Sorry, but I want to point out that Vadim (and I'll second his opinion) was
talking about a particular site www.Kavkaz.org which is set by Chechen
terrorists (sorry again, I wouldn't call them "rebels" since it an insult to
those who rebel for cause).
Last time I've checked Chechnya was not part of USA and thus none of them is
a US citizen unless there are mercenaries. If that's the case then why
you're talking about Freedom of Speech and First Amendment? How it's
applicable to foreign terrorist organization that uses American company to
spread its ideas? Or perhaps you're more tolerable to Chechen terrorists
using American info-space then if it would be bin Laden using it? Would your
company host a site that posts Laden's fatwahs (sp?)? Would you provide them
with 24*7 customer support? If not, please try to explain to me, where's
difference?
Sorry, but I want to point out that Vadim (and I'll second his opinion) was
talking about a particular site www.Kavkaz.org which is set by Chechen
terrorists (sorry again, I wouldn't call them "rebels" since it an insult to
those who rebel for cause).
I think we all understood this, however, my understanding is that this
site is on an American server, owned by an American company, and is
physically in the U.S. - correct me if this is wrong.
Last time I've checked Chechnya was not part of USA and thus none of them is
a US citizen unless there are mercenaries. If that's the case then why
you're talking about Freedom of Speech and First Amendment?
(1) My customers benefit from my freedoms. (2) If we are going to spout
off about free speech, then we need to PRACTICE it.
How it's
applicable to foreign terrorist organization that uses American company to
spread its ideas?
See above. People on my servers are covered by the laws of my country.
Or perhaps you're more tolerable to Chechen terrorists
using American info-space then if it would be bin Laden using it?
I would have NO problem with Laden using my servers either.
Would your
company host a site that posts Laden's fatwahs (sp?)? Would you provide them
with 24*7 customer support?
Sorry, but I want to point out that Vadim (and I'll second his opinion) was
talking about a particular site www.Kavkaz.org which is set by Chechen
terrorists (sorry again, I wouldn't call them "rebels" since it an insult to
those who rebel for cause).
Last time I've checked Chechnya was not part of USA and thus none of them is
a US citizen unless there are mercenaries. If that's the case then why
you're talking about Freedom of Speech and First Amendment?
Because the mechanism that would shut the company down would be for the U.S.
government to go after that company for the content of their speech. If you
imagine some other mechanism, then perhaps other arguments would apply.
How it's
applicable to foreign terrorist organization that uses American company to
spread its ideas?
Because if American companies want to spread the speech of foreign
terrorists, that's their right. The government of the United States should
not be prosecuting them for the content of their speech.
Or perhaps you're more tolerable to Chechen terrorists
using American info-space then if it would be bin Laden using it? Would your
company host a site that posts Laden's fatwahs (sp?)? Would you provide them
with 24*7 customer support? If not, please try to explain to me, where's
difference?
No, I wouldn't. The difference is, my company is mine and it's my right to
choose what speech I wish to carry over my network. Another network carrying
someone else's speech is not mine, and the principle of freedom of speech
demands that I not use my government as a club to suppress the speech of
others.
I realize this might be considered a complex distinction by people not from
this country. But it's absolutely fundamental to the philosophical principles
on which America was founded. Foreigners sometimes think it's nutty.
Because if American companies want to spread the speech of foreign
terrorists, that's their right. The government of the United States
should not be prosecuting them for the content of their speech.
Without stating an opinon on whether or not it is right to shutdown
these sites, let me point out two things that you seem to be forgetting:
1: The courts have repeatedly held that incite to riot is not a form
of protected speech. A logical inference here is that incite to
war is not protected either.
2: The US Constitution does not guarantee the rights of non-citizens
residing in foreign nations. Even if they buy a web page from a
US hosting service.
Another fairly important point to it - a US company also has every right
to limit what you can say with their service (by AUPs, etc) in the contract
you sign to obtain service. Censorship beyond this is a matter of breach,
rather than First Amendment rights. Just as you are not guaranteed any sort
of audience, you also aren't guaranteed a podium from which to speak, in
most cases (there are certain specific exceptions to this, of course).
IANAL, of course. File complaints with the relevant RFC-specified addresses
at the carrier, if you believe it to be in violation of their AUP, or in
criminal violation of libel laws (please note that slander is only spoken,
not written, and libel has a fairly specific definition; if you don't know,
you shouldn't be claiming this without retaining legal counsel, yadda yadda
etc).
Coflicts are generally of two kinds: one is conflicts for resources
(territory, access to water, etc), the second kind is "religious"
conflicts, caused by one or both sides having a belief incompatible with
other's and including imperative to kill "infidels".
Most conflicts seemingly of of the second kind are in fact conflicts of
the first kind, in disguise (with religious/ideologic rhetoric used to
justify actions). The ethnic conflicts are never really a standalone
category (ethnicity is commonly and falsely used as a proxy indicator for
person's beliefs or affiliation).
The conflicts of the first kind are usually amenable to resolution by
negotiation, as soon as a commonly acceptable contract framework is found,
and can be effectively prevented by getting standards of living high
enough so that people are contented with what they have.
Conflicts of the second kind cannot be resolved by negotiation. Simply
because negotiation does not remove the cause of contention - i.e.
incompatibility of beliefs. The only way to eliminate such conflict for
good is to modify or extinguish the appeal of the idea. This is done by
slowing down the distribution of that idea or by making posessing the idea
a very clearly poor proposition compared to having the competing idea.
(Note that, by definition, the other party does not _see_ the errors of
their ways; they have to be shown - and nobody changes their viewpoints
willingly without very good reason).
Achieving conversion of the other side to a mindset compatible with our
own requires either physicall killing of all carriers of the idea, or
careful propaganda war, combined with a system of incentives and
disincentives.
So it very much boils down to a pair of things abhorrent to the
libertarian mind - violence or speech control.
Yep. And the freedom to do what you want with what is yours does not include
the right to club me over the head with *your* bat. Freedom of speech is
pretty darn near absolute in the United States, with a small number of
(usually) carefully circumscribed exceptions. But it's one principle among
many, certainly.
There is a difficult border between speech and action. If I tell you I'll
give you a thousand dollars if you kill a particular person, that's speech.
In fact, there are any number of criminal acts that can be committed purely
by the content one expresses.
Some engage in legal hairsplitting and argue that it's not really the
content of your speech (the ideas you wish to express) that are being
suppressed. For example, when I hire a hitman, it's not the speech that's the
issue but the offer of contract. This argument is somewhat persuasive in the
'hire a hitman' case, but I don't find it so in the 'death threat' case.
If I state, "I presently intent to kill Jack Smith if he doesn't mail me
$500 in cash", what is there in that other than the content of the idea I
wish to express? Freedom of speech is not some contextless absolute. It's a
very important principle among other primary principles.
Because if American companies want to spread the speech of foreign
terrorists, that's their right. The government of the United States should
not be prosecuting them for the content of their speech.
Without stating an opinon on whether or not it is right to shutdown these
sites, let me point out two things that you seem to be forgetting:
1: The courts have repeatedly held that incite to riot is not a form of
protected speech. A logical inference here is that incite to war is not
protected either.
If the speech creates an immediate threat of inciting lawless action, the
originator of the speech can be held responsible. Under current U.S. law as I
understand it, the provider is immunized against liability for this. (There
is currently a defect in U.S. law here.)
2: The US Constitution does not guarantee the rights of non-citizens
residing in foreign nations. Even if they buy a web page from a US
hosting service.
This argument doesn't wash. The originator of the content is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that United States company wishes to 'publish' the
speech. This argument, if accepted, would mean that a United States publisher
wouldn't be guaranteed the right to publish a book if the author was a
foreigner. Heck, the bible wouldn't be protected speech by this argument!