Should the US government try to shut down Jihad websites???

Question

I'm sure the ACLU would claim a constitutional right to "behead" and uphold Suicide Murderers, as a right!...check out Jihad .com

Answer 1

I think any publication, on line or off, that propagates violence against any American should be closed down, if we can do it.

And don't think this is some new fangled censorship I am proposing. It has ALWAYS been illegal to instigate violence in the media, or instigate violence against a group of people.

One case only, for example:

People Vs. Tom Metzger

Metzger was found to have incited violence against blacks through his publications, and, certainly, his publications were closed down! Of course we can do the same with any violence purporting publications in the U.S.

Answer 2

a million. This bill would not provide the President the potential to "close down the web", basically the portion of the community positioned in the U. S.. 2. that's the most sensible way we at present have of scuffling with an advanced, coordinated Cyber-terrorism attack on our community infrastructure. If Al Qaeda ever managed to recruit only a pair respectable hackers (maximum Muslims suck with computers), they could doubtlessly screw us up in a huge, vast way. imagine all our monetary files being wiped out, our communications disabled, the protection measures of our potential flora over-ridden and our missile safeguards compromised... it style of sounds like technology Fiction, yet I assure you; that's thoroughly plausible. No computer or community is thoroughly take care of. Any equipment may be compromised. evaluate this to be action picture star Wars Missile protection for the web. i'm no fan of expansive, invasive authorities; yet I want this to Al Qaeda sending us back to the 18th Century with a pair keystrokes. And for the list, i'm no longer basically retaining this as a parrot for the Democrat get at the same time. i'd help ANY President having this potential. Bush, Obama, Clinton, McCain, Palin...whoever. The President is responsible for protecting the U. S. and that's the finest way we've of retaining our tech-reliant united states in the style of an emergency. EDIT: To the man quoting Benjamin Franklin, Ben replaced right into a wise guy, yet he not in any respect foresaw some thing like the web, nor how a lot we may come to be counted upon it. this isn't a sacrifice of rights for protection. Its basically protection. era.

Answer 3

If the site directly advocates illegal action or unlawful violence, or if the site is defamatory or issues true threats, then yes.
Those are unprotected areas of speech.

There is no constitutional right to behead people. Nor to incite specific violence. Nor to make true threats. So, those messages can (and probably should) be legally silenced.

But if the site does nothing worse than what politicians do -- including spreading hatred and prejudice -- then it doesn't matter how bad the people speaking are.

The govt is not allowed to censor people just because the govt doesn't like their message. But where the speach is criminal, it is unprotected and can be silenced.

Answer 4

Just how do you propose to do that? Invade the country that the server is based in and blow it up?

Have you even been to the site? I have and other than the very objectionable "Muslim Fashion" section (27 seven different styles of black burkas that are all the same - just kidding) I didn't see anything that looks very dangerous.

Answer 5

And the ACLU would be right. Not in terms of the right to behead but the right to freedom of speech. I do not want the government involved in censoring the internet. Do you really want that? So we can be like Red China with the government controlling what we see? Do you really trust the government?

Answer 6

We, in the United States, have become afraid of being offended. We are offended by body jewelry, body piercing, foreign languages, dissent, questioning authority, non-Christian religions, no religion, socialism, anarchism, anything other than what resides in our suburban SUV-like comfort zones. We are afraid of anything unfamiliar. We attempt to control that which makes us uncomfortable. Institutionalized control, however, necessitates the presence of fear. And, institutionalized fear narrows people's options. And that, of course, is the point. Isn't it?

Our schools are but a microcosm of what is taking place nationally. The Bush regime routinely uses fear to push through its agenda. And, we the people, have allowed our fears to let the neo-cons have their way. We are told to accept perpetual war for perpetual peace. And when the people object a bit too much we can expect another dose of fear.
When the population starts to feel a little too free, and bold enough to question its rulers, another attack or two should straighten the rabble out. (Bush's Trifecta: Control Through Fear, June 29, 2002)

Answer 7

Nah. Terrorists are going to communicate one way or another. Just as well watch them on the net. Maybe even drop JDAMs on a few satellite up-links.

Answer 8

some think it is a positive to show the world what kind of monsters these people really are. the videos are sick, but we certainly wouldn't want people questioning if they really do kidnap, torture, and behead people.

Answer 9

No, even if it were possible, which it probably isn't. Freedom of speech is valuable, even if the message is obnoxious.

Answer 10

Why argue about whether or not they "should" do it when they have already done so in the past?