Proposed Bill: Anti-Self-Radicalization Act

[Delta4Embassy]

The first amendment allows freedom of speech, with some limits. We can't look at child pornography, classified documents, whatever else. Yet we can look at terrorist produced videos online. Seems if computer users today can self-radicalize themselves at home from anywhere in America, forbidding US-based websites from hosting terror videos is only common sense. We should make such content illegal to produce, host, possess, display, or view just like other things already illegal.

 

[Moonglow]

end the drug war and we'll discuss it...

 

[Brucethethinker]

... forbidding US-based websites from hosting terror videos is only common sense ....

And what do you hope that would accomplish?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

... forbidding US-based websites from hosting terror videos is only common sense ....

And what do you hope that would accomplish?

As it is right now, looking at such materials isn't illegal. If those that do even go on some kind of 'watch more' list I'd be surprised. But if it's made illegal, then follow-up steps can be taken within the law. More intense scrutiny for example. If someone bought a gun or suspicious materials and is looking at jihadi videos or propaganda one might conclude an attack is imminent. By themselves, they don't constitute enough to warrant an arrest, interview, or closer scrutiny. With the extra charge they might.

Plus it's just common sense. If we don't allow people to victimize children to produce child pornography, shouldn't we also not allow terror groups to show their crap? Or people to view it, host it, etc.?

 

[David Kraljic]

Sorry, disagree. You can't pick and choose what to allow disallow. I know there are cases where the law prevents certain things. But in my opinion you have to leave those laws as is. Classic where do you draw the line.

Plus - I'll add this. When 911 happened I saw a very different coverage than most Americans. Why, because my wife is Brazilian. Brazilian TV showed way more graphic coverage of what those in Afghanistan were doing. Marching in the streets in happiness. We didn't see that here - not the way they showed it. Seeing it opened my eyes like no American media did.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Sorry, disagree. You can't pick and choose what to allow disallow. I know there are cases where the law prevents certain things. But in my opinion you have to leave those laws as is. Classic where do you draw the line.

Plus - I'll add this. When 911 happened I saw a very different coverage than most Americans. Why, because my wife is Brazilian. Brazilian TV showed way more graphic coverage of what those in Afghanistan were doing. Marching in the streets in happiness. We didn't see that here - not the way they showed it. Seeing it opened my eyes like no American media did.

Pick and choose all the time. As things change, so must laws.

 

[martybegan]

The first amendment allows freedom of speech, with some limits. We can't look at child pornography, classified documents, whatever else. Yet we can look at terrorist produced videos online. Seems if computer users today can self-radicalize themselves at home from anywhere in America, forbidding US-based websites from hosting terror videos is only common sense. We should make such content illegal to produce, host, possess, display, or view just like other things already illegal.

When it comes to child porn it is possessing it that is the crime not viewing it. The reason for this is that the demand for child porn creates the supply, and there is a need to make the demand criminal.

There is no real "demand" for these terrorist films, the terrorists would do it regardless of any demand for them.

as for secret documents, there it isn't possession, its the act of acquiring the documents that is criminal.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The first amendment allows freedom of speech, with some limits. We can't look at child pornography, classified documents, whatever else. Yet we can look at terrorist produced videos online. Seems if computer users today can self-radicalize themselves at home from anywhere in America, forbidding US-based websites from hosting terror videos is only common sense. We should make such content illegal to produce, host, possess, display, or view just like other things already illegal.

When it comes to child porn it is possessing it that is the crime not viewing it. The reason for this is that the demand for child porn creates the supply, and there is a need to make the demand criminal.

There is no real "demand" for these terrorist films, the terrorists would do it regardless of any demand for them.

as for secret documents, there it isn't possession, its the act of acquiring the documents that is criminal.

Can't view it without possessing it. Even in the sense of a computer, the image is in your possession in that it's stored however temporarily on the computer.

Isn't a matter of demand for jihadi films or videos so much as there's no earthly reason they're legal at all. They have no artistic, scientific, or social merit whatsoever. And if because of them a person can become violently activistic then it's right to ban them. Wont prevent people from viewing them (I get the internet heh) but their illegality will enable law enforcement to take steps where the videos is another part of the evidence accumulation.

