Should ELF's web site be allowed to preach and teach terrorism?

Great Debates
1

Earth Liberation Front’s web site encourages terrorism, celebrates terrorist attacks, and teaches how to commit terrorism. It actually includes a 37 page manual on how to commit arson. ELF describes it as:

I won’t link to the site, because it may be against board rules, but you can find it easily enough. It’s not hidden in any way. Its URL is obvious.

– Is it desirable that such a site be permitted?
– Is it legal for people or groups to have such a site?
– Should some official body remove their site from the internet? Who?
– Are those who maintain the site committing a felony? Should they be prosecuted?
– Does it matter legally or morally that ELF’s terrorism is aimed at property, not people?

2

1: No, not especially desirable. For one thing, even if the ELF’s aims were admirable, there is always the risk that a depressed youth or adult would read their instructions, follow them, and kill him or herself and many other people.
2: Legal where? That’s the real question. Where’s the server, where’s the domain registered from?
3: All you could do is stop every country in the world’s registrars from giving them an address. They could still set up on an IP range. You’d have to block them at the router every time they changed it, too. Every router. The internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it. There is no way to stop them from the internet side of things.
4: Depends on where they’re set up.
5: Not really, no. Life, Liberty, and Property…

3
  1. Can you think of a clear legal guideline that would not permit this site without infringing on the rights of others?

If people can but manuals to convert semi-automatic rifles to automatics, I don’t see why they can’t download one for arson.
5.Legally, no it doesn’t matter,. Morally, I think it does matter. Still, arson is a dangerous way to destroy property. It seems to me a matter of time before someone gets hurt.

4

So what? You can buy a copy of “The Poor Man’s James Bond” or “The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories” on Amazon. Last time I checked, the First Amendmant was still in effect.

5

I have a question for the posters who answered here to consider:

Would you react like you do if this was an organisation that calls itself Islamic?

Salaam. A.

6

Aldebaran
Yes.

In comparison to the “founding fathers” and their advocation of open rebellion, the ELF are wimps. This is exactly what free speech is about.

7

– Is it desirable that such a site be permitted?

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) that:
“Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” [emphasis mine]

With that in mind, the site appears to pass the Brandenberg test for what is permisssible free speech, at least based upon the descriptions you have provided.

8

Although I have not weighed in on the “Should we as a society censor web pages that we don’t like” issue, allow me to do so now and then answer your question.

First of all, I get really uncomfortable with the idea of restricting the flow of information in any way. Philosophically, I am afraid that entertaining the idea puts us on a very slippery slope and I also cannot think of any existing entity that I would trust to decide what gets censored. Admittedly, there is a lot of bad stuff out there that I would prefer folks not get their hands on, but I cannot think of a way to restrict information that would not result in us losing more than we gain.

As for the question about if my opinion would differ if this was an Islamic site, I will try for as honest an answer as I can. Intellectually, I hope that I would remain true to my stated beliefs above. That said, I think that I would be lying if I said that I would not have more of a fearful emotional reaction. I think that this is because I have endured a lot of propaganda of late that is telling me that Islam is the bad guys. I fight this, naturally, but some of it sinks in. Also, there is a fundamental difference between the ELF site and the hypothetical “terrorist” site.

Primarily, the ELF is advocating more responsible environmental practices. While their methods are (IMHO) both counterproductive and dangerous as hell, I will admit to a small amount of sympathy for their cause. The hypothetical “terrorist” site, on the other hand, would be (I assume) advocating the destruction of my culture. For all of it’s flaws, it remains my culture and so I would guess that a site with instructions geared towards hurting it would be more of a direct threat to me.

9

Newsflash-- Contrary to what Asscroft and his minions might try to cram down your gullible throats, spray-painting and burning cars induces terror in no one.

It’s not domestic terrorism, folks.

OKC bombing? Terrorism.

Los Angeles Hummer destruction? Not.

10

The address given in the Network Solutions WHOIS database is in Canada. The site’s IP address is 208.40.195.228, which according to ARIN belongs to a company in Pennsylvania.

11

Binary,

Thank you for your honest reaction.

But when it comes to advocate terrorism , there is to me no difference between one group or the other at all and there shouldn’t be made any difference at all.

And when it comes to destroying culture: You could maybe consider the idea that for what is called so easily “Islamic terrorists” (see my explanations as to why there can’t be any link made between “Islam” and “terrorism”) it is exactly the same: They accuse the West - the USA in particular - of destroying their culture. So the reason they advocate terrorism is exactly the same.

