Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I did notice your disingenuous question that had nothing to do with the topic at hand but chose not to answer as to not derail the thread. Something that tends happens a lot when you are involved.
It's the same topic.
I gave my position, have the courage to do the same.
You did and I thank you for giving it, I simply wished to engage with the ramifications of such a position, it's unfortunate you do not have the courage to do that.
As for my own position, that's a fair question. The whole reason I made this thread was because I wasn't sure on my own position on the matter. It is a complex question.
It surprises me how many hold your position, that leaders hold no responsibility outside of direct orders. This strikes me as idealistic in thinking that ideologies hold no sway in the minds of men. I don't agree with this position.
The king bore ill will against the priest and the knights knew this, the leaders will was known and an idle word was taken as command and executed as such. Perhaps an accident of miscommunication but surely leaders are responsible for accidents as much as a driver is for losing control and hitting another car.
You did and I thank you for giving it, I simply wished to engage with the ramifications of such a position,
As for my own position, that's a fair question. The whole reason I made this thread was because I wasn't sure on my own position on the matter. It is a complex question.
I would rather risk the possibility of bad actors misinterpreting words over the stifling of free speech.
But you'd agree that there would be a line. Which crossed, would convict the person making the speech.
You want to speculate?
It seems less so to me.
The main problem, as I see it, is literally anything can be misinterpreted.
The guy who shot Lennon was inspired by Salinger's Catcher In The Rye. That's clearly a misinterpretation.
The guy who shot Reagan was trying to impress Jodie Foster, after watching Taxi Driver. Clearly a misinterpretation.
Language is imperfect. It's got a wide variance of meaning....sometimes even with context.
I would rather risk the possibility of bad actors misinterpreting words over the stifling of free speech.
I simply wonder what consequences would be if the majority held this view.
Would Charles Manson have gone free?
.Would ISIS recruiters still be allowed on social media?
Indeed language is imperfect, I would contend that a good leader would know this and use language in measured way as to not cause chaos.
There is also the issue of interpreting words exactly as intended. Charles Manson didn't directly order any murders but murder was a part of his ideology that his followers absorbed from him.
A terrorist organization?
Yes a terrorist organization, more specifically it's recruiters. The recruiters can and have been located in western countries and do not commit any crimes themselves. They simply give ISIS propaganda and instructions on how to join ISIS to impressionable people.
Facebook and twitter wishing to stop the recruiters employed heavy handed AI censoring. Were they wrong to do so?
It's a terrorist organization. They recruit people to commit or support acts of terrorism. This is illegal and I don't see any relationship with your previous examples.
Free speech protections in the US are broad enough that I'm not actually sure if anything the recruiters did was actually illegal, after all it's legal to publish books that detail how to build bombs.
That being said I would agree that suppressing terrorism is a valid reason to censor.
The relationship is in harm, an ISIS recruiter is not doing harm on their own but their words would compel other to do harm. In the same way a careless leader could cause harm by having their followers execute implied orders.
You're talking about the Turner Diaries?
I can understand why it might seem that way, and you might be correct....but consider that there may be a law and that book is simply so old it's "grandfathered" in.
If you're not familiar with the term....it's the recognition that we don't punish people who are following the law of their time just because the law changed later.
There's many fully automatic weapons that purchasable in the 80s that are still ownable because they aren't illegal. They aren't purchasable new (sort of) but they aren't illegal because they were bought legally.
Now I don't know if that's the case with the books you're referring to. I don't know if I'd even recommend that you look into such things since your search history can be used to incriminate you. I'm simply saying that it may be the possibility a few legal books exist....because they were written before any laws against them.
What I understand of online terrorism recruitment....it may start off subtle, but by the time they get to planning attacks, it's anything but subtle.
I was actually thinking of the anarchist cookbook but the Turner Diaries fits that mold as well, perhaps more so as it is used by white supremacists to spread their ideology. Neither are actually illegal to own and while I think the companies would be strongly discouraged from doing so I don't think they are illegal to publish.
For domestic white supremacist terrorism that might be true. For ISIS it was more a matter of getting bodies to the front lines of Syria. Although apparently there is a movement to get white supremacists to the front lines of the Crimea conflict on the Russian side to train in military tactics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?