Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. If They Outlaw the Internet, Only Terrorists Will Have the Internet

 

@fredcole’s Daily Shot Monday morning struck a chord with me. He notes that, in the wake of another sickening and horrific terrorist attack in the UK over the weekend, Prime Minister Theresa May is quoted as saying “we need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online.” Other British leaders are understandably, but I believe wrong-headedly, calling for the same.

Let me start by saying that I yield to no one in wishing the atrocities being perpetrated across the globe by violent, fanatical islamists would stop. My own first reaction to this latest assault was to wonder if perhaps loosening our western scruples about cruel and unusual punishment in cases of terrorism might be the best move. We are, after all, dealing with barbarians, and barbarians who don’t fear death, so perhaps treating them barbarically is what is needed to deter them. If a couple of them publicly got the William Wallace treatment in Trafalgar Square, maybe it would cause the next monster to think twice about the cost he was going to pay for his 72 virgins.

I don’t know, but this post isn’t about advocating torture as a punitive measure, however much merit there might be to the idea. It’s about free speech, and the openness of the internet. And there I think Theresa May and her government are groping (again, however understandably) in the wrong direction.

Simply put, “regulating the internet” is just another form of prohibition and like all forms of prohibition, it will impact only the law abiding. I am torn because I am so deeply sympathetic to the instinct to grope for a solution, and I know full well that the internet is both a tool of direct communication planning for terrorists, and a medium of propaganda that contributes to the recruitment of terrorists. So I fully understand the instinct of a besieged head of state to want to interrupt the communications involved somehow.

But the best decisions are usually not ones made under emotional duress, and if we step back and consider the history of censorship specifically and of prohibitions generally, I think we have to conclude that this proposal is pretty much all cost and no benefit.

Any international framework is inevitably going to have to get lost in the weeds of defining what can and can’t be said, and any ultimate agreement will inevitably be both over and under inclusive. That’s the nature of such regimes. It’s unavoidable, and it will therefore inevitably wind up burdening non-terrorist communications as a billion private parties take whatever steps they wind up having to take to comply.

Worse though, it won’t work. At some level we all know that. Governments have tried prohibiting any and everything over the course of history and despite their best efforts, water keeps running downhill. If there’s a demand for it, there will be a supply. They can’t even prohibit tangible goods, like illicit drugs, with any effectiveness. What chance do they have of prohibiting an intangible like terrorist communications? Do we expect Syria, or Iran to sign up for this new agreement and work hard to implement it? Do we really think that if we whack-a-mole in one part of the internet it won’t move to another? Even totalitarian states, operating in a world of much more costly communication technology, couldn’t really stop resistance movements from communicating.

In the end, bad people who don’t care about our silly laws will find ways around them, while good people who do care about them will spend time and money and aggravation complying with them. For both good and ill, we live in a world of instantaneous, costless communication. No one will be better off because we bury our heads in the sand and pretend we can change that.

But don’t despair entirely. I’m certainly not suggesting that we stop enforcing conspiracy laws. That’s already illegal in the US, and lacking a First Amendment, the prohibitions appear to be much broader in the UK. I assume that “allied democratic governments” across the globe have instituted similar laws. These are the laws that permit law enforcement to raid Ahmed’s apartment in Jersey City and clear out his bomb making material and haul him away for prosecution before he blows somebody up.

We need these laws. I have no doubt they’ve saved many lives. But we already have them. And terrorists use electronic communications to plot their murderous insanity despite the fact that they can already be arrested and prosecuted for doing so. So no, Theresa, while I’m very, very sorry for your loss, we do not need more regulation of cyberspace in response to it. It will not help stop those you seek to stop, and it will only harm the rest of us.

There are 48 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Brian Wolf Coolidge

    As bad as the internet is for radicalizing people it also exposes people to scrutiny and gives our intelligence services a lot of information and opportunities to infiltrate the bad guys as well. Even if we someone managed to ban the terrorists from the Web they would go to darker forms of communication less open to us watching them and they may even become harder over all to track. The internet is a double edged sword we just need to make the side of the blade that cuts against the terrorists sharper.

    • #1
    • June 5, 2017, at 11:56 AM PDT
    • 18 likes
  2. GrannyDude Member

    I agree, Cato. I had the same reaction—let’s name and punish the behavior a whole lot more vigorously, but leave the speech and thought alone.

    • #2
    • June 5, 2017, at 12:07 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  3. KC Mulville Inactive

    I read this post immediately reading two other Ricochet posts about Britain’s {Run-Hide-Tell}, so I may change my mind later, but at the moment they all trigger the same objections:

    • The government cannot (or will not) address the core problem, so they want the rest of us to give up our rights to mitigate the damage.
    • It’s the path of least resistance. They count on our willingness to follow laws rather than dealing with people who don’t.

