老澳门开奖结果

The Bipartisan Policy Center published a report last week called, 鈥�,鈥� which strongly endorsed First Amendment principles in rejecting censorship as an appropriate tactic for addressing violent extremist content on the Internet. The report evaluated the many methods governments around the world use to censor the Internet 鈥� including filtering or blacklisting online content, taking down websites (either through legal means, cyber attacks or appealing to private sector providers), and prosecuting Internet content producers 鈥� and rejected them all as both ineffective in stopping the spread of undesirable ideas, and an affront to American values: 鈥淔or the United States, the cost-benefit analysis would be even clearer: with its long and cherished tradition of free speech, the creation of a nationwide system of censorship is virtually inconceivable.鈥� But the BPC鈥檚 positive recommendations are potentially undermined by its continuing embrace of a radicalization theory that draws too close a causal connection between 鈥渞adical鈥� ideas and violent action.

The BPC recognized, as the 老澳门开奖结果 has long argued, that the American tradition of protecting free speech is the strength of our democracy, and that 鈥淯sing the same kinds of methods that are used by dictatorships 鈥� however different the reasons and context 鈥� would undermine America鈥檚 leadership by vindicating the practices of rogue regimes and inspiring others to follow their example.鈥� (Full disclosure: the BPC interviewed 老澳门开奖结果 staff while conducting research for the report). Indeed, in a follow-up editorial, the BPC鈥檚 Co-Chairs Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, and the report鈥檚 author, Peter Neumann, even paraphrase an old 老澳门开奖结果 axiom in ing that instead of censorship the government should be empowering the free marketplace of ideas online: 鈥渢he best way to defeat 鈥榖ad ideas鈥� is to promote good ones.鈥�

While we appreciate that the BPC report has endorsed the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 views opposing government censorship and promoting free expression, it is important to note that when the 老澳门开奖结果 was founded in 1920, its interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment鈥檚 speech protections were considered dangerously 鈥渞adical.鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 was the target of intense investigation by the FBI and broad slanderous attacks by legislative committees investigating 鈥渞adicalism,鈥� including in Congress and in New York State. Justice Department agents raided 老澳门开奖结果 offices and placed its leaders and members under intense surveillance. Government agents that by defending pacifists and labor organizers accused under wartime criminalizing anti-war and anti-government speech, 老澳门开奖结果 lawyers were aiding America鈥檚 enemies and helping to spread radical foreign ideas within the United States.

The Supreme Court gradually came around to the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 viewpoint over many years, and the robust speech protections we now enjoy under the First Amendment became not just accepted, but expected. As the BPC report indicates, 鈥渆ven critics of what may be called 鈥榝ree speech absolutism鈥� concede 鈥榯he First Amendment is so central to our self-conception鈥� that it has come to define what being American means.鈥� This evolution in the courts鈥� and public鈥檚 understanding of the scope of free speech protections is a perfect example of how 鈥渞adical鈥� ideas often bring about social progress. (Other dangerously 鈥渞adical鈥� notions at the time included women鈥檚 suffrage and the 40-hour work week).

So, while we appreciate the BPC鈥檚 recognition of the importance of protecting free speech, we remain concerned that the concept of 鈥渞adicalization鈥� that it promotes 鈥� and which the government has too often adopted 鈥� draws too direct a causal link between the exposure to, or adoption of certain beliefs and the commission of violent terrorist acts. Empirical studies of terrorists do not support such a simplistic or direct causal connection (see for example this , especially the 鈥淔actor Tree for Root Causes of Terrorism鈥� on page xx and the 鈥淔actor Tree for Individual Willingness to Engage in Terrorism鈥� on page xxv). The BPC report identifies a few anecdotes regarding individuals who used the Internet and were later charged with terrorism offenses to justify this approach, but its analysis completely ignores the myriad other factors that may have played a more dominant role in those cases, as well as the many cases in which violent acts were not precipitated by exposure to similar online content. Most significantly, it fails to explain why the vast majority of people who are exposed to the same materials online, and even adopt similar beliefs as a result, do not become violent criminals or terrorists.

This radicalization theory is problematic from a civil liberties perspective because it makes the same mistakes that the Overman and Lusk Committees made almost a century ago: it identifies extreme ideas, rather than violent behavior as the problem that needs to be addressed. If certain ideas are the problem, the solution invariably includes suppressing those ideas, in one way or another. The BPC deserves commendation for rejecting censorship and for recommending that government efforts in this area should focus on activating and supporting a free and open marketplace of opinion on the Internet. But, because it muddies the important distinction between expressing extreme views and engaging in criminal conspiracies, its third recommendation that the government 鈥渆xploit鈥� cyberspace to gain intelligence and gather evidence could be interpreted to justify surveillance or investigations based on ideology rather than individualized evidence of wrongdoing. This concern is far from hypothetical: the FBI has a sordid history of using its powers to suppress political speech, one that is being as the FBI鈥檚 investigative authorities have been expanded since 9/11. This new Department of Justice for a radicalization study raises similar concerns.

Indeed, government surveillance of the Internet the free exchange of ideas in ways that would undermine the BPC鈥檚 first two recommendations almost as severely as censorship, a point made during BPC鈥檚 press conference by a University of Wisconsin professor who raised concerns about inappropriate inferences intelligence agencies might make about terrorism researchers who view extremist content online (see the third video on this at 16:02). A look at modern FBI counter-terrorism training materials doesn鈥檛 inspire confidence that the government is properly distinguishing between political rhetoric and illegal action. As 老澳门开奖结果 executive director Anthony Romero said in the BPC quoted in this section of its report, the government can and should use its robust powers to investigate criminal conspiracies and terrorist threats occurring online, but it must do so using time-tested procedures based on probable cause of wrongdoing and appropriate judicial oversight.

Finally, we fully agree with the BPC鈥檚 conclusion that 鈥渃urrent procedures and oversight mechanisms [for government electronic surveillance programs] are not sufficient, adequate, or consistent.鈥� Public oversight is essential to ensuring democratic control over executive branch activities, but even as Congress is again an extension to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments, we know little about how these authorities are being used or the number of innocent Americans whose electronic communications are being inappropriately intercepted and stored in government databases. The BPC report reminds us that as we protect our nation, we must be careful to protect our values, as the two are not in opposition: 鈥淗aving appropriate rules, oversight, and review mechanisms will not be an obstacle to making full use of the Internet in countering homegrown terrorism, but will enable a more systematic exploitation of this resource.鈥� As Senator Barry Goldwater put it, 鈥渆xtremism in defense of liberty is no vice!鈥�

Learn more about freedom of expression on the Internet: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .