Hillary Clinton says tech companies need to ‘step up’ fight against ISIS propaganda by Amar Toor.
From the post:
Hillary Clinton said this week that if elected president, she would work with major technology companies to “step up” counter-terrorism efforts, including surveillance of social media and campaigns to combat jihadist propaganda online. As Reuters reports, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee made the comments in a speech in Cleveland Monday, one day after a gunman killed 49 people and left 53 wounded at a gay nightclub in Orlando.
Clinton did not provide details on how she would work with tech companies, though her comments add to the ongoing debate over privacy and national security, which has intensified following recent terrorist attacks in both the US and Europe. In her speech, the former secretary of state called for an “intelligence surge,” saying that security agencies “need better intelligence to discover and disrupt terrorist plots before they can be carried out.” She also called on the government and tech companies to “use all our capabilities to counter jihadist propaganda online.”
“As president, I will work with our great tech companies from Silicon Valley to Boston to step up our game,” Clinton said. “We have to [do] a better job intercepting ISIS’ communications, tracking and analyzing social media posts and mapping jihadist networks, as well as promoting credible voices who can provide alternatives to radicalization.”
…
What does it mean to “counter jihadist propaganda online?”
Does it include factual reports about the aims of jihadists and the abuses they seek to correct?
For example, the Declaration of Independence was once considered “propaganda.”
Does it include factual reports of terrorist bombings by coalition forces on jihadists positions?
Question: Who do you root for in the Star Wars movies, the tiny band of rebels or the empire?
Does it include calling on young people to actively resist corrupt and oppressive governments?
Let’s see…
Even anarchy itself, that bugbear held up by the tools of power (though truly to be deprecated) is infinitely less dangerous to mankind than arbitrary government. Anarchy can be but of short duration; for when men are at liberty to pursue that course which is most conducive to their own happiness, they will soon come into it, and for the rudest state of nature, order and good government must soon arise. But tyranny, when once established, entails its curse on a nation to the latest period of time; unless some daring genius, inspired by Heaven, shall unappalled by danger, bravely form and execute the arduous design of restoring liberty and life to his enslaved, murdered country.” [AN ORATION DELIVERED MARCH 6, 1775, AT THE… Joseph Warren (1741-1775) Boston: Printed by Messieurs Edes and Gill, and by J. Greenleaf, 1775 E297 W54, Fighting Words, a collection at Utah State University.]
Updated to use modern language, would that qualify?
As I remember the First Amendment, all of those qualify as protected free speech.
Clinton and her separated-at-birth twin, Donald Trump, can try to impose censorship on the legitimate speech of jihadists.
Let’s all lend the jihadists a hand and repeat their legitimate speech on a regular basis.
I for one would like to hear what the jihadists have to say for themselves.
Wouldn’t you?