Monday, November 15, 2010
Free Speech v. Terrorism
Federal law prohibits material support for terrorist in the form of "training," "expert advice or assistance," "service," and "personnel." Human rights activists, however, have sought to train militant terrorist groups to use international law to resolve disputes. Although these groups do not advocate violence, their aid to terrorists violates federal law. This year in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,the Supreme Court ruled in a 6 - 3 decision that the U.S. government has a compelling interest in preventing terrorism that outweighs the human rights groups' free speech rights. Is this ruling correct? Should such information and training be suppressed? How direct a harm is it to society? What would Mill say about this ruling?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Its tough to know what Mill would think about this issue. I think it can be argued either way, and Mill has arguments to support both ways. Mill says the only time we can suppress liberty is if it harms others. Everyone agrees that terrorism harms others, so therefore training terrorst sould be illegal. The human rights groups may train the terrorsts to not use violence, but its certainly possible the terrorsts will use it anyway. No matter what they say, training terrorsts brings about the possibiilty of harming others. The US government does have an obligation to stop terrorism, so in that sense this argument outweights the human rights organizations rights to free speech, and the Supreme Court was right.
ReplyDeleteEven though this argument words, you can also argue it this way. Mill does not think an idea should be supressed because there is always chance its true and you are wrong. In this case, even though there is a possibility the terriorsts will still use violence, there is also a possibility the terrorsts will listen to the human rights groups and solve problems through international law. Its certainly a good thing if that happens, as it will benefit society. Therefore, by Mills argument, this should not be supressed, but encouragegd, because there is the possibility that it is true. Humans judge falsely all the time, we may be judging wrong about this too, even if we really think its false. Of course, you are putting many lives at stake by taking this position, but if you are right, won't it be good for humanity in the long run? So the problem can also be addressed using that argument, with the conclusion that the Supreme Court was wrong.
Not knowing Mill, I don't really know which
argument he would side with. However, if if were to guess, I would say the second argument. Mill really likes liberty and free speech; in pretty much every other circumstance he supports it. So I think that for him the fact that it might benefit socity and be true outweighs the possible deaths. Personally I don't agree with that, because I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks, mostly because I don't think what the human rights groups are attempting to do will work. Even with the human rights groups training, I still think terrorism is a direct threat to the US, not an indirect threat.
The terrorists propaganda and material for the use of “‘training,’ ‘expert advice or assistance,’ ‘service,’ and ‘personnel,’” should be censored. I believe this material directly harm society. In a world where terrorists are allowed to openly recruit, train, and manipulate people terrorism will only increase. Freedom of speech is only permissible when it does not harm people. The spread of terrorist propaganda is directly impacts society because it allows terrorist to increase violence. I do believe that anti- state propaganda should be legal but only for the purpose of education not for the purpose of “training, expert assistance, service and personnel.” These materials assist terrorists in committing crimes, which is why they should be illegal.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Hume would probably agree that these kinds of substance should be censored. Hume believes that liberty should only be censored when it does harm to others, therefore he would agree that materials that aid terrorists in committing crimes against society should be censored. Although, some would argue that terrorists are expressing free speech and even if they are false beliefs, they should not be censored because they give society an opportunity to reaffirm the truth. However, this argument would be confused because terrorists are harming society with their propaganda, which therefore renders their right to free speech moot.