    And as usual, the central problem is that jihadis come to a country intending to inflict casualties, but they conceal themselves by hiding within an otherwise innocent community of fellow immigrants and then count on our unwillingness to throw out the good with the bad.

    I see this as a genuine social dilemma that has no happy solution. So when politicians stand up and declare that we’re serious this time, and then force people to surrender their rights while such grandstanding won’t address the core problem, I just want them to shut up. Every time they grandstand, I lose something and get no security in return. Taking rights away from me, while doing nothing to the jihadis, doesn’t make me respect the politician … it only convinces me they don’t understand the idea of unintended consequences.

    • #3
    • June 5, 2017, at 12:08 PM PDT
    • 21 likes
  4. Ekosj Member

    Ok. Let’s try a hypothetical ….

    Suppose someone, athird party, starts a website featuring Person ‘A’ Their picture. Home address. Work address. Car. License plate. Site publishes screeds imploring someone to find A and do A serious harm. No money being offered. Just that the world would be a better place.

    Again …. This is a hypothetical.

    Is this Hypothecical website just free speech? Nothing to be done about it? If they take this website down, the creators just will do something else. Person’A’ just has to remain calm and carry on?

    • #4
    • June 5, 2017, at 12:11 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  5. RightAngles Member

    My own first reaction to this latest assault was to wonder if perhaps loosening our western scruples about cruel and unusual punishment in cases of terrorism might be the best move. We are, after all, dealing with barbarians, and barbarians who don’t fear death, so perhaps treating them barbarically is what is needed to deter them. If a couple of them publicly got the William Wallace treatment in Trafalgar Square, maybe it would cause the next monster to think twice about the cost he was going to pay for his 72 virgins.

    I am on board with this.

    • #5
    • June 5, 2017, at 12:14 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    I agree, Cato. I had the same reaction—let’s name and punish the behavior a whole lot more vigorously, but leave the speech and thought alone.

    Communication actually is a form of behavior Kate. We have a whole host of crimes that begin with “conspiracy to commit . . . ” A “conspiracy” is just an agreement (i.e. a communication) between two or more people to do something illegal. Once there’s a conspiracy, any overt act in furtherance of it can trigger criminal prosecution.

    In practical terms, this means that if Ahmed and Mohammed agree via email to blow themselves up in Times Square, you have a conspiracy, and when one of them gets in the car to head to the hardware store to pick up the nails, you have a completed crime for which they can both be prosecuted.

    That’s about as much as you can do unless you’re willing to start prosecuting people for thoughts or words.

    • #6
    • June 5, 2017, at 12:15 PM PDT
    • 10 likes
  7. Ekosj Member

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    I agree, Cato. I had the same reaction—let’s name and punish the behavior a whole lot more vigorously, but leave the speech and thought alone.

    Hmmm. How to do this? Much of ‘The behavior” seems to be self-punishing. That is, suicide bombers and terrorists killed during attacks are immune to punishment. And punishment, were it possible, is ex post. Does little for the dead and maimed.

    • #7
    • June 5, 2017, at 12:18 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  8. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    Ok. Let’s try a hypothetical ….

    Suppose someone, athird party, starts a website featuring Person ‘A’ Their picture. Home address. Work address. Car. License plate. Site publishes screeds imploring someone to find A and do A serious harm. No money being offered. Just that the world would be a better place.

    Again …. This is a hypothetical.

    Is this Hypothecical website just free speech? Nothing to be done about it? If they take this website down, the creators just will do something else. Person’A’ just has to remain calm and carry on?

    Good question. I don’t know. As a constitutional matter, we don’t protect the incitement of violence if the threat is imminent enough. I’d also say I wouldn’t be troubled by legal protections for one’s personal information such that, for example, I could say nasty stuff about you on the internet but you’d own your address, phone number, social security number etc. such that there could be at least civil legal consequences if I published them without your permission.

    But these are gray areas and hard questions. Among other things, that’s a reason not to have a global regulatory regime deciding them though. That leads to clumsy and burdensome one size fits all (or none) solutions.

    The common law, which is a much better tool for developing legal rules incrementally and based on local moral intuitions and social mores began developing doctrines to protect personal likenesses and information etc. decades ago. My guess is that in a world without perfect outcomes, that method is going to produce better outcomes over time than a global agreement among governments is.

    • #8
    • June 5, 2017, at 12:25 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  9. Ekosj Member

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    Good question. I don’t know. As a constitutional matter, we don’t protect the incitement of violence if the threat is imminent enough.

