Foreign policy sometimes addresses war and killing and there must be room to discuss such details.  Restrictions on advocacy of violence in practice may therefore be confined to restrictions on speech by a citizen targeting other citizens of the same country.  In this context a company serving content over the Internet can be deemed to be like a citizen if it has a domestic address.  Thus I think a company with a domestic address like Facebook could be ordered by a court to censor some violent content, regardless of where it was produced, but I am not a lawyer and maybe that will not happen.

However, when a company providing Internet content has no domestic address or financial activity, and is permitted to operate by its government, then I am skeptical much can be done.  The FCC or some such federal agency would arguably need to intervene in such contexts, but currently they do not and if they attempted to do that it would likely land on the desk of SCOTUS, which currently very much favors free speech.  But before any of that will happen there needs to be a way to shut down access to a web site that operates in another country.  Technically that can be done, many countries actively censor the Internet.  But I think such internet censorship requires controlling domestic dns servers and blocking access to foreign dns servers, or some extensive and intrusive control over internet activity like that.  So in a free country my guess is that such Internet censorship is some combination of impractical and undesirable.

We want to have direct public access to foreign publications, particularly when they are related to violent conflicts, because reading what they say is one way we can learn about foreign policy related questions.  The IS English language magazine is available on the Internet, it provides insight into their mind set and strategy.

On Nov 24, 2015, at 8:32 PM, Robert W Ahrens <[address removed]> wrote:

Don, this is one of the most contentious issues our democracy has to contend with, hands down.

I cannot disagree that there is and should be a fine line between actual advocacy of murder and “theoretical speech”.  It is, in fact one of the more difficult issues SCOTUS has ruled on.  I’m not a Constitutional scholar, and am not well read up on this particular issue, but to my recollection, in order for there to be either after the fact enforcement or prior restraint, there are certain conditions that must be present, but I couldn’t remember those if my life depended on it!

I do know that religious speech is different than political speech, and our constitution does not deal with a situation as with Islam where the two are mixed.  So the problem we are faced with is an actual religion whose actual, real teachings include violent action against non-muslims, and whose clerics often, in radical extremist mosques, espouse very real violent action in interpreting those passages.

Because, those interpretations are very, very real, and there is a faction of Islam which backs such interpretations.  Such can be proven in a court of law.  As the Constitution is written, such would be protected.

However, there is an interpretation by SCOTUS we can hang our hats on to counter that.

It goes way back, but the gist of it is that even with honest and strongly held religious teachings, somebody can’t revive the Aztec religion and start cutting out hearts.

So, the cure is with the laws which apply to everybody and forbid the active and sincere advocation of murderous or otherwise illegal acts.  One could probably push into the conspiracy laws or even RICO laws if necessary.  I like to invoke the right wing’s favorite meme here:  The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact!

And all of that without changing current laws, merely the interpretation of them with new targets.  The RICO laws in particular, were very successful in reining in the mafia.  

I do in particular like your idea of denying tax exempt status to those religious institutions which espouse illegal violence.  That might exert pressure internal to the Islamic community to limit the influence of such clerics.  Money does that!

On Nov 24, 2015, at 8:00 PM, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

Well I guess I am a minority of one on this issue at the time.  As I am typing this the PBS News Hour is reporting that people are preparing lawsuits against Facebook  because of the many posts including detailed instructions about how to use knives to stab and slice up Jews.  The explicit espousal of murderous actions can be made illegal without chilling legitimate free speech.  We have a general assumption that all rights are limited where significant harm can be shown to come to others.  There is no legal reason to presume that a carefully crafted law cannot be put into place without enabling the arbitrary and capricious application to anyone.  The form of speech that can reasonably be expected to lead to murder can be rigorously specified.

I have not heard the Westboro Baptist church advocate the murder of gays.  I fully agree that they are an intensely loathsome example that has the virtue of being a lesson about what is loathsome.  However, I would also be pleased to see them in jail if they advocated murder.  I do not want to outlaw being an a-hole.  Obviously we would have to more than double the jail capacity that we have now if we did that.  We need a very limited and rigorously specified change in current law.  I would be happy to have a first offense be limited to a misdemeanor with no jail time at all. 

I just see no conceivable way for society to reasonable survive without legal action against the most murderous memes.  We have tens of thousands who are falling into taking extreme actions because of these memes.  The power of social media to magnify the impact of given meme complexes is much greater than any prior time in human history.  These times are really much different.  We will be having many dozens of people coming back from IS and being active here in America to do things similar to what recently happened in Paris.  Europe will have thousands returning from precisely this training.  It is worth taking the minimal effective actions required to mitigate the wave of future terrorist killing that is certain to entail from this. 

Note that I also suggested the more minor action of abolishing the tax exempt church status and other religious privileges for these nexuses of evil which do advocate murder.  There is no jail sentence included with this sanction.  There would be no jail sentence if an additional sanction of automatic addition to the No Fly list for mosque member who continue to attend a mosque where murder has been repeatedly advocated.   We don't need put people in a jail to convey the social message that advocating murder is unacceptable.