Just because violence is not used does not mean that, in fact, harm is not done. Knowing what Mill would think on this issue in particular is a difficult proposition. After all, pro-terrorism propoganda does not directly harm people. Such acts may be considered, at least on a technical level, to be no different from certain actions that people may take part in. For example if a person consumes alcohol before driving, they technically don't harm anyone until they possibly hit someone while driving. The act of drinking did not harm those people, but what came after while the man was driving. The same can be said, to an extent, about the "human rights activists." After all, their aid to terrorist activities do not directly harm people, but it is how the terrorists utilyze their assistence that does. But how long can someone argue this point? With this logic in mind, someone can argue that shooting someone is not directly their fault. Said person just pulled the gun's trigger, which then caused the bullet to be fired into the other person. This example proves that it is possible to put something else to blame for your actions, even though you were fully aware of what would happen as a result. The same goes for the "human rights activists." They know fully well that their aid helps increase the success rate of terrorist attacks. Claiming such motives as non-violent acts that are protected by free speech is pushing the right too far. For example, if a person decides to tell a bus full of people that he is going to blow the bus up with a bomb, that he does not have, he would be arrested because of the implications of his statement, regardless of whether or not free speech protects it. The point where free speech's protection becomes nullified is when someone abuses to make people feel that their lives are being threatened, serious or not. So, whether or not if the "human rights activists" are expressing free speech, their propaganda only serves as a way to encourage people's destruction. No one can deny this being true. So, the destructive intentions that these people express in their propaganda cannot and should never be protected by free speech.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe training terrorists should be illegal. Even though the intent of the Humanitarian Law Project is good, I feel that educating terrorists on international law will only make them want to abuse the system rather than use it with genuine effort. Terrorists directly threaten the security of the US and the risk of a terrorist attack is great enough that we should any possible chance of us aiding them. Terrorists have clearly expressed that they see the US as enemy that they should eliminate. We need to protect society against this threat.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to say with certainty what Mill's position would be. It all depends on if he views this as a direct threat against the US or not. On one hand, he could believe that training militant groups to use international law could be beneficial as a whole or that terrorism is not a direct threat. However, I think it is more plausible that Mill would believe that terrorism is a direct threat against the US given the events on 9/11. If Mill thinks that educating terrorists is a risk to our security, then he would agree with the Court's decision and would accept limiting free speech in order to protect society.
So ya when I said Hume I meant Mill... long week...
ReplyDeleteI believe that the act of Terrorists having training sessions should in fact be illegal, regardless of what free speech says. By being in a meeting that teaches terrorism, there is a distinct threat to human nature, and therefore should be surpressed. Just having a meeting can threaten the government, the people, and the state in which we live in. If people know that terrorist groups are meeting, then they will be much more "on edge" and this fear could possibly lead to worse situations. If the room is just teaching what terrorism is, then it should be allowed. However, it is when you begin the act of showing how to be a terrorist, then it should immediately be shut down as a threat to society.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Mill would agree with me. He argues that rights should only be taken away if they create a direct threat to another human being. The act of teaching terrorism is an example of a direct threat, as terrorism does nothing peacefully. After all of the terrorist events in the past decade or so, it shows that any act of terrorism, even the most minute and begging level of it, should be stopped as soon as possible. Terrorism is a danger to citizens in any country, therefore Hill would most likely try and censor it.
In debating the limits and authority of Liberty, John Stuart Mill concluded that people's liberty should not be restrained unless their actions cause harm to others. Terrorism, as the name suggests, uses to violence to inspire fear into people. While not directly, the people who train or support Terrorist groups are instigating future violence. While they believe that they are expressing their freedom of speech, they are actually going against their liberty. It is because of democracy that they are given the right to free speech. Supporting Terrorist, who may want an opressive government, contradicts the argument their are using to supprt their claims. Also Concerning terrorism, their actions are not the only violence that is caused. Terrorist actions have spurred wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that have caused numerous military and civilian casualties. Becuase peoople support terrorist activities, not only increses the terrorist's violence, it prolongs the struggle to try to stop the terrorist. Mills argument that you shouldn't censor people becuase you may be wrong and it may censor the truth is not an adequete objection. Even if the terrorist views are true, the physical harm overrides it. If they spoke their views through conventional diplomatic ways, then their views shouldn't be censored. But since they resort to violence, they forfiet they right to that argument. The Supreme Court ruling that government should prevent terrorism is correct, and I think Mill would support it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there should indeed be a law against people training terrorists how to kill. Even if these people do not advocate killing or violence, there actions have a direct coralation to people who have died because of terrorism. Yes, people should have their freedom of speech but that freedom should definatley be taken away when that freedom starts to be used in a way that starts or promotes violence. I agree with Salw when saying that it is okay to teach terrorists about our government and laws that are government has pout in place, but when it gets to the point where they are teaching how to be a terrorist and to bring terror on countries, there should be a law against that.
ReplyDeleteMill would agree with me I'm pretty sure beacuse he says that ones freedom and liberty should only be taken away if the actions of the people are causing harm to civilization, and with there being people teaching terrorists how to casue harm, their liberty and freedom should be stripped from their being.