    Bingo! We can and do prosecute the incitement of violence. Radical Islamic Terrorist violence is imminent indeed. Treat the websites that promulgate violent jihad and those that serve as tactical manuals as inciting imminent violence and shut them down.


    • #9
    • June 5, 2017, at 12:32 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. RightAngles Member

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    Good question. I don’t know. As a constitutional matter, we don’t protect the incitement of violence if the threat is imminent enough.

    Bingo! We can and do prosecute the incitement of violence. Radical Islamuc Terrorist violence is imminent indeed. Treat the websites that promulgate violent jihad and those that serve as tactical manuals as inciting imminent violence and shut them down.


    Michael Brown’s stepfather stood on top of a car and shouted “Burn this (CoC) down,” and Ferguson was indeed set on fire. Nothing happened to him as far as I know.

    • #10
    • June 5, 2017, at 12:37 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  11. Ekosj Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    Good question. I don’t know. As a constitutional matter, we don’t protect the incitement of violence if the threat is imminent enough.

    Bingo! We can and do prosecute the incitement of violence. Radical Islamuc Terrorist violence is imminent indeed. Treat the websites that promulgate violent jihad and those that serve as tactical manuals as inciting imminent violence and shut them down.


    Michael Brown’s stepfather stood on top of a car and shouted “Burn this (CoC) down,” and Ferguson was indeed set on fire. Nothing happened to him as afar as I know.

    And that’s OK? Not by me.

    The classic counter example is from the 60’s. Some protestor got arrested for his “CoC the White House!” t-shirt. It got appealed. At some point, a judge asked the prosecuting attorney whether or not the young man had his pants on when arrested. If he did not, the threat to “CoC the White House” might have been construed as imminent. But if his pants were on, then it was not an imminent threat.

    • #11
    • June 5, 2017, at 12:47 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  12. Chuck Thatcher

    I suppose someone can explain how it’s impossible to trace the source of things like Isis publication Rumiyah even though they can use my TV to spy on me. I am not convinced. Cruise missile en route.

    • #12
    • June 5, 2017, at 1:04 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  13. Ekosj Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    My own first reaction to this latest assault was to wonder if perhaps loosening our western scruples about cruel and unusual punishment in cases of terrorism might be the best move. We are, after all, dealing with barbarians, and barbarians who don’t fear death, so perhaps treating them barbarically is what is needed to deter them. If a couple of them publicly got the William Wallace treatment in Trafalgar Square, maybe it would cause the next monster to think twice about the cost he was going to pay for his 72 virgins.

    I am on board with this.

    As a practical matter, this is usually impossible as they kill themselves or get killed during the terrorism.

    • #13
    • June 5, 2017, at 1:22 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. Jager Coolidge
    JagerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    We can and do prosecute the incitement of violence

    That may work right now but Progressives have been watering down what constitutes “violence”. They argue that words are violence or that they feel unsafe having the VP speak at their college.

    If we start down the path of shutting down the internet, how long is it before Pro-life sites, climate skeptics or conservative conversation sites are to dangerous/violent to be allowed?

    • #14
    • June 5, 2017, at 1:23 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  15. Ekosj Member

    Jager (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    We can and do prosecute the incitement of violence

    That may work right now but Progressives have been watering down what constitutes “violence”. They argue that words are violence or that they feel unsafe having the VP speak at their college.

    If we start down the path of shutting down the internet, how long is it before Pro-life sites, climate skeptics or conservative conversation sites are to dangerous/violent to be allowed?

    You think that’s not coming from the Progressives anyway, regardless of what we do vis a bus the jihadi sites? We need to start drawing sharp distinctions between imminent violence and generic ‘we don’t like you’. Jihadi sites are clearly on one side of that demarcation.

    Imagine during WW2. Guy in Staten Island has a radio transmitter. He sends out messages about convoys assembling in NY harbor. And on sailing days transmits number of ships, sailinfg times, speeds, headings. You can’t prove that anyone hears his broadcasts let alone acts on the information. You going to shut him down? Or do you say If we shut him down, how long will it be before they ban Count Basie?!?!”

    • #15
    • June 5, 2017, at 1:43 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Ekosj Member

    Jager (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    We can and do prosecute the incitement of violence

    That may work right now but Progressives have been watering down what constitutes “violence”. They argue that words are violence or that they feel unsafe having the VP speak at their college.

    If we start down the path of shutting down the internet, how long is it before Pro-life sites, climate skeptics or conservative conversation sites are to dangerous/violent to be allowed?

    We shut down child pornography sites and arrest child porn traffickers all the time. Are you losing sleep that the Internet police are coming after your Marilyn Monroe pics?