Don

---

From: [address removed]
Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Religious Killing
To: [address removed]
Date: Tue, 24 Nov[masked]:02:05 -0500

The Supreme Court has repeatedly come down on the side of free speech and outlawing any kind of prior restraint on political speech.  The two clauses on religious freedom in that respect speak for themselves, and again, SCOTUS has always come down on the side of freedom.

That said, one cannot ignore the power of stupidity and fear in large numbers of people, especially when pushed in such major ways by a major political party intertwined with religious leaders willing to prostitute themselves for political ends.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 24, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Jimmy G <[address removed]> wrote:

Collette,

Your side note hits the mark on the absurdity of being accused of a long list of maladies for making a reasonable critique about Islam.  When Ben Affleck attacked Bill Maher and Sam Harris for their thoughtful opinions on Islam, it exemplified the problem with such discussions today.

 

Also, I agree that the government should butt out of people's lives when they are being peaceful and not harming others. I don't think verbally offending or insulting someone should entail the offender winding up in jail.  That seems cruel and unusual, in my opinion.  Some people are just a-holes, but should it be illegal?  No, in my opinion.

Jim

---

From: "Colette Gabrielle" <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24,[masked]:36:25 PM
Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Religious Killing

Jim, I wholeheartedly agree.

The government has no right to dictate religious practices so long as these practices are not injurious to society. The government does however have the right to prosecute any Muslim individual or Islamic entity that commits malicious acts in this country. 

A side-note - I've always found it bizarre that people who denounce Islamic beliefs are accused of xenophobia/racism. Being Muslim is a religious choice (I use the term choice loosely here, since I don't think being born into a religious group and indoctrinated since birth is really a choice) that does not require you to be a certain race or from a certain place. Making this accusation is simply a method used by extremists to shut down the conversation by essentially accusing you of being a "meanie" - when in reality you just want to have a rational conversation about the serious implications of Islam.

Colette

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Jimmy G <[address removed]> wrote:

Hi Don,

 

I understand your point and agree that we can indeed take bold action against those who advocate murder or other nefarious actions and/or engage in such practices. As a matter of fact, I support capital punishment for those who engage in terrorism that takes human life.

 

I don't believe it's xenophobic, racist or mean-spirited to call out a belief system for its faults.  That is my opinion and right as an American.

In no way, shape or form do I see Islam as anything more than a bad player on the world scene of systems, as Sam Harris says "The motherload of bad ideas".

 

That being said, I am hesitant for the state to start enacting more laws dictating what is acceptable and unacceptable speech in our society.  The reason being that such laws can easily be turned on anyone, at any time, for any reason.  I'm concerned about a slippery slope to losing our freedom.

 

In my opinion, It is better to let imams and extremist preachers have their say in the public space and let the marketplace of ideas make judgments.  Also, if certain statements/actions are made which lead authorities to the determination that a mosque or church is engaged in anti-social activities and a threat to society, I'm all for

 taking steps to ensure the public safety. This would include surveillance, incarceration or other measures deemed necessary.

 

For example, the Westboro Baptist Church has done a great deal to shine a light on anti-gay bigotry by showing the public what it looks like.  Their attempts to fan the fires of anti-gay bigotry actually backfired on them by holding up a mirror to a society's complicity.

 

When people of good will learn of the practices and beliefs of Islam, I think that resistance inside and outside of the religion/ideology will bring about change.  For this to happen, we need to have open channels of communication and the free exchange of ideas.

 

I have many friends who are muslim apostates who tell their powerful stories to those unfamiliar with the circumstances of their lives.  Free speech is a powerful weapon in our arsenal of ideas.

 

Jim 

 

 

 

---

From: "Don Wharton" <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24,[masked]:15:29 PM
Subject: RE: [atheists-27] Religious Killing

Jim,

I want to quote a prior message from you back to you:

Don,

I probably have a more negative view of Islam in general, since the murder or imprisonment of gay people is a mainstream and majority opinion in the Islamic world, as codified and practiced in most Islamic nations.

It's hard for me to imagine someone being considered a "moderate" when they explicitly call for the murder of someone because of their sexual orientation.  I don't get it and do we as a society need a reality check on that?

It's not unreasonable to be fearful of those who adhere to a religion that commonly views you worthy of being murdered just for breathing.

Jim

Frankly I agree with what you say above 100%.  I also accept Sam Harris's thesis that bad ideas lead to bad actions.  We have seen links to videos posted here with imams spouting precisely these bad ideas.  We do have a convention that free speech does not include yelling "FIRE" in a theater.  There is an assumption that falsehoods which egregiously damage society may be censored.

