If we could prevent terrorists communicating via the internet - should we? Or does "free speech" come first?

Question

Whilst terrorism is anathema to all decent people, Draconian measures which restrict the rights of access to any public forum should belong solely to the ranks of Orwellian fiction. Broad-stroke legislation, and the knee-jerk reactions that gives rise to it, do more harm than good especially as these decisions are, for the larger part, politically-motivated. As an example allow me to cite "Google's" knuckling under to Chinese pressure in restrictnig search engine access, based on nothing more than Sino political dogma. It would appear to be a "Thin Edge Of The Wedge" scenario: today Terrorists, tomorrow minority groups. It's happened before -- too many times -- for this argument to be dismissed as specious; check out your history books.

Answer 1

Well said.

While you can punish a crime, or the planning of a crime, I think its ridiculous to punish someone based statements which have no grounding in intention.

It makes perfect sense for the gov't to monitor terrorist websites and such, but to use the 'War on Terrorism' as an excuse to monitor the actions of private citizens is insane. Why isn't the government being tried for terrorism.

- The U.S. has supplied weapons, and knowledge to Saddam Hussein, and backed him against the Iranians.
- The U.S. supported Osama bin Laden, and provided him with knowledge. We also supported the Taliban, during their fight against Russians.

Aren't these actions supporting terrorism, albeit terrorism which was deemed in our own best interest at the time? When are we doing to learn that supporting the 'lesser of two evils' are creating even more dictators?

Answer 2

genuinely! Prayer, and it truly is ability has continually kept-up with advances, speech, writing, congregating, telephone, television... computers aren't any different. optimistically, we use each and every little thing, all our presents, skills, intelligence, and strategies conceivable to attain out for prayer/meditation/the user-friendly even as mandatory. This female from Virginia is sending up constructive non secular concepts your mom and your way. My relations and pal will be also after our assembly tonight. Many advantages. And it purely takes "...the religion of a grain of mustard seed.". i'm a mountain of religion.

Answer 3

Liberals like to believe that Free Speech is an open-ended ticket to say whatever you want, whenever you want, and to whom you want. This is not the case and there are limits, I.E. you can't shout FIRE in a crowded movie theater, nor can you mention the word "bomb" in an airline terminal. You can't spread lies about a person or corporation with the intent of destroying their good name or reputation and hide behind Free Speech.

So the lesson for the day is ... conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, while stopping the conspirators from conspiring to commit murder is preventing a crime.

Answer 4

We cannot allow the goverments to interfer with freedom of speech or the use of the internet. If our goverment can stop tham than they can also stop us. This we cannot afford. If you know who is a terrorist and they used the internet foir illegal purposes than the goverment should be able to send theminto court and have their uses of the internet banned just as they do with hackers.

Answer 5

what would we do if they used a carrier pigeon you cant stop people from communicating even the Romans communicated and i think that was a bit before the Internet

Answer 6

F*ck free speech, if the plane your friends and family was on was about to be crashed by terrorist hijackers, would you give a damn about their civil rights? No, of course not. We should gag these swines anyway we can.

Answer 7

I think you're insulting the intelligence of Yahoo! Answers
and cannot reply to such claptrap.

heavenlyhaggis

Answer 8

I think it's a great way to catch the F..KERS.

Answer 9

they should be stopped in every way possible