• 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.
People are always so willing to give up their essential freedoms when the boogie man is dragged out.



This was the first thing that came to mind. I feel disappointed in some gaffers for supporting this without even giving it a little thought.
This also reminds me of PSYCHO-PASS.
 

jay

Member

Give me a list of what should be illegal to say. Can I support once violent groups that are no longer violent? Can I support violent groups the US government doesn't give a shit about? Should it be illegal to say ISIS is awesome out loud, or only if you type it on the internet?
 

wildfire

Banned
This is wrong.




The Justice Department's argument hinges on the idea that their messages are terrorism. Reporting what already happened isn't terrorism. Making threats that you will harm others is terrorism. Being the actors who carried out the actions being discussed is terrorism.

The Justice Department doesn't need to protect us from non-threatening messages. We can stand up for ourselves and criticize those who express support for ISIS actions.


That is what we should be doing and the Justice Department should be investigating them to see if they intend to do more than talking. They shouldn't arrest anyone for only being an asshole.
 
People are always so willing to give up their essential freedoms when the boogie man is dragged out.

Yep. First thought that came to mind when the first few posts supported this when this never worked in the past; just more people wrongly accused or upset because the government is actively invading the hell out of their privacy.

Put these suspected people on watch lists and further questioning if sources match up, but there shouldn't be jail time or anyone going through through someone's privacy because they are likely supporting a terrorist group.

People need to stop getting to caught up in who we are fighting and what disgusting things they do to justify shit like this. This is not how you stop threats.
 

this_guy

Member
Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. You can't harm others nor can you yell "fire!" in a movie theatre. I have no problems with this.
 
The "you can't yell 'fire!'" argument doesn't help here either.

In those situations, you can possibly get someone injured or even killed if you were to yell that because of the panic. That is why arrests are made in those scenarios.

Some Twitter post of someone being a dick and saying how they like that ISIS is killing Christians isn't doing anything and the action (or at least, I guess, recommended) the government should do if someone makes a post like that is to keep a lookout on them.
 
Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. You can't harm others nor can you yell "fire!" in a movie theatre. I have no problems with this.

Why can't you shout fire in a crowded theatre? Because it's a safety hazard. Because people could be immediately hurt, things could be damaged, etc, in the ensuing panic.

Is someone posting "Go ISIS!" or whatever a safety hazard?
 

SURGEdude

Member
I bet the NSA and CIA are like stfu Justice Department, you're scaring away people from voluntarily putting a red flag on their heads. What a great tool to identify people sympathetic with violent jihad.

Yup. Part of the genius of free speech is that it allows us to know exactly who to watch out for. I for one think letting these dickheads out themselves is hugely beneficial to stopping them in the future.
 
Not a fan of this myself, at first I was a little surprised by all the good responses but after thinking it over I'm actually not.

Personally speaking ISIS are horrible, but I consider them the least of my worries and really only hear about them when I browse GAF. That's maybe because I don't have cable though.
 
Conflicted about this. If somebody directly threatens to kill somebody? Yeah, that's tots illegal and I'm ok with legal action against them regardless of intent.

But advocating a group, even one as disgusting and cowardly as the Daesh? They should be socially shunned and mocked, but not prosecuted. That's not the law's job.
 
Defending the right of people to say things you like is not defending the right to free speech.

Free speech is unequivocal and inherent as part of the human condition. It transcends man made laws.
 
Is this entire thread debating and yelling at people for not supporting/being concerned at a policy that isn't policy?

People are arguing it seems because there are no specifics (again because its not policy) so you create what policy you either fear or support.
 

Aaron

Member
Why can't you shout fire in a crowded theatre? Because it's a safety hazard. Because people could be immediately hurt, things could be damaged, etc, in the ensuing panic.

Is someone posting "Go ISIS!" or whatever a safety hazard?
'Could' is an important part of that. Shouting fire could do nothing. Why are you for restricting people's freedoms when it's likely to cause no harm at all? While social media support for ISIS definitely did encourage three 15 year old girls to leave the UK in order to join ISIS in Syria. You think they could be hurt?
 
Yeah, this is a terrible precedent and a seriously disturbing constitutional issue.

Luckily we have a dude who taught constitutional law with a fantastic civil rights record in the oval office.... err, right guys?
 

Smellycat

Member
This obviously makes sense.

But it is so ironic that the U.S. was one of the biggest supporters of ISIS a couple of years ago.
 

esms

Member
Yeah, this is a terrible precedent and a seriously disturbing constitutional issue.

Luckily we have a dude who taught constitutional law with a fantastic civil rights record in the oval office.... err, right guys?

He orders extrajudicial killings. Don't bet on it.
 


This was the first thing that came to mind. I feel disappointed in some gaffers for supporting this without even giving it a little thought.
This also reminds me of PSYCHO-PASS.

I'm sorry but Benj was a moron in that regard. Let's have no security and completely liberty, that'll work out for everyone.

The bigger a society gets, the more restraints it needs lest it falls into chaos.
 

Coins

Banned
Yeah, this is a terrible precedent and a seriously disturbing constitutional issue.

Luckily we have a dude who taught constitutional law with a fantastic civil rights record in the oval office.... err, right guys?

If I go to a public place and try to recruit people to go kill black people, I will be arrested. Spreading ISIS recruitment propaganda will be treated as such. ISIS membership isnt something you sign a contract for, get a regular paycheck. Its buying into an idea, which anyone is free to do.
 
Nope.

If they want the spreading of ISIS speech to stop on western social media services, put the pressure on the social media companies to more actively policing such comments and accounts. Ban those accounts on FB, Twitter and whatever else. Incentivize these companies to do so if need be. Using those services is a privelidge, not a right. Prosecute only those making clear threats or clearly attempting to recruit.
 

dareacher

Banned
so everybody is chiming in and taking sides. I am curious, to those who think this is dangerous and shouldnt be done, i have a question..... How do you stop this? not sure all understand the full implications of what is happening in the middle east and where it can lead. We should let these people recruit and propagate their bs on tiwtter fb etc?? they have carte blanche??
 
First, here we go again w/ first post GAF.

Secondly, I disagree. Unless they can demonstrate a clear and present danger, I don't think that voicing a pro-anything sentiment should be, in and of itself, illegal. Freedom of speech and freedom of association are important.

Definitely a tricky area but I think the point is to prosecute them for providing support to terrorists. If you let a couple ISIS guy crash at your house knowing they are going to commit a terrorist attack, that is illegal. So if you edit video and host their propaganda. . . You are supporting them, not just speaking. It's a fine line between the two but I think the courts may figure it out.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Definitely a tricky area but I think the point is to prosecute them for providing support to terrorists. If you let a couple ISIS guy crash at your house knowing they are going to commit a terrorist attack, that is illegal. So if you edit video and host their propaganda. . . You are supporting them, not just speaking. It's a fine line between the two but I think the courts may figure it out.

Yeah, we certainly need to approach this with caution.

If approached with level-heads it should be ok. My issue is, Islamophobia may cast too wide a net.
 

Trago

Member
so everybody is chiming in and taking sides. I am curious, to those who think this is dangerous and shouldnt be done, i have a question..... How do you stop this? not sure all understand the full implications of what is happening in the middle east and where it can lead. We should let these people recruit and propagate their bs on tiwtter fb etc?? they have carte blanche??

ISIS recruiters aren't nearly as threatening as government slowly taking away our rights.
 
so everybody is chiming in and taking sides. I am curious, to those who think this is dangerous and shouldnt be done, i have a question..... How do you stop this? not sure all understand the full implications of what is happening in the middle east and where it can lead. We should let these people recruit and propagate their bs on tiwtter fb etc?? they have carte blanche??

Dream had a good point outside of the government actively stopping this with investigations or snooping around.

Nope.

If they want the spreading of ISIS speech to stop on western social media services, put the pressure on the social media companies to more actively policing such comments and accounts. Ban those accounts on FB, Twitter and whatever else. Incentivize these companies to do so if need be. Using those services is a privelidge, not a right. Prosecute only those making clear threats or clearly attempting to recruit.
 

dareacher

Banned
ISIS recruiters aren't nearly as threatening as government slowly taking away our rights.

but you have no proofs that the gov is trying to take away your rights...this is ' the gov wants to control us mindless robots ' rethoric is based on half truths....and that brings me back full circle, with the us gov (im canadian btw and not a fan of all the us gov decision), its always damned if you do and damned if you dont. There just is no winning.
 
If I were to say that I support ISIS, that should not be punishable. Yeah, those that do suck, but they aren't being an immediate threat to anyone.
You don't think supporters of Isis are a possible threat?

And the government isnt taking away from us. They're taking away from bad people as they've always done.

Isis beheads and burns alive innocent people but we got intellectuals in here fighting in support of Isis supporters. Great minds.
 
The guy has a point. I don't know why anyone would want to support a filthy terrorist group like ISIS, but fucking around by setting dangerous precedents is surely not the way to go.

There are more appropriate means to punish the bastards. If they support them, chances are that they got dirt under their fingers.

The thing is though legal prohibition of things like hate speech is already a thing, whether we like it or not. Speech itself has been legally curtailed before, though in most instances its under very specific circumstances, such as this one.

Definitely a tricky area but I think the point is to prosecute them for providing support to terrorists. If you let a couple ISIS guy crash at your house knowing they are going to commit a terrorist attack, that is illegal. So if you edit video and host their propaganda. . . You are supporting them, not just speaking. It's a fine line between the two but I think the courts may figure it out.

I have a feeling this is likely the only route they could go without it seeming like an overreach. Production or distribution of pro-ISIS media. Though one has to wonder then doesn't this mean Twitter/FB et al have to immediately take down any and all ISIS related propaganda that they're aware of? Or is the govt treating these companies as merely neutral platforms for communication and under no liability for content?
 

Trago

Member
You don't think supporters of Isis are a possible threat?

And the government isnt taking away from us. They're taking away from bad people as they've always done.

Isis beheads and burns alive innocent people but we got intellectuals in here fighting in support of Isis supporters. Great minds.

I'm sure it's hard for you to understand, but it takes a hell of a lot of discipline to support a person's right to free speech, including bigots/idiots.

The KKK have beheaded, lynched, and burn a hell of a lot of people alive, should we jail anyone who openly support them?
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
I don't think someone should be arrested for sharing propaganda. Determining if it threatens or incites violence is a slippery slope. I wouldn't say a beheading video does, unless it's calling for people to do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom