The Anti-Defamation League
September 18, 2002 7:24 PM Subscribe
The Anti-Defamation League has release a new report, entitled: Jihad Online: Islamic Terrorists and the Internet [pdf] It outlines seven Islamists groups and their use of the Internet to plan, recruit, and even attack over the web. [more inside]
this is news? that extremist groups use the internet. knock me over with a feather.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:27 PM on September 18, 2002
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:27 PM on September 18, 2002
These are not extremist groups. The are terrorist groups and therefor fall under a different set of laws.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:30 PM on September 18, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:30 PM on September 18, 2002
Interesting post. Know your enemy. Thanks.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:31 PM on September 18, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 7:31 PM on September 18, 2002
Tangent: Does any on know where I can get Iraqi news straight from the government? Do they have a Web site?
Short wave braodcasts streamed?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:28 PM on September 18, 2002
Short wave braodcasts streamed?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:28 PM on September 18, 2002
Right here
that's one source I know of for Iraqi news
posted by RobbieFal at 9:20 PM on September 18, 2002
that's one source I know of for Iraqi news
posted by RobbieFal at 9:20 PM on September 18, 2002
The ADL does some good work. But they also have no qualms about playing dirty when it suits them.
posted by euphorb at 11:17 PM on September 18, 2002
posted by euphorb at 11:17 PM on September 18, 2002
Well worth reading a book by a British reporter called "Them; Adventures with Extremists" by Jon Ronson. He has a few run-ins with the ADL that prove to be very amusing and more than a little worrying, especially as Ronson himself is Jewish.
posted by Kiell at 1:37 AM on September 19, 2002
posted by Kiell at 1:37 AM on September 19, 2002
People may jump on me for saying so, but I don't care: I think this law is unconstitutional and unAmerican.
Actual crimes such as incitement to violence, threats of violence, harassment and internet crimes such as hacking are already against the law. There are already laws on the books to deal with these crimes.
Beyond the enforcement of these laws, censoring the websites of what have been designated "terrorist groups" is counter-productive and violates the spirit of the First ammendment of the US constitution.
What is considered a "terrorist group" today was called a group of "freedom fighters" 20 years ago by Ronald Reagan. The designation of "terrorist" is completely subjective and arbitrary. What was considered a terrorist group in the past (IRA/Sinn Fein/African National Congress) is considered by most to be legitimate restance movements today.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
How much more clear could the constitution be? NO LAW
In Europe, most countries have passed laws banning the speech promoting naziism. But has it actually had any effect? There are still Nazis there, and banning their speech on the internet only drives them to take it further underground where it becomes harder for the government to monitor and keep track of. But they also don't have the same protections on free speech that we have.
The US Protection on free speech is one of the foundations of what makes this country great in the first place. If "president" Bush really believes that terrorists "hate our freedom" then why is he playing right into their hands, and heading down the slippery slope of censoring unpopular political speech.
posted by Babylonian at 7:47 AM on September 19, 2002
Actual crimes such as incitement to violence, threats of violence, harassment and internet crimes such as hacking are already against the law. There are already laws on the books to deal with these crimes.
Beyond the enforcement of these laws, censoring the websites of what have been designated "terrorist groups" is counter-productive and violates the spirit of the First ammendment of the US constitution.
What is considered a "terrorist group" today was called a group of "freedom fighters" 20 years ago by Ronald Reagan. The designation of "terrorist" is completely subjective and arbitrary. What was considered a terrorist group in the past (IRA/Sinn Fein/African National Congress) is considered by most to be legitimate restance movements today.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
How much more clear could the constitution be? NO LAW
In Europe, most countries have passed laws banning the speech promoting naziism. But has it actually had any effect? There are still Nazis there, and banning their speech on the internet only drives them to take it further underground where it becomes harder for the government to monitor and keep track of. But they also don't have the same protections on free speech that we have.
The US Protection on free speech is one of the foundations of what makes this country great in the first place. If "president" Bush really believes that terrorists "hate our freedom" then why is he playing right into their hands, and heading down the slippery slope of censoring unpopular political speech.
posted by Babylonian at 7:47 AM on September 19, 2002
« Older You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all... | ESPN and Reality Based TV....together at last!! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
For example:
US Code:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > Sec. 2339B.
Sec. 2339B. - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
(a) Prohibited Activities.
(1) Unlawful conduct.
Whoever, within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:25 PM on September 18, 2002