 

[martybegan]

The first amendment allows freedom of speech, with some limits. We can't look at child pornography, classified documents, whatever else. Yet we can look at terrorist produced videos online. Seems if computer users today can self-radicalize themselves at home from anywhere in America, forbidding US-based websites from hosting terror videos is only common sense. We should make such content illegal to produce, host, possess, display, or view just like other things already illegal.

When it comes to child porn it is possessing it that is the crime not viewing it. The reason for this is that the demand for child porn creates the supply, and there is a need to make the demand criminal.

There is no real "demand" for these terrorist films, the terrorists would do it regardless of any demand for them.

as for secret documents, there it isn't possession, its the act of acquiring the documents that is criminal.

Can't view it without possessing it. Even in the sense of a computer, the image is in your possession in that it's stored however temporarily on the computer.

Isn't a matter of demand for jihadi films or videos so much as there's no earthly reason they're legal at all. They have no artistic, scientific, or social merit whatsoever. And if because of them a person can become violently activistic then it's right to ban them. Wont prevent people from viewing them (I get the internet heh) but their illegality will enable law enforcement to take steps where the videos is another part of the evidence accumulation.

That is a judgement call, and the 1st amendment is designed to prevent the government from making that judgement call.

The benefits do not outweigh the increase in government control of media that this would cause. Again, child porn is a specific case, and even then only "real" child porn is illegal, anime crap is still legit. The criminal act is what makes it illegal ONLY when coupled with the supply/demand cycle.

 

[saveliberty]

Sounds about as useful as suicide laws.

 

[whitehall]

It's just a showboat so that the feds can claim they are doing something about radicalization. The downside is that it is unconstitutional.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It's just a showboat so that the feds can claim they are doing something about radicalization. The downside is that it is unconstitutional.

Dunno about that. Can place limits on free speech, done that already. Can't endanger the public shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre for example. So why can't we ban online material similarly putting the public at risk?

 

[David Kraljic]

I think I'd like to decide what I look at and read.

Like I said before, the coverage Brazilian journalists produced about 911 was far more telling to me then the stuff I saw here. Had Americans seen their version of it they would have been much more fired up - more then they were.

 

[mamooth]

Oh goody. Another thing that the police can simply pretend they found on your computer, should they want to fabricate a reason to jail you for life.

 

[Darlene]

More governmental supervision is not what this country needs. In my opinion, the government is overstepping its bounds and trying to control too much of the "American" life.

 

[Darlene]

It's just a showboat so that the feds can claim they are doing something about radicalization. The downside is that it is unconstitutional.

Dunno about that. Can place limits on free speech, done that already. Can't endanger the public shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre for example. So why can't we ban online material similarly putting the public at risk?

Please explain, in detail, how a video online - such as the ones you are referring to--puts us at risk? How do you know they're not fake just to spread propaganda, lies, and disbelief about certain peoples?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It's just a showboat so that the feds can claim they are doing something about radicalization. The downside is that it is unconstitutional.

Dunno about that. Can place limits on free speech, done that already. Can't endanger the public shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre for example. So why can't we ban online material similarly putting the public at risk?

Please explain, in detail, how a video online - such as the ones you are referring to--puts us at risk? How do you know they're not fake just to spread propaganda, lies, and disbelief about certain peoples?

It's national security. Why would we permit enemy propaganda on US based websites?

 

[Darlene]

It's just a showboat so that the feds can claim they are doing something about radicalization. The downside is that it is unconstitutional.

Dunno about that. Can place limits on free speech, done that already. Can't endanger the public shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre for example. So why can't we ban online material similarly putting the public at risk?

Please explain, in detail, how a video online - such as the ones you are referring to--puts us at risk? How do you know they're not fake just to spread propaganda, lies, and disbelief about certain peoples?

It's national security. Why would we permit enemy propaganda on US based websites?

National security is a hoax. It doesn't exist.