The eWar on Terror

[kalm]

Taking things a bit too far here?

The French Interior Ministry on Monday ordered that five websites be blocked on the grounds that they promote or advocate terrorism. “I do not want to see sites that could lead people to take up arms on the Internet,” proclaimed Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve.

When the block functions properly, visitors to those banned sites, rather than accessing the content of the sites they chose to visit, will be automatically redirected to the Interior Ministry website. There, they will be greeted by a graphic of a large red hand, and text informing them that they were attempting to access a site that causes or promotes terrorism: “you are being redirected to this official website since your computer was about to connect with a page that provokes terrorist acts or condones terrorism publicly.”

No judge reviews the Interior Ministry’s decisions. The minister first requests that the website owner voluntarily remove the content he deems transgressive; upon disobedience, the minister unilaterally issues the order to Internet service providers for the sites to be blocked. This censorship power is vested pursuant to a law recently enacted in France empowering the interior minister to block websites.

……….


Exploiting terrorism fears to control speech has been a common practice in the West since 9/11, but it is becoming increasingly popular even in countries that have experienced exceedingly few attacks. A new extremist bill advocated by the right-wing Harper government in Canada (also supported by Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau even as he recognizes its dangers) would create new crimes for “advocating terrorism”; specifically: “every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general” would be a guilty and can be sent to prison for five years for each offense.

In justifying the new proposal, the Canadian government admits that “under the current criminal law, it is [already] a crime to counsel or actively encourage others to commit a specific terrorism offence.” This new proposal is about criminalizing ideas and opinions. In the government’s words, it “prohibits the intentional advocacy or promotion of terrorism, knowing or reckless as to whether it would result in terrorism.”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... ites-name/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[andy7171]

At least the French are making a stand on the internets.

[ASUG8]

Why don't they just snoop quietly on website chatter like our NSA does?

[GannonFan]

I was listening to this yesterday on NPR and I was thinking the same thing. I think it's the kind of thing that can be done in Europe, but I would shudder to think that we would do that here. So basically they are banning websites that have messages contrary to what they think is appropriate. And banning it for everyone. So right now, if ISIS had an ISIS.gov web address, that would be banned. What other government websites should be banned then? How about Iran.gov or Russia.gov, or hey, how about USA.gov?

People aren't being radicalized because the websites they visit are so good at radicalizing them that we need to cut those sites off entirely. They are being radicalized because they don't know any better, they live crappy lives, or because they genuinely feel that way and identify with those beliefs. It's like Nazi Germany in the 30's and 40's - there were some Germans who were horrified by it, there were some who didn't care one way or the other but just wanted better lives, and there were some, many even, who were really stoked with what Hitler was doing. Pretending that ISIS doesn't exist and trying to snuff out all electronic evidence of them isn't going to make them go away and make people forget they are out there.

[ASUG8]

Banning a website is short sighted, and is simply putting a band-aid on the larger problem of why people become radicalized in the first place. If we can find a common underlying cause(s) for radical sympathy and put in place measures to hopefully circumvent it(them) the need for website banning would be minimized.

[Ivytalk]

I wouldn't ban or block an ISIS website. I'd flood it with Russian spam until it crashed!

[clenz]

"Anonymous" is attacking ISIS accounts left and right and getting them suspended.

I think they are also tracking where the accounts are being used and flooding the fuck out of it with spam/junk/viruses/etc...

[travelinman67]

Fascinating...protecting ISIS's freedom of speech?

Would those same protections be afforded to a white supremacist militia group advocating a religious revolution resulting in the subjugation of women and elimination of gays and non-Christians?



Fucking hypocrites

[houndawg]

Fascinating...protecting ISIS's freedom of speech?

Would those same protections be afforded to a white supremacist militia group advocating a religious revolution resulting in the subjugation of women and elimination of gays and non-Christians?



**** hypocrites

They already are, to your friends over at Stormfront.

[Chizzang]

Fascinating...protecting ISIS's freedom of speech?

Would those same protections be afforded to a white supremacist militia group advocating a religious revolution resulting in the subjugation of women and elimination of gays and non-Christians?



Fucking hypocrites

The article was simply asking the question...
and its a good question
"WHAT’S SCARIER: TERRORISM, OR GOVERNMENTS BLOCKING WEBSITES IN ITS NAME?"



try to exhale a little, your blood pressure meds work better if you breathe

[kalm]

Fascinating...protecting ISIS's freedom of speech?

Would those same protections be afforded to a white supremacist militia group advocating a religious revolution resulting in the subjugation of women and elimination of gays and non-Christians?



Fucking hypocrites

Tman's America:

My fellow Americans: tonight our country, that which we stand for, and all we hold dear, faces a grave and terrible threat. This violent and unparalleled assault on our security will not go undefended... or unpunished. Our enemy is an insidious one, seeking to divide us and destroy the very foundation of our great nation. Tonight, we must remain steadfast. We must remain determined. But most of all, we must remain united. Those caught tonight in violation of 'Murica will be considered in league with our enemy and prosecuted as a terrorist without leniency or exception. Tonight, I give you my most solemn vow: that justice will be swift, it will be righteous, and it will be without mercy.

Gentlemen, I want this terrorist found... and I want him to understand what *terror* really means.

[CID1990]

Yes it goes too far.

I would add that it is better that these sites are exposed to sunlight.

[DSUrocks07]

Yes it goes too far.

I would add that it is better that these sites are exposed to sunlight.

Agreed.

The "let's bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist as long as we don't see it" approach is the type of attitude that lead to 9/11 in the first place.

And also not to mention the slippery slope that government control of ANYTHING leads to. The respective political parties continued selective outrage on these sort of things will remain hollow and empty.

[houndawg]

Yes it goes too far.

I would add that it is better that these sites are exposed to sunlight.

[kalm]

Yes it goes too far.

I would add that it is better that these sites are exposed to sunlight.

Agreed.

The "let's bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist as long as we don't see it" approach is the type of attitude that lead to 9/11 in the first place.

And also not to mention the slippery slope that government control of ANYTHING leads to. The respective political parties continued selective outrage on these sort of things will remain hollow and empty.

Both of these .

[GannonFan]

Yes it goes too far.

I would add that it is better that these sites are exposed to sunlight.

+1