I have now an other question: do you consider your culture superior to an other?

Salaam. A.

12

Let’s not trivialize those who died on 9/11 by comparing that act with acts of non-violent sabotage.

I’m not condoning sabotage, but it’s not terrorism.

13

I’m not talking about 9/11.

I’m talking about a comparison between groups advocating terrorism.
By the way: I consider sabotage as a form of terrorism and it can easily lead to innocents getting killed.

Salaam. A

14

Re: Arson and Terrorism

Consider a racist motivated church burning. This is clearly a threatening act of intimidation.

It’s hard for me to sort out the exact motives of the ELF but it’s probable that the property owners could react in the same frightened way that a black congregation might.

I think the ELF don’t want to hurt anyone, but they don’t seem to care if people get frightened. I think there is a slight difference between their property burnings and the church burnings. Mainly I think that the church burnings send the message “You could be next” whereas I think the ELF want to say “You will not make a profit at this, we’re going to at least raise your insurance rates.”

The SUV’s in particular are less threatening because it’s obvious no one’s inside. But they’ve burned down some buildings and had some close calls already.

They are painting their message with a very broad brush though, so it does not surprise me if people feel terrorized.

If the ELF does not want to be percieved as terrorists, they should at least stick to methods of vandalism that don’t threaten lives and scare people so badly.

15

Not particularly, although I will say that there are many ideals of US culture (imperfectly implemented though they may be) that I see other cultures lacking, or at very least not placing enough emphasis on (equality of women, free speech, separation of church and state to name a few).

16

Yes, but then we could argue about the right of every other nation/culture to see theirs as the most perfect for them and yours lacking what they prefer.

So that is no valid argument in my opinion.

Salaam. A.

17
  1. Very much so
  2. Where I live: yes.
  3. Definitely not
  4. No and no.
  5. Morally. Somewhat but not substantial so.

December as a man with unpopular opinions (I have been here a short while and have seen numerous calls for banning (censuring) you) – I hope you share the same views.

Definitely. As well as organisations that writes about the joy of paedophilia; or Nazism, Maoism, KKK, Scientology, sadism, liberation of garden-dwarves, etc.

Certainly

In what way is this not considering US culture superior to those which you find lacking?

They could very well argue so (if we live in a culture/nation that believe in freedom of speech), but I would not be greatly impressed, since I do not subscribe to ridiculous notions of absolute cultural relativism.

  • Rune
18

Winston,

Why do you consider your culture to be ** certainly** superior to an other? On which grounds, since you don’t “subscribe to ridiculous notions of absolute cultural relativism” ?

In which way makes your approach - to consider your culture to be certainly superior to others - distinction of this?
Salaam. A

19

– Is it desirable that such a site be permitted?

It may not be desirable to some, but I find it perfectly acceptable.

– Is it legal for people or groups to have such a site?

You’ll have to ask someone with a legal background, but the site domain is registered in British Columbia, Canada, and I presume that it meets legal requirements for that country.

– Should some official body remove their site from the internet?

No, under the assumption that freedom of speech is a concept that has worth.

– Are those who maintain the site committing a felony? Should they be prosecuted?

Bit redundant here, aren’t we? No, if the site meets legal guidelines, which it apparently does, of course not. The site does not appear to command any specific persons to carry out any specific acts, so if the OP is thinking along the lines of prosecution for incitement, IMHO he is incorrect.

– Does it matter legally or morally that ELF’s terrorism is aimed at property, not people?

Firstly, I’d be more inclined to consider it terrorism if they were setting SUVs on fire with people inside; OTOH, these are illegal acts of vandalism and should be prosecuted vigorously, particularly since there is a high probabilty that fatalities will eventually occur from actions of this type. Morally, I beleive this is a classic case of the “cure” being worse than the “disease”.

First few lines of registration info from WHOIS:

earthliberationfront.com

Registrant:
Thurston, Darren (EARTHLIBERATIONFRONT-DOM)
NO ORG NAME
PO Box 78061, 2606 Commercial Drive
Vancouver, B.C. V5N1G8
CA

20

There is the question of intent, isn’t there? Do the terrorists you are speaking of claim that the shipment of US goods and entertainment and educational materials (propanda if that suits better) about the US is for the express purpose of destroying their culture?

The announced intent of the Al Qaeda et al is to destroy the US.