Report Warns That Censorship Will Not Stop Terrorism 101
concealment writes "The report evaluates the challenge of curbing online radicalization from the perspective of supply and demand. It concludes that efforts to shut down websites that could serve as incubators for would-be terrorists — going after the supply — will ultimately be self-defeating, and that 'filtering of Internet content is impractical in a free and open society.' 'Approaches aimed at restricting freedom of speech and removing content from the Internet are not only the least desirable strategies, they are also the least effective,' writes Peter Neumann, founding director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London and the author of the report."
One Word (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh!
FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, policymakers should focus their attention on the demand side of the radicalization issue, Neumann argues, with the government spearheading outreach initiatives that would bring together schools, community groups and businesses to advance awareness and media literacy and offer a competing narrative to that presented by sites that traffic in radical propaganda.
There's no way this would work in the U.S. It sounds like socialism. It also incorporates zero bombs. A bill to attempt such a thing would be regarded by the right wing of this country as an encroachment on freedom far worse than censorship(of people they disagree with).
Re:Obama has a solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
This has really been a U.S. foreign policy for decades and is part of why there are anti-US terrorists in the first place. Drones just make it faster and cheaper.
Re:Obama has a solution: (Score:3, Insightful)
So he's following the Bush Doctrine?
Re:Censorship doesn't stop much of anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's okay, the goal isn't to stop criminals, the goal is to ensure that everyone is guilty of some crime or another.
Re:Obama has a solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why this wa modded as 'troll' except for perhaps a lack of knowledge about recent history wherein US Born Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by drone attack, without the application of any due process whatsoever, because of things he said. In other words, Obama murdered an American over exercising free speech rights. And yeah, Alwaki didn't say nice things, but think about the implications.
Think about the characteristics of leaders of the worst authoritarian governments, think about how the president believes he can kill anyone or jail anyone without trial. Think about how the president has usurped the power to make war from Congress totally (i.e., Libya). Think about the massive prison system based in our Land-Of-The-Free which houses more people on an absolute basis than any other in the world. Think about all this stuff and you might start rationally fearing the future.
lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Their first mistake was in thinking that the censorship was designed to stop terrorism. Terrorism is an excuse, like WMDs... the real goal is control.
Re:W-W-W-What??? (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot stop an idea except by discrediting it. Period. Censorship doesn't and cannot work in today's world.
In a world where almost all cell phones have cameras, everyone is a reporter. Where most smartphones have better movie cameras than news crews of 30 years ago, everyone is a reporter. When people can tweet, facebook, blog, everyone can be a reporter. With email, communication cannot be stopped.
The only thing tyrants can do now, is cut off their people completely from the modern world, and even that doesn't really work very well.
Re:Not rocket science (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't imagine why anybody would trust or accept the rationale given to them by somebody who threatens them with physical force. But somehow government is different. Right.
Threats of force seem to work in suppressing speech.
BBC Covers Muslims Differently Because of Violence [nationalreview.com]
How to Stifle Speech - Lessons from the Netherlands, the University of California, and Yale. [nationalreview.com]
Self-Censoring South Park [nationalreview.com]
With that said, it should be blindingly obvious that censorship isn't about stopping terrorism. It's about profit,
At the moment it seems to be mainly about "the Prophet," not profit.
America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process [nationalreview.com]
Call to Ban Bible Under Pakistan’s Elastic Blasphemy Laws [nationalreview.com]
Re:lol (Score:2, Insightful)
The United States will recall a million pounds of ground beef if a half dozen people are killed by tained meat, and you can't figure out they just might, might, want to prevent this [realclearpolitics.com] from happening again? I'll meet the moderators that gave you that +5 half way - you do have a rare insight, but I wouldn't give it a +1.
BTW - is the tainted meat recall about control too?
Re:W-W-W-What??? (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot stop an idea except by discrediting it.
Judging by the number of popular discredited ideas, that doesn't stop them, either.