1st Amendment and Freedom of Speech

Discussion in 'Off Topic Chat' started by Jeff, Dec 28, 2015.

  1. Jeff

    Jeff Fanatic

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    99
    ISIS Influence on Web Prompts Second Thoughts on First Amendment
    excerpt from link above: It is one of the most hallowed precepts in modern constitutional law: Freedom of speech may not be curbed unless it poses a “clear and present danger” — an actual, imminent threat, not the mere advocacy of harmful acts or ideas. But in response to the Islamic State’s success in grooming jihadists over the Internet, some legal scholars are asking whether it is time to reconsider that constitutional line.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Freedom?....Do You Really Have Freedom? link to my blog The Book Of Harb
     
  2. Jeff

    Jeff Fanatic

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    99
    The Sharks Are Circling on Internet Freedom
    excerpt from link above: It’s a well known fact: the internet is filled with idiots spewing vile, obnoxious, offensive, frequently violent bilge water from the safety of their parents’ basements. Most of these people are harmless blowhards, reveling in their anonymity to say things online that they would never say in person. A few of them are legitimate criminals who mean to harm others, and it’s not always easy to tell the difference.

    __________________________________________________________________________________
     
  3. Up In Vape

    Up In Vape Motivated

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2015
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    67
    I'm for the preservation of anonymity. The powers that be still have ways of tracking people down if needbe.
     
    Just Me likes this.
  4. Just Me

    Just Me Motivated

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2015
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    81
    There are several problems with restricting freedom of speech, either online or offline. Firstly, it's not enforceable - you will never be able to silence the dark web, just as you can't stop people talking in their own homes. Those more likely to 'mean business' will not be using the surface web, so watching that more is targeting average folks, likewise with closing off 'dangerous internet sites'. Secondly, if you force ideas underground, then you remove the ability of others to challenge those ideas. Society - and wisdom - moves forward through discussing ideas, even if they are offensive. What is different between this and book burning? Thirdly, as the article mentions, the definition of 'clear and present danger' is slippery. At the moment, the excuse is IS. But what happens when another potential 'evil' comes to light? What happens when challenging the government on any issue is seen as a threat to the government? It is too slippery a slope. It could also lead to the banning of all sorts of things - such as games - which might 'teach' you how to do something (which at least means my husband will know how to survive a zombie apocalypse!). Fourthly, by proposing - or introducing - changes to freedoms, you could be playing into the hands of those you are (allegedly) attempting to destroy, by radicalizing more people. Fifthly, it makes the state just as restrictive as IS.

    However, as the article says, it is just academic debate (at this stage), which, by definition, is academic.
     
    Jeff likes this.

Share This Page