OK, here's a good piece on why ISIS should have free speech too.
There's no "court" that has jurisdiction over this. Obviously, the servers used by these terrorist organizations don't reside on US soil. Your argument is based on the premise that we need to endow the freedoms of the US Constitution to foreign terrorists organizations in the same we do US citizens.
Easy one first. No, you need to give those freedoms to their business partners who run the data centres. They may well find the material distasteful and voluntarily remove it, that is their choice.
Yes. Because I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem if the idea was that Kim Jong Un should die because he's really mean to everyone else in North Korea. So stop being a hypocrite.
Nope. Speech used to incite people to kill other people is not something free speech is supposed to protect. A line has to be drawn. Sorry.
Of course. It's not like the killers are the ones who should be held responsible for killing people... "If he told you to jump off a cliff would you do it?"
Try putting up a website calling for recruits to assassinate the POTUS. Let's see how long "free speech" protects you from having your house raided. Go ahead.
The law we have/judicial decisions != what is morally and philosophically right. But if you were careful with how you worded and actually got your day in court with a good lawyer (apparently one of the best modern first amendment counsels there is... no idea whether or not he'd represent ISIS types, though) (rather than being the subject of an
extra-judicial executiondrone strike on enemy combatants) I think you'd be in with a fighting chance of being cleared. Again, IANAL.
In fact I think the US declaration if independence, which I posted an excerpt from earlier could be considered an incitement to sedition.
In your example, statements one and two are dissimilar. The first is advocating for a (hateful) change in law - and political speech is overtly protected. The second is advocating violence against a group, which is not, and has never been protected under the law.
But they're not dissimilar. The only reason you would argue number 1 is if you believe number 2. And how can your convince people to support your cause (1) if you can't state your arguments (2)?
On fighting words, according to Wikipedia the (original, broader than is applied today) definition of fighting words is "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" (emphasis added). If I tell the assembled mob to smash the nearby school in that creates an immediate breach of the peace. If I record a you tube video simply saying that, in general, it is a good thing for schools to be smashed in that doesn't create an immediate breach of the peace, and I don't think you could reasonably argue that it inflicts injury "by its very utterance".
IANAL, that might not reflect they way the courts interpret them but it reflects the literary meaning of the words in question and, I think, the important moral distinction that words are not actions and can only very rarely be considered as such (fraud, true threats, imminent lawlessness, libel/slander come to mind).
It is hateful, but permissible within Freedom of Expression to say, for instance, "This country is going to the dogs, and it is the fault of the Jews". It is not permissible within Freedom of Expression to say "You should bomb a Jewish school - it will make you a martyr and your religion demands it".
I'm going to go ahead and assume we're in US jurisdiction for the purposes of this. IANAL but that quote isn't a threat ("I will blow your school up" would be a threat") and neither does it create a clear and present danger ("Go storm that school now, ye angry assembled mob"). Consider the following three statements:
1) "It should be legal to round up gipsies in the street and kick them."
2) "We should round up gipsies in the street and kick them."
3) "I'll give you a fiver if you round up those gipsies and kick them."
Clearly statement one is protected political speech. By extension statement two must be, because it's the justification for statement one. It's only statement three that should be legally questionable.
EDIT: To answer your post more directly: There is a difference between advocating violence and making a threat. Similarly there is a difference between advocating violence and posing and immediate danger. In both cases the advocation of violence itself shouldn't be illegal.
To give a real world example: In the police thread several people have suggested that if you resist arrest the police should be able to use force against you. That is advocating violence, yet I have no doubt you believe that should not be suppressed.
Sorry, let me rephrase. Ideas you vehemently diagree with.Those sites are intended to foment anger at the western society and recruit more terrorists.
That is exactly the kind of speech that free speech is supposed to protect. Would you suggest that the following is unprotected speech?it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... ... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
(taken from the US declaration of independence)As far as I'm concerned, this is the web-equivalent of yelling "fire!" in a theater.
I take it you didn't read the links I posted? tl;dr:
- It's "falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre to cause panic" (this distinction is important: we do want people to shout fire in a crowded theatre if they believe it's warranted (even if it turns out someone just forgot to turn the smoke machine off); further, in real life, most issues aren't as clear cut as incendiary emergencies tend to be)
- In its original context "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre" was a reference to producing literature suggesting conscription was wrong during WWI
- Later supreme court opinions and judgements have gone against both this ruling and Holme's opinion
- Holme's himself, later in life, rejected his opinion in this case as wrong
Even if this is equivalent to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre to cause panic (a doubtful comparison for "radicalising" material, to say the least) that doesn't, and shouldn't, create an exception to free speech.
All the variations on "Freedom of speech, except for speech that I don't like" in this thread so far:
OK I get what you are saying. However I won't cry if the poor innocent terrorists' freedom of speech is squashed. All they have to offer is hate, and there is no hope in having any productive argument with them. Especially when religion comes into the picture, logic goes out the window and nothing you can say will change their brainwashed minds. There is only one way to deal with sad excuses for human beings like that - remove them from the face of the planet before they hurt or kill any more innocent people.
So we should extend freedom of speech to those who want to destroy the very society that offers that freedom of speech? I think you can safely draw the line somewhere and not be considered hypocritical. Kind of like how it's acceptable that a society that glorifies freedom is still endowed with the power to take away freedom from criminals. If you can justify imprisoning criminals in a free society, it's not that much of a stretch to justify electronically castrating jihadist groups that want to destroy the fabric of western society.
People are all too fond of cutting off the start of the famous summary of Voltaire's philosophy: I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it.
You do not support free speech unless you support the free speech rights of your enemies, be they Abu Hamza or Nick Griffin, the tea party or SJWs.
*SimonJ, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. You seem to be arguing for freedom of speech while making the, correct, point that "true threats (of force)" are not considered freedom, either legally or philosophically. Unfortunately you chose a metaphor that is a) wrong and b) arose from a very definite suppression of political speech. See here and here.