Colette cited this marvelous Jefferson quote, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Well certain bad ideas very much will pick your pocket and break you leg.  It will go much further.  It will remove you head from your body.  It will blow a plane in which you are flying out of the sky.  It will sell your body as a sex slave on an auction block for $50.  It will put bullets through your body.  It will cause some people to blow themselves up and take 50 or more other lives with them.  And frankly the 30,000 or more who have joined the IS are likewise victims.  They have joined a death cult in which tens of thousands will in fact die.  In virtually every Islamic country 95% or more do not support this insanity.  Is it not reasonable to put some limits on the ideas that have these horrific outcomes.  Is not the horror in which Muslims hold this insanity some suggestion that even that community would support such limits.

Don

---

From: [address removed]
To: [address removed]
Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Religious Killing
Date: Tue, 24 Nov[masked]:08:00 -0500

In my opinion,  the state should not get involved in the censorship of ideas, and if so, only in extreme cases.

To be honest, I'm increasingly concerned about hate crimes laws being utilized to stifle free speech and impose thought control on populations.  As a gay man, I may be offended by something others say, but I support their right to say it.  I'm increasingly moving to this viewpoint and developing an aversion to cultural authoritarianism emanating from both progressive and conservative circles.

I believe we can't resolve our issues without discussing them first and shutting down the conversation is counterproductive to the best outcome.

Regarding groups advocating the murder of others, since they pose a clear threat to others in society by advocating such anti-social behavior, it seems that the state should monitor their actions and respond boldly when circumstances dictate.  Individuals, such as imams, who explicitly threaten populations with violence would be good candidates for penalties like incarceration.  In my opinion, any individual convicted of terrorism that contributes to the death of others, should be subject to the harshest of penalties.

I just read that the African nation of Angola has outlawed the practice of Islam  and subsequently bull-dozed over 40 mosques.  It will be interesting to see how things play out there.

Jim

On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:17 AM, Don Wharton wrote:

As the world seems to descend into a whirlwind of religiously inspired killing, it makes sense to bear in mind that our world is actually moving towards less death by violence over longer term perspectives. It may not seem that way because our information systems richly report on the killing that does occur.

Obviously the Islamic State is a death cult. While I may be rather sure that everyone on our elist is likely to want to see the end of IS, there is a virtue in its continuation. It is effective as a death cult. There was a report from a group tracking a number of IS women who were visible on the web. The women of IS understand their role to be wives and mothers. Among the group tracked, one quarter were widowed in the last six months. As a death cult it is highly effective. Is this not a good mechanism to reduce the population who are vulnerable to such a twisted message? The mortality rate in one year is likely to be near 50% and rising. Would not humanity be better off if our gene pool has such vulnerability reduced as a statistical likelihood? Obviously I am kidding a bit here but this Darwinian factor should not be ignored. Certainly if we extend replicable entities to include memes then a very major part of everything that we experience will be defined by the replication of Darwinian and quasi-Darwinian entities.

The open question is what is the best legal mechanism to deal with this extremism? The term thug came from the Thuggee religion. This was a variant of Hinduism because they worshiped the Goddess Kali. Kali represents many aspects of reality including destruction. Members of the Thuggee religion gained the confidence of Indian travelers and then strangled them. Thuggees imagined that this service to their Goddess actually reduced the total number of deaths since Kali would kill even more people if the murders that they accomplished were not done. Thus a good result is asserted to be achieved with the murders. This is similar to what the Islamic State asserts since the claim is that once the Caliphate is firmly established over the entire world then all the positives desired by Allah will be manifest. They seriously imagine that this will be achieved by killing hundreds of millions of people.

The Thuggee religion was wiped out in the lat 1880s. Presumably ISIS will also be destroyed in time. However, despite my Darwinian claim above, it is highly unlikely that we will achieve a reasonable future free from religious killing in coming decades. The Internet has enabled a massive expansion in the promotion of dogma of all forms. Jihad will just reemerge with another structure and another leader unless there is a strategy that will eliminate the supporting memes.

Would it work to outlaw or limit the religious claims that killing achieves a good? Obviously it would take a while to achieve that as a shared worldwide standard. However, consider starting with the United States. If all religious charters will by law be revoked if religious text are used to advocate killing then the videos posted here of an Islamic leader advocating the killing of gays or the stoning of people for adultory would be adequate evidence to revoke the charter of that mosque. If a Christian religious leader goes to Uganda and advocates for capitol punishment for gays that would also be evidence that could be used to revoke the charter of that religious organization. If Senator Inhofe goes to Uganda and does that perhaps it should be grounds for convicting him of a crime, impeaching him and expelling him from the Senate. The Ku Klux Klan was a Christian terrorist group. The buring cross was a specifically Christian cross and every meeting ending with the singing of Onward Christian Soldiers. We cannot tell American Muslims that a legal limit on muderous religious makes sense unless we would be willing to have it apply to Chistianity and all other relgions.

This is obviously suggesting a substantial new limitation on the power of religion to inspire violence.

Don

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Don Wharton from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jimmy G from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Don Wharton from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jimmy G from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Colette Gabrielle from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jimmy G from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Robert W Ahrens from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Don Wharton from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Robert W Ahrens from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]