White House declines to back Christchurch call to stamp out online extremism amid free speech concerns

Boss Mog

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2013
4,243
2,816
540
I was gonna post about the this Christchurch initiative the other day and I forgot. Glad the White House isn't backing it. Isn't it funny that with all the islamic terror attacks that happen constantly all over the world, an initiative like this was never even thought of, but one attack on a mosque and all of a sudden we need to stop hate and terrorism on social media. I mean on paper it sounds like a good plan right? But the fact that they waited for Christchurch to happen to come up with it suggests to me that, that's not their true aim with this initiative. It's clear that this initiative is meant to go after anybody that criticizes islam on social media rather than trying to prevent the spread of terrorist propaganda. I'm sure Hamas and the like will still have their social media accounts unhindered. There's so much blatant hateful and terrorist supporting content from islamists on social media but none of it will get removed, instead they will use this initiative to go after anybody who criticizes islam, just like the police do in the UK.
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,074
3,651
250
But if you are are advocating for or trying to support racial or religious violence or some other kind of extremist/terrorist BS then yeah absolutely I think you should be in jail. I would like to think most people would agree with that.
Just a reminder who the left see as "extremist"

Donald Trump
Rand Paul
Ron Paul
Ted Cruz
Alex Jones
Ben Shapiro
Gavin McGinnes
Jordan Peterson
Paul Joseph Watson
Steven Crowder
Laura Loomer
Sebastian Gorka
Candace Owens
Tucker Carlson
Sean Hannity
James Damore

Etc etc...

These are the people NI thinks should be in jail
 

Boss Mog

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2013
4,243
2,816
540
Just a reminder who the left see as "extremist"

Donald Trump
Rand Paul
Ron Paul
Ted Cruz
Alex Jones
Ben Shapiro
Gavin McGinnes
Jordan Peterson
Paul Joseph Watson
Steven Crowder
Laura Loomer
Sebastian Gorka
Candace Owens
Tucker Carlson
Sean Hannity
James Damore

Etc etc...

These are the people NI thinks should be in jail
Don't forget Joe Rogan :pie_eyeroll:
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Cunth

Cucked SoyBoy

Member
Dec 18, 2018
273
354
170
It is kind of funny how the NZ government had all these gun control laws written and implemented less than a week after the shooting. Almost like they were ready for it....
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,898
3,521
1,090
Yeah how dare a country use a terrorist attack as an excuse to try to make changes to make itself and others safe even if it means encroaching on some of the rights of its citizens.


Good thing the US has never ever done that. 🙄
Is there any evidence that New Zealand is significantly less safe after the shooting than before?

Somewhere "being safe" is not impacted by statistical anomalies.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,131
554
785
Avoiding entangling alliances that would compromise our Bill Of Rights is the job of the office of the President.

President Trump is doing right by the American citizens in this decision.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,898
3,521
1,090
It is kind of funny how the NZ government had all these gun control laws written and implemented less than a week after the shooting. Almost like they were ready for it....
I don't agree with your implication that there was involvement in the shooting, but I am sure they were ready for it. Just like how the PATRIOT Act got put together so quickly - it was already prepared and waiting for a crisis to latch onto as "the solution". It had probably already been planned after Oklahoma City or some other 90s terrorist attack, and was just waiting for a very big one to unveil.
 
Last edited:

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
578
287
190
This isn't surprising. Everyone knows where the current White House's heart is located.
 
Last edited:

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
476
1,181
230
Yeah how dare a country use a terrorist attack as an excuse to try to make changes to make itself and others safe even if it means encroaching on some of the rights of its citizens.


Good thing the US has never ever done that. 🙄
We didn’t like it then, either.

Knee-jerk legislation is never a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVIper

WindomURL

Neo Member
May 15, 2019
36
36
95
Just a reminder who the left see as "extremist"

Donald Trump
Rand Paul
Ron Paul
Ted Cruz
Alex Jones
Ben Shapiro
Gavin McGinnes
Jordan Peterson
Paul Joseph Watson
Steven Crowder
Laura Loomer
Sebastian Gorka
Candace Owens
Tucker Carlson
Sean Hannity
James Damore

Etc etc...

