Speechers.... tell that to this girl's father who lost a daughter to radicals.

The radicals use social media to warp people's minds. Got put it to a stop
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-r...nadian-woman-to-join-fight-in-syria-1.2970535



so, to all of you Snowdon fanboys and Freedom of Speechers.... tell that to this girl's father who lost a daughter to radicals.

The radicals use social media to warp people's minds. Got put it to a stop

This is sad, and it shouldn't have happened, but it's no more of a valid argument than the "tell the husband of a murdered wife that her killer shouldn't be put to death" argument is in favor of the death penalty.
 
So, no, I don't support jail time for those who might rhetorically support a terrorist group. But I sure as hell support detaining them for questioning or putting them on watch lists.

This seems right inline in the Justice department's thinking.

They made arrests today in people actively trying to fight for Syria but have done nothing to those that just post stuff on twitter with no further action. They did nothing in the years of the OBL videos, videos of dead US soldiers too as far as I'm aware.

It also should be noted the court SCOTUS would strike this down in an instant if it was even a possibility (its not). They are absolutists when it comes to the first amendment.
 

Alchemy

Member
The only thing I worry about is how we tell the difference between people posting in support, or just spreading how awful they are, or posting about ISIS sarcastically. The internet has a great way of distorting the message sent.
 

jerry1594

Member
there's a difference between killing women and children, and killing the people who kill women and children, while accidentally killing women and children in the process

the people who can't see this are obtuse little worms
What about arming and supplying the people who kill women and children, or directly napalming and firebombing women and children?
 
I'm not a huge fan of the precedent this is setting (and the government detaining people because of what they write on social media is a really slippery fucking slope) but you've got to be a special kind of stupid to support the Daesh and even more special kind of stupid to publically voice that.
 

Kaladin

Member
It's a good thing that Prog Metal band broke up too.

Could have got a bit confusing trying to promote them.

If I remember correctly, isn't that why they broke up?

Edit: Nevermind, they broke up in 2010 before the whole ISIS thing....but I remember a statement from the band about it.
 

esms

Member
This seems right inline in the Justice department's thinking.

They made arrests today in people actively trying to fight for Syria but have done nothing to those that just post stuff on twitter with no further action. They did nothing in the years of the OBL videos, videos of dead US soldiers too as far as I'm aware.

It also should be noted the court SCOTUS would strike this down in an instant if it was even a possibility (its not). They are absolutists when it comes to the first amendment.

If that's what they're limiting it to, then I'm fine with it. It would be negligence if they didn't question or put these people on watch lists, actually.

I just want material and rhetorical support to remain on opposite ends of the legal spectrum.
 

AppleMIX

Member
Yeah, no thanks.

ISIS are shitheads but I sure as fuck don't want people prosecuted for having a opinion (albeit a shitty one).
 

jay

Member
What's with all of these "goods"? Speech should be free whether you're drawing cartoons or defending terrorists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom