ISIS Gives Us No Choice but to Consider Limits on Speech | Hacker News Reader

ISIS Gives Us No Choice but to Consider Limits on Speech

slate.com

3 pointspatcheudor3 comments

Why should I be punished for what someone else (ISIS) might be doing, or might have done? That's bullshit. You're using claims of another human's misbehavior to punish the wrong people. Fuck you.

On the surface it's a horrible proposal with massive free speech and technical implementation implications. In fact, the first thing I thought of was: "ISISrolling" where people are tricked into visiting ISIS websites in iFrames and what-not in order to set them up for a visit by the police. However, as I thought about it more something struck me. We already have such laws on the books for child pornography.

Oh, I hesitate to get into this discussion but... :-)

Almost by definition though child pornography requires the exploitation of someone who can't consent to it - that's really the crux of the illegal part (the non-consentuality), not the pornography part. Once the participants are of consentual age, the pornography part is completely legal.

[Yes, I know there are issues surrounding drawn/animated images of children, and of-age adults portraying themselves as children, but the point I'm trying to make is geared toward the free speech issues WRT ISIS and not the flaming hairball that is pornography law.]

What bothers me most about this article is the completely serious tone in which Slate decides that we're so afraid of a foreign enemy attacking us that it's only natural for us to seriously consider dismantling the very foundation of what these enemies hate about us. Think ISIS is a big supporter of free expression? Of course not. Think that governmental limitation of freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc., is something that ISIS would like to have in their own little Sharia world? They do indeed, and demonstrate that interest often and in brutally medieval ways.

The answer to "our enemy hates us because of the freedoms we have" is NOT "...so we should give up those freedoms", the answer is that we should exercise those freedoms MORE. Free speech? Tell the world what you think of ISIS. Why hide it? Religious freedom? Pick a deity and pray to one, just for the heck of it. Pick a different one every week, not because you believe in anything those deities stand for, but because you can do so without persecution. Make macaroni art of Buddha, invite Robert Mappelthorpe to fingerpaint Jesus on the side of your home. Go nuts. Do it because you CAN, and because ISIS doesn't WANT you to.

Why we feel the need to placate ISIS is beyond me - what do they stand for that makes so many of us collectively want to prostrate ourselves in front of them, so as to not hurt their feelings?

If they attack us, but we've been sensitive to their beliefs and have given up chunks of our own freedoms to try to placate them, what do you think will happen? Maybe they'll let us all off by only killing us a little bit?

I really hope Slate is trolling us all and will laugh at people like me who take them seriously - enough of the "news" nowadays is some sort of trolling that it may actually be the case. But judging from Slate's typical slant, I don't think they're trolling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com