ACLU: LEAVE TERRORIST PROPAGANDA UP
Again they have the cart before the horse.
The ACLU ( which I generally support. G ) paradigm
is not true to its own ontology.
Censoring websites used by terrorist groups to recruit supporters is counterproductive, according to expert testimony on the Hill Wednesday.
Any laws or regulations aimed at blocking or removing extremist web content could hamper law enforcement's ability to collect information on the groups, according to civil liberties advocates at a hearing of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.
"A mandate requiring the removal of terror-recruiting content online could be counterproductive to the fight against terrorism,"
SOURCE:
Hat tip to bartender recon.
The correct paradigm is to end terrorism, not fight terrorism.
Leaving terrorist propaganda up assures a steady stream of
terrorist, which is good if your job is to investigate terrorist.
I would prefer to end terrorism, recruiting and funding.
The ACLU paradigm is misguided and short sighted.
MY REPLY IN THEIR COMMENTS SECTION.
( Gautham Nagesh didn't post my reply in comments, so here it is, G )
You have the cart before the horse.
"A mandate requiring the removal of terror-recruiting content online could be counterproductive to the fight against terrorism,"
The fight should be about stopping the spread
of terrorism propaganda, recruiting and turning
kids to the dark side.
The which would remove much of the "terrorist" activity.
According to your paradigm maybe we should
fund them as it would lead to more terrorist to
investigate and more leads.
"A mandate requiring the removal of terror-recruiting content online could be counterproductive to the fight against terrorism,"
Your mandate isn't to fight terrorism but
to end it. Your paradigm assures its continuation.
You are not free to yell "FIRE" in a theater,
nor are you allowed to promote terrorism.
Who is funding you?
Gerald
Anthropologist
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bdf232b7-80fc-429b-86b2-ba70871792ce)
The ACLU ( which I generally support. G ) paradigm
is not true to its own ontology.
Censoring websites used by terrorist groups to recruit supporters is counterproductive, according to expert testimony on the Hill Wednesday.
Any laws or regulations aimed at blocking or removing extremist web content could hamper law enforcement's ability to collect information on the groups, according to civil liberties advocates at a hearing of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.
"A mandate requiring the removal of terror-recruiting content online could be counterproductive to the fight against terrorism,"
SOURCE:
Hat tip to bartender recon.
The correct paradigm is to end terrorism, not fight terrorism.
Leaving terrorist propaganda up assures a steady stream of
terrorist, which is good if your job is to investigate terrorist.
I would prefer to end terrorism, recruiting and funding.
The ACLU paradigm is misguided and short sighted.
MY REPLY IN THEIR COMMENTS SECTION.
( Gautham Nagesh didn't post my reply in comments, so here it is, G )
You have the cart before the horse.
"A mandate requiring the removal of terror-recruiting content online could be counterproductive to the fight against terrorism,"
The fight should be about stopping the spread
of terrorism propaganda, recruiting and turning
kids to the dark side.
The which would remove much of the "terrorist" activity.
According to your paradigm maybe we should
fund them as it would lead to more terrorist to
investigate and more leads.
"A mandate requiring the removal of terror-recruiting content online could be counterproductive to the fight against terrorism,"
Your mandate isn't to fight terrorism but
to end it. Your paradigm assures its continuation.
You are not free to yell "FIRE" in a theater,
nor are you allowed to promote terrorism.
Who is funding you?
Gerald
Anthropologist
posted by gerald at
5/27/2010 08:21:00 PM
READ MORE
READ OR SUBSCRIBE, Our WAR OSINT on Twitter
Tweet
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home