    • #16
    • June 5, 2017, at 1:46 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk andJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    As with so many things, the devil’s in the details. “Regulate the Internet” could mean oh-so-many different things. I mean, the Internet is already regulated to a great degree. You can’t write/say anything you want on the Internet. Laws against libel, slander, threats, fraud, harrassment, incitement, etc, apply to the Internet at least as much as they apply elsewhere.

    So, precisely what is May suggesting? What forms of speech does she want to make illegal which aren’t already illegal?

    If I was a betting man, I’d wager what she’s really talking about is the regulation of encryption.

    • #17
    • June 5, 2017, at 1:52 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  18. Ekosj Member

    anonymous (View Comment):
    What is so pathetic about this is that the first reaction is to constrain the liberty of all by restricting a medium of free speech rather than doing something which might actually have some effect in reducing the threat of terrorism? What? Well, for example, you might consider banning the return of citizens and permanent residents of the U.K. who have left to join ISIS. But that wouldn’t be “inclusive”, would it? Or, you might shut down the radical mosques who everybody knows are spewing hatred and inciting atrocities every Friday, deporting their “clerics”, many of whom are not U.K. citizens. But that would be “intolerant”, wouldn’t it?

    No…instead they’ll further snoop on personal communications, censor publications, and, before long, require registration of kitchen knives. That’ll surely work.

    These things are not mutually exclusive. (Kitchen knives notwithstanding )

    They should be banning returning fighters, shutting down radical mosques etc. But if the ‘speech’ in the radical mosque is such that it warrants shutting down the mosque and deporting the imam…surely it warrants shutting the mosque’s website. That’s only logical.

    • #18
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:22 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  19. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk andJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    Another possibility: What if the UK government tries to block access to certain websites not hosted within the UK? In that case one could argue that they wouldn’t be infringing on the free speech rights of UK citizens. After all, if we agree that foreign nationals don’t have the right to cross the UK border, then why should there be a right for foreign signals to cross the UK border?

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    • #19
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:34 PM PDT
    • Like
  20. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):
    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    Another possibility: What if the UK government tries to block access to certain websites not hosted within the UK? In that case one could argue that they wouldn’t be infringing on the free speech rights of UK citizens. After all, if we agree that foreign nationals don’t have the right to cross the UK border, then why should there be a right for foreign signals to cross the UK border?

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    Putting aside the particularly noxious content we’re talking about, I think of the right to “speech” slightly more broadly than that. Just as it also includes the right to write and publish, it includes the right to read and hear (and think). So I don’t think you’re really avoiding the basic liberty infringement by this suggestion.

    • #20
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:40 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. Kozak Member
    KozakJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    anonymous (View Comment):
    What is so pathetic about this is that the first reaction is to constrain the liberty of all by restricting a medium of free speech rather than doing something which might actually have some effect in reducing the threat of terrorism? What? Well, for example, you might consider banning the return of citizens and permanent residents of the U.K. who have left to join ISIS. But that wouldn’t be “inclusive”, would it? Or, you might shut down the radical mosques who everybody knows are spewing hatred and inciting atrocities every Friday, deporting their “clerics”, many of whom are not U.K. citizens. But that would be “intolerant”, wouldn’t it?

    No…instead they’ll further snoop on personal communications, censor publications, and, before long, require registration of kitchen knives. That’ll surely work.

    God forbid we actually, I don’t know, stop importing millions of Muslims into the West. It’s been working out so well for us.

    • #21
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:42 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  22. Kozak Member
    KozakJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    They should be banning returning fighters, shutting down radical mosques etc. But if the ‘speech’ in the radical mosque is such that it warrants shutting down the mosque and deporting the imam…surely it warrants shutting the mosque’s website. That’s only logical.

    Except, they won’t. Because they refuse to admit what the real problem is. So they will continue to play “security theater” and just make our lives more and more miserable.

    • #22
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:44 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  23. Ekosj Member

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):
    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    Another possibility: What if the UK government tries to block access to certain websites not hosted within the UK? In that case one could argue that they wouldn’t be infringing on the free speech rights of UK citizens. After all, if we agree that foreign nationals don’t have the right to cross the UK border, then why should there be a right for foreign signals to cross the UK border?

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    Putting aside the particularly noxious content we’re talking about, I think of the right to “speech” slightly more broadly than that. Just as it also includes the right to write and publish, it includes the right to read and hear (and think). So I don’t think you’re really avoiding the basic liberty infringement by this suggestion.

    No response to this from earlier?

    Imagine during WW2. Guy in Staten Island has a radio transmitter. He sends out messages about convoys assembling in NY harbor. And on sailing days transmits number of ships, sailinfg times, speeds, headings. You can’t prove that Nazi Gernany hears his broadcasts let alone acts on the information. You going to shut him down? Or is that free speech?

    • #23
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:44 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  24. Jager Coolidge
    JagerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):
    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    Another possibility: What if the UK government tries to block access to certain websites not hosted within the UK? In that case one could argue that they wouldn’t be infringing on the free speech rights of UK citizens. After all, if we agree that foreign nationals don’t have the right to cross the UK border, then why should there be a right for foreign signals to cross the UK border?

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    Don’t you just end up like China, where the government can control your access to information?

    • #24
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:44 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  25. Herbert defender of the Realm,… Inactive

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    No response to this from earlier?

    Imagine during WW2. Guy in Staten Island has a radio transmitter. He sends out messages about convoys assembling in NY harbor. And on sailing days transmits number of ships, sailinfg times, speeds, headings. You can’t prove that Nazi Gernany hears his broadcasts let alone acts on the information. You going to shut him down? Or is that free speech?

    How about tweeting out info about the POTUS golf outings? What course he is on, when he is on them, how many secret service people are with him….

    • #25
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:53 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  26. Ekosj Member

    Jager (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):
    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    Another possibility: What if the UK government tries to block access to certain websites not hosted within the UK? In that case one could argue that they wouldn’t be infringing on the free speech rights of UK citizens. After all, if we agree that foreign nationals don’t have the right to cross the UK border, then why should there be a right for foreign signals to cross the UK border?

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    Don’t you just end up like China, where the government can control your access to information?

    No

    • #26
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. Jager Coolidge
    JagerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    Imagine during WW2. Guy in Staten Island has a radio transmitter. He sends out messages about convoys assembling in NY harbor. And on sailing days transmits number of ships, sailinfg times, speeds, headings. You can’t prove that Nazi Gernany hears his broadcasts let alone acts on the information. You going to shut him down? Or is that free speech?

    That is not quite analogous to what Ms. May is proposing. Sure maybe you do stop the guy on national security reasons. That is the US making a decision about a very specific issue.

    What you don’t do is form an international or multinational commission to negotiate away the rights of citizens regarding the appropriate use of radio transmitters

    • #27
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:56 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  28. Ekosj Member

    Herbert defender of the Realm,&hellip; (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    No response to this from earlier?

    Imagine during WW2. Guy in Staten Island has a radio transmitter. He sends out messages about convoys assembling in NY harbor. And on sailing days transmits number of ships, sailinfg times, speeds, headings. You can’t prove that Nazi Gernany hears his broadcasts let alone acts on the information. You going to shut him down? Or is that free speech?

    How about tweeting out info about the POTUS golf outings? What course he is on, when he is on them, how many secret service people are with him….

    That’s easy. Is the threat imminent? No. Now. What about my question?

    • #28
    • June 5, 2017, at 2:58 PM PDT
    • Like
  29. Herbert defender of the Realm,… Inactive

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Herbert defender of the Realm,&hellip; (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    No response to this from earlier?

    Imagine during WW2. Guy in Staten Island has a radio transmitter. He sends out messages about convoys assembling in NY harbor. And on sailing days transmits number of ships, sailinfg times, speeds, headings. You can’t prove that Nazi Gernany hears his broadcasts let alone acts on the information. You going to shut him down? Or is that free speech?

    How about tweeting out info about the POTUS golf outings? What course he is on, when he is on them, how many secret service people are with him….

    That’s easy. Is the threat imminent? No. Now. What about my question?

    Should be investigated….

    suppose it’s a NY newspaper that is posting the info on its website and printing it in the newspaper?

    • #29
    • June 5, 2017, at 3:05 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. Ekosj Member

    Jager (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    Imagine during WW2. Guy in Staten Island has a radio transmitter. He sends out messages about convoys assembling in NY harbor. And on sailing days transmits number of ships, sailinfg times, speeds, headings. You can’t prove that Nazi Gernany hears his broadcasts let alone acts on the information. You going to shut him down? Or is that free speech?

    That is not quite analogous to what Ms. May is proposing. Sure maybe you do stop the guy on national security reasons. That is the US making a decision about a very specific issue.

    What you don’t do is form an international or multinational commission to negotiate away the rights of citizens regarding the appropriate use of radio transmitters

    Ok. Now we are getting somewhere. For reasons of national security…faced with imminent threat … Free speech of very particular/specific kinds may be regulated or curtailed.

    we are in the crowded theater We don’t want someone yelling FIRE

    • #30
    • June 5, 2017, at 3:07 PM PDT
    • 1 like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.