why no support for limiting access to information?

[Sigene]

Really, I’m not sure I want to Debate this so it might be better elsewhere. I’m just wondering why there hasn’t been much focus on banning words as a tool to protest against banning guns. It looks to me that some of the same arguments can be made for banning jihadist, racist, hate filled websites as for banning guns; yet no one is making this point.
It seems that argument for more bans on guns can be transferred to bans on websites and inflammatory information.

Why do these people need to possess such guns/information?

These guns/information are only designed to kill people

Free access to these guns/information is directly related to the mass killing of people

If we ban availability of these guns/information then others won’t have them to use against the general good

We already ban use of certain guns/information

[Bone]

There’s been plenty of talk about restricting speech. Clinton has long supported limiting freedom of speech. Circa 2011:

“To maintain an Internet that delivers the greatest possible benefits to the world, we need to have a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us. What rules exist - and should not exist - and why; what behaviors should be encouraged and discouraged, and how,” she told an audience at George Washington University.

No details on what that “serious conversation” was meant to entail.

Of course, when other countries do it, that’s bad:

“countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century”
…
“We are convinced that an open internet fosters long-term peace, progress and prosperity. The reverse is also true. An internet that is closed and fractured, where different governments can block activity or change the rules on a whim – where speech is censored or punished, and privacy does not exist – that … is an internet that can cut off opportunities for peace and progress and discourage innovation and entrepreneurship,”

She wants toengage with tech companies to shut down means of communicating.

“We’re going to have to have more support from our friends in the technology world to deny online space,” Clinton warned, citing the deadly terrorist attack in San Bernardino four days earlier by a U.S.-born Muslim and his Pakistani wife. “Just as we have to destroy their would-be caliphate, we have to deny them online space.”

But doesn’t that go against the American cultural and constitutional tradition of free speech? Clinton anticipated the argument: “You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints—you know, ‘freedom of speech,’ etc.,” she said. “But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating.”

Here’s theadvice Clinton gave:

Clinton said that governments that arrested bloggers or limited the Internet “may claim to be seeking security . . . but they are taking the wrong path.” She added that they might be able to “hold back the full expression of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever.”

[Little_Nemo]

@Sigene

It looks to me that some of the same arguments can be made for banning jihadist, racist, hate filled websites as for banning guns; yet no one is making this point.

It seems that argument for more bans on guns can be transferred to bans on websites and inflammatory information.

Most people aren’t making this argument because it’s a really bad argument.

A terrorist website can’t kill anybody. It just encourages people to get a bomb - or a gun - and use those to kill people.

[Sigene]

I don’t see it as a bad argument. THe Orlando killer was inflamed by these websites. If he never learned about the arguments made by these websites he would not have become radicalized. He would not have been motivated to kill those people.

I disagree that websites aren’t used as a weapon to kill people. That’s exactly what they are designed to do.

[boffking]

@Sigene

I disagree that websites aren’t used as a weapon to kill people. That’s exactly what they are designed to do.

The website encourage human beings to kill. Until somebody gets beaten to death with a network rack, the website was not used as a weapon.

[Sigene]

I agree, the websites encourage people to kill, and it is a key component in people killing others. Without those websites the information would not be there and the motivation would largely disappear.

Historically and currently and often words and information are used as weapons. That’s why small radical groups in foreign countries use it to great success.

They recognize the use of websites as one of their strongest weapons, so did the likes of Thomas Paine

Limiting the thought that something is not a weapon until it actually was involved in bludgeoning someone is short sighted. That would also extend to my 22 not being a weapon because it was never physically used to kill someone

[naita]

If you actually want to discuss limiting speech you should do so without tying it to gun control, and vice versa. The arguments against are completely different (except the generic FREEDOM!-argument).

[Shodan]

If Hillary wants to control the Internet, she should get her own servers.

Regards,
Shodan

[Little_Nemo]

@Sigene

I don’t see it as a bad argument. THe Orlando killer was inflamed by these websites. If he never learned about the arguments made by these websites he would not have become radicalized. He would not have been motivated to kill those people.

I disagree that websites aren’t used as a weapon to kill people. That’s exactly what they are designed to do.

Omar Mateen could have gotten as inflamed as he wanted. He could have gotten so inflamed he spontaneously combusted. But it didn’t matter until he got a gun and started shooting people. Wanting to kill people isn’t a crime; killing people is a crime.

And if you think a website is a weapon, try to rob a bank with one. Mateen wouldn’t have killed dozens of people if he had been armed with a website.

This where gun supporters end up looking silly; when they try to put something else in the place of guns. It’s one thing to argue that freedom has risks and you have to accept those risks in order to have freedom. But too many gun supporters want to ban things like websites or video games or religion or flying or trench coats, which is just ridiculous. If you want to use banning as a solution to people getting shot, it’s obvious what you need to ban.

[Sigene]

plenty of banks have been robbed with nothing but a note

Omar Mateen would not have gotten inflamed without information about why he should be inflamed. If he was ignorant of the cause he wouldn’t have the cause.

That’s the point, why aren’t we screaming to limit and remove this information?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Shodan

If Hillary wants to control the Internet, she should get her own servers.

Regards,
Shodan

I just had to quote this because it was so awesome.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Sigene

… why aren’t we screaming to limit and remove this information?

Some people are (well, calling for, but probably not screaming). Bone showed that the leading presidential candidate wants to limit or remove this information. There aren’t many higher-profile figures than HRC right now.

[John_Mace]

@Sigene

plenty of banks have been robbed with nothing but a note

Omar Mateen would not have gotten inflamed without information about why he should be inflamed. If he was ignorant of the cause he wouldn’t have the cause.

That’s the point, why aren’t we screaming to limit and remove this information?

Because we don’t want to live in China or North Korea.

Alternatively, imagine someone with the polar opposite political views that you have in charge of the Dept of Allowable Information.

[coffeecat]

Sigene, are you against gun control or against freedom of speech?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Sigene]

@coffeecat

Sigene, are you against gun control or against freedom of speech?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

While I’m looking for information and arguments for and against, I’m not really prepared to fall on either side of either argument.

My biggest questions revolve around both concepts have some similarities, yet only one seems to be dominating the discourse.

IF there was a big push to limit radicalized information (not just limited to ISIS terrorism), would there be a big outcry? and who would that outcry come from?

While not exactly alike, I do think there are arguments where you can replace the word “guns” with “words” or “ideas” and the statement would make similar sense.

[Slash1972]

@Sigene

They recognize the use of websites as one of their strongest weapons, so did the likes of Thomas Paine

Was his website commonsense.com or .org?

[Sigene]

They recognize the use of websites as one of their strongest weapons, so did the likes of Thomas Paine

Was his website commonsense.com or .org?

Doh!

[Boyo_Jim]

So, once the world gets the way YOU like it, OP, it’s time to shot down dangerous ideas that might change things? Maybe Mateen was inflamed by watching Rambo and seeing Stallone gun down hundreds of people.

I’ll meet you half way. I’ll agree to a ban on Rambo sequels.

[coffeecat]

On Liberty is well worth reading. The short version is that people become wise through the free exchange of ideas. Once you start banning ideas, however awful they may seem, you risk a society of narrow-minded idiots.

This argument doesn’t apply to guns, although we may want to keep them for other reasons.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[spamforbrains]

The short version is that people become wise through the free exchange of ideas. Once you start banning ideas, however awful they may seem, you risk a society of narrow-minded idiots.

exactly. information in and of itself is always a good thing. The more you know, the more educated your choices. People who are not inclined to kill people aren’t going to be “inflamed” by viewing radical websites; they will, however, learn a bit more about other people and the world, possibly how to spot persons inclined to kill and how to stop them from acting on it.