These are the people NI thinks should be in jail
It's all about perspective. The left has gone waaaay out there and only seems to be accelerating. Bill Clinton circa '96 would today be in their crosshairs, labeled as a racist/sexist/homophobe. Hell, Obama told Rick Warren that "Marriage is between a man and a woman" in '08.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
5,811
1,319
1,340
Good. International law, or policy should never, ever affect American citizens in their daily lives in the United States.

We have our own government, so thanks, but no thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LMJ

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
20,553
16,449
685
Good. International law, or policy should never, ever affect American citizens in their daily lives in the United States.

We have our own government, so thanks, but no thanks.
We also have a US Constitution, so by the highest law, this can never happen.

But the media sure likes to spin it as if the government has a choice. :pie_roffles:
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
5,811
1,319
1,340
We also have a US Constitution, so by the highest law, this can never happen.

But the media sure likes to spin it as if the government has a choice. :pie_roffles:
That's the key that it would seem some of the more ignorant folks just dont understand. Certain things cant even be done becuase of the constitution, as it would be illegal.

The media is absolutely worthless so I never trust anything they have to say regarding even our actual form of government.

I dont care what the rest of the world is doing internally unless it affects me directly. (Trading with or propping up actual terrorism)Freedom of speech in the United States is unique, and what some other group of countries come up with in terms of that, isnt even worth wiping my ass with.

I hate being crass, but when you live in a country that is responsible for the worlds peace, and freedom, what other lesser governments come up with is at best a sidebar. Glance worthy.
 
Last edited:

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
541
742
245
Censoring the internet and banning guns doesn't solve the mental illness problem that is almost always behind the attacks in question. Innocent people are giving away free speech and ways of protecting themselves without actually fixing the problem.

Good job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
578
287
190
Does everyone know, though?

Seems like you really want to say it. Just say it.
Nah. My point is that clearly condemning online extremism might offend some extremists who are openly sympathetic to the Trump administration and thus they don't want to risk annoying those voters. This is what everyone should know, unless you've been living under a rock.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,762
16,743
690
USA
dunpachi.com
Nah. My point is that clearly condemning online extremism might offend some extremists who are openly sympathetic to the Trump administration and thus they don't want to risk annoying those voters. This is what everyone should know, unless you've been living under a rock.
Which specific extremists would the White House risk offending if they joined this measure?

Some extremists might be pleased and others might be offended by the White House's actions. How does that change the underlying rightness or wrongness of Trump's refusal to back this measure? It's a free speech issue, plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
20,553
16,449
685
Nah. My point is that clearly condemning online extremism might offend some extremists who are openly sympathetic to the Trump administration and thus they don't want to risk annoying those voters. This is what everyone should know, unless you've been living under a rock.
Lol, no.

They can’t do anything about it because it would be illegal for them to do so.

End of.
 
Aug 29, 2018
942
1,179
235
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
Nah. My point is that clearly condemning online extremism might offend some extremists who are openly sympathetic to the Trump administration and thus they don't want to risk annoying those voters. This is what everyone should know, unless you've been living under a rock.
Ahh, so the honesty reveals itself. I take it you feel a not-insignificant percentage of our citizenry are violent extremists and terrorists who deserve to be unpersoned, harrassed, and eventually incarcerated.
 
Dec 22, 2007
3,957
238
895
Good. Government-led censorship is a terrible idea. Let the websites govern their own territories, the same way every other business handles their own drama.

Plus, it's not like it would stop anything. Ordinary people would be banned for saying anything against the status-quo, and actual extremists would just find/make another site.
It's better to 'keep your enemies close,' basically.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
578
287
190
Lol, no.

They can’t do anything about it because it would be illegal for them to do so.

End of.
Which specific extremists would the White House risk offending if they joined this measure?

Some extremists might be pleased and others might be offended by the White House's actions. How does that change the underlying rightness or wrongness of Trump's refusal to back this measure? It's a free speech issue, plain and simple.
Free speech laws in the U.S. aren't going to be affected by joining this entirely non-binding measure.

It's about politics and symbols, frankly, but refusing to join this effort is quite depressing and suggestive.

Then again, it's not a surprise. Apparently the only type of extremism that matters to Trump is Islamic.


It’s part of a pattern of neglect. The grants were administered by the Office of Community Partnerships, which works intimately with local governments and community organizations to prevent jihadist and white-nationalist radicalization. In Obama’s last year, according to the former director, George Selim, the office boasted 16 full-time employees, roughly 25 contractors, and a budget of more than $21 million. The Trump administration has renamed it the Office of Terrorism Prevention Partnerships, and cut its staff to eight full-time employees and its budget to less than $3 million.
First, in keeping with their law-and-order mentality, Trump officials would rather empower the police to arrest suspected terrorists than work with local communities to prevent people from becoming terrorists in the first place, as the Office of Community Partnerships did. Second, they believe the primary terrorist threat to Americans is jihadism, not white supremacy.
In 2017, the FBI concluded that white supremacists killed more Americans from 2000 to 2016 than “any other domestic extremist movement.” But Trump advisers have shrugged off these inconvenient facts. In an interview in 2017, White House Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka declared that there “has never been a serious attack or a serious plot [in the United States] that was unconnected from ISIS or al-Qaeda.” When critics cited the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Gorka responded, “It’s this constant ‘Oh, it’s the white man. It’s the white supremacists. That’s the problem.’ No, it isn’t.”
Furthermore, Trump himself has zero problems with making equal or worse political and purely symbolic calls for government regulation and intervention of the news or of social media spaces when it comes to opinions which bother him. Therefore, it's not like he is a firm, consistent believer in absolute free speech or freedom of the press.

Ahh, so the honesty reveals itself. I take it you feel a not-insignificant percentage of our citizenry are violent extremists and terrorists who deserve to be unpersoned, harrassed, and eventually incarcerated.
I am not talking about percentages or proportions here, but...this is quite ironic, in light of the above.
 
Last edited:

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
5,811
1,319
1,340
Free speech laws in the U.S. aren't going to be affected by joining this entirely non-binding measure.

It's about politics and symbols, frankly, but refusing to join this effort is quite depressing and suggestive.

Then again, it's not a surprise. Apparently the only type of extremism that matters to Trump is Islamic.






Furthermore, Trump himself has zero problems with making equal or worse political and symbolic calls for government regulation and intervention of the news or of social media spaces when it comes to opinions which bother him. Therefore, it's not like he is a firm, consistent believer in absolute free speech or freedom of the press.



I am not talking about percentages or proportions here, but...this is quite ironic, in light of the above.
If it doesnt effect, its nonsensical at best, so not "joining" means nothing. It's not depressing or suggestive as it doesnt measure up with our constitutionally protected rights. You should know this already.

You love bringing up Trump concerning the press, but never bring up Obama. I wonder why that is with his absolutely atrocious track record. Ttump isnt even in the same realm, unless you count him revoking Acosta's press pass, which was deserved.

Percentages or proportions.

What exactly are you talking about then?
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
578
287
190
If it doesnt effect, its nonsensical at best, so not "joining" means nothing. It's not depressing or suggestive as it doesnt measure up with our constitutionally protected rights. You should know this already.

You love bringing up Trump concerning the press, but never bring up Obama. I wonder why that is with his absolutely atrocious track record. Ttump isnt even in the same realm, unless you count him revoking Acosta's press pass, which was deserved.

Percentages or proportions.

What exactly are you talking about then?
Once again, Trump has said plenty of things that also have no legislative effect (thankfully). At least this one symbolic move would be in the spirit of a good cause. I am sure there are constitutional scholars who would reach a different conclusion about whether a non-binding pledge, which can always be interpreted in multiple ways for that matter, could ever be truly considered as challenging any rights at all.

Like I have already quoted above, there have been previous U.S. government programs against all types of extremism. Trump has significantly scaled them back down and narrowed their scope.

Both have said questionable things...but really, you want to claim Obama is worse than Trump at this? Comparatively speaking, Trump has publicly attacked the press far more than Obama did. Admittedly, the press itself has been far more critical of Trump too, outside of Fox News and other conservative outlets, so there is a bit of a circular dynamic involved where both sides are attacking each other.

Most of Trump's voters are not violent extremists. This is clear, but for some reason there's always some hesitation to call said extremist out as strongly as when he speaks against Radical Islam (tm) or criticizes the liberal press. That's what I am talking about.
 
Last edited: