free speech or terrorism?

This is a question to the free speech champions here.

In the Netherlands a debate has started with regard what to do against sites that provide a full explanation on how to make bombs and be an effective suicide bomber. Here the debate focuses on what can be done technically, especially if the site itself is outside national (or european) jurisdiction.

But shouldn't the question be whether such sites are falling in the "freedom of speech" category? What do you guys think? I mean it's not like such sites are actually stimulating terrorism, or are they? I mean, it's people that kill people right, not bombs or is it illegal to have bombs for self defense purposes?

That is kind of the obvious cheap shot, but fair enough. What do you think of the free speech angle though?

I think the sites should be left alone, providing they have no content that encourages their use. I know, as I'm sure you do, any educated individual can construct a working bomb. How much information would need to be contained on a site to justify it's removal? Would just giving ideas be enough? What about this?

Washing machine timers, now there's a thought. I was about to fcuk around with a mechanical alarm clock but those things come complete with electrical points capable of handling a high current! Cell phones, fcuk me, I'll even be able to detonate remotely. Hell, they must be good, the American military are having problems dealing with devices made from this sh[i][/i]it. If it's good enough for insurgents, it's good enough for me and it saves me having to watch a shit load of movies and TV shows to pick up a few pointers.

I'm sure you get my drift. The methods for making a viable bomb are not difficult to obtain from many other sources. What should be controlled is any lunatic encouraging the use of such devices.

I think it is OK to publish such material.

I don't think alluding to 'the great firewall of China' was a cheap shot, simply a suggestion.

im going to agree with tom on this one...

i believe it is quite alright to publish the material.... it gives us insight on how to prevent it...

its like when the whole "omg they made a youtube on how to breakin to a house" well, i took that as an oppurtunity to see if i could find a way to prevent such events from happening...

educational i guess.

I would punish the authors; but if someone were to use such articles then it would be viable to punish the users, but still not the authors i guess.

There is a twist to that which is also funny, TV shows like CSI and such make people more forensically aware and better equipped to avoid capture after committing a crime.

Your house may be Redneck proof but I'll guarentee its not Scouse proof.

i think it should be allowed. that debate has been occuring in the USA for years and years... it's never really been resolved.

anyways, it take much more than just knowing how to make a bomb. someone actually has to have the guts to denonate it- which is a whole 'nother matter.

it's definitely a tough matter.

here's a question: if your govt. had been overthrown by islamic extremists, wouldn't you want to know how to make an effective bomb? it's always a possibility mate. i personally would rather have access to the info than to ban it outright. legitimate rebellions happen all the time. and on a long enough timeline your country (as will ANY country) will have a rebellion.

Tell it to the tobacco industry.[/another can of worms] WTF has it to do with this argument? I'm sure that there are a lot of troops who are now more effective killers than before their training. If one were to kill a citizen on home ground should your commander and chief be held responsible?

Your missus never shoots intruders, porch light on = Phucky gone.

Twice in two posts.

Sorry, my mistake. She's hardly a secret though, why do you think they put that new window in the local bar? The one that you can see the porch light from.

***finishes beer and gets some dimes in change***

On my way.

Build your own catapult.

What's getting me is that the US is developing all these insane weapons that would be good in a head on fight against another standing army.

China just blew up a satellite in space.. readying themselves to attack our satellites should that day come.

I don't even know if the US had this capabilities.

Then you have China hitting satellites with Lasers.. Can the US even do this?

We've developing these weapons that seem slow.. I'd imagine we'd want more mobile, fast attack.

Hell, Iran recently shot down one of our unmanned drones. Great, hopefully has some form of thermal grenade in it to burn the technology.

Lets focus on making our attack helicopters stronger. Better armor. Not powerful weapons to shoot from our navy vessles.

Hell, what other country out there even has a Navy capable of putting up a resistance against the US's? I'm not aware of any other countries.. I think the US is the only country who has aircraft carriers any more. Which I still find very useful.

Lets work on creating a better infantry weapon.. For years I've been seeing the stories on the next weapon, but come on, lets get some HE rounds, Incindiary rounds, armor piercing, etc. Load those boys on the ground up incase something comes up they can switch out.

Sniper pointing down at you? Shoot a HE round or two in his area. Don't worry about hitting him directly, just wound him or give time to line up.

I saw the new sniper rifle being developed for the US in Britain. That thing is badass.. 27lbs and only for Special ops.

Interesting question. I’ve read the responses, and if I may, I will offer a different twist on the freedom of that kind of information.

As others pointed out, debate on this stuff has been going on for years in the US as well as elsewhere. One of the more notable debates in the US surrounds "The Terrorists Cookbook", and to a lesser degree, "The Poor Mans James Bond", both I and II.

I haven’t seen the site to which you refer, but if it is anything like those books (if you've read them) then I would say more power to the site.

Having read the 'terrorist books', they are vastly different from each other. "The Terrorists Cookbook" is very accurate technically, while "The Poor Mans James Bond" is, at best, mostly whimsical notion and flights of fancy.

The typical (please note I say typical) would be terrorist lacks significant technical education. For them, attempting to use those books as templates or blueprints would most likely result in personal maiming. In the case of TTCB, it lacks root theory and precautionary explanations, assuming that the individual using it possesses this knowledge. For the typical uneducated aspiring terrorist who lacks that fundamental knowledge (required to make effective use of the information in TTCB) playing with it will most likely result in negative results. My favorite in that book is the home made plastique. The information included to make the plastique is correct, however it is incomplete. For the person who lacks the missing information, they would wind up making "Play Doh" with no explosive properties what so ever.

In the case of PMJB, most of the stuff in there is based on notion and technically incorrect---my favorite example being the radio controlled missile, the design of which is aerodynamically incorrect. While the design looks "neat", for anyone who does not have basic understanding of chord line, center of pressure, and mechanical/aerodynamic balance of control surfaces, they wouldn’t even have time to pray for entry into whichever paradise they are so inclined after pushing the 'launch' button. For those
people who do (and that information is not that advanced or difficult. Any "RCer" who has built their own planes knows it) possess that knowledge, they would know the design, as published is a dud.

So, the people smart enough to discern what information is correct and which is not, and then successfully employ that information are more than smart enough to access that information through alternate methods. Those who are not (which is the majority of the people who consider using the books) would be, at best unsuccessful, at worst dead.

In short, natural selection (or de-selection) through freedom of information.

Firstly, I would just like to say that I am extremely passionate about this particular topic, as former threads and posts of mine attest.

Which is a problem. If the site is hosted in Iran then what can the Dutch (or the West) do?

My biggest problem with freedom of speech is the consistent lack of associated individual responsibility. Extremists, if they had it their way, would like to bring the state down. Islamo-fascists would have it so that they do that and then indoctrinate a hardcore pre-medieval interpretation of the Koran upon society as a whole.

To achieve this they must disrupt Western progress through terrorism. That terrorism is a direct threat to the very free speech concept that Western governments are trying to protect. Of course free speech should be enshrined, but does that mean we should tolerate it all?

My answer to that is a resounding no! For the greater good there must be some restrictions placed upon extremists or fanatics (regardless of their political or religious persuasion).

Here's a classic example for you:

In Australia there are anti-discrimination laws that protect minorities and women from racism and sexual discrimination etc.. You cant say what you want to them; there is no "free speech". Its not political correctness, but rather, your civil right to talk freely is tempered by laws that require you as an individual to be responsible for all that you say and do.

Extremists and fanatics should come under the same laws with new laws created to ban such information as it is a direct threat to the greater good of the society and the state.

We legislate ever day that put restrictions on civil rights (including free speech) and terrorists and extremists should be no exception, in literature or otherwise.

Of course they are, Mac. Come on. That information is out there for crying out loud!

I'll give you another classic example:

Australia's most prominent Islamic Youth leader has a website that encourages children to become martyrs and to help in anyway with the overthrow of the Zionist world order that is in place. His words, not mine. It is, Mac, one of the most popular web sites for young Muslims in this country; its popularity being so great that the Muslim Youth leader can not keep up with the volume of enquiries being put to him by the impressionable youth of this country.

Not to mention that the Sheik I told you about who called women in this country as being "exposed meat" is back at it again despite his plaintive cry that he would "seal his lips and not talk publicly for 6 whole months" as he stipulated this with his hand placed firmly on a Koran.

Sure enough, within 3 months of those appalling comments the man goes on Egyptian tv (his country of birth) and says Australians are lazy, ignorant, and nothing but a bunch of brutish convicts and that Muslims have as much if not more right to the country of Australia as any Anglo-Saxons of European heritage do.

This is outrageous. This man -- and the aforementioned Youth leader -- preach hate, extremism and stand for everything that Australians dont, and yet we tolerate it. That is wrong! A nation that apathetic will lose its freedoms and worse, lose its sense of security and well-being.

Which is exactly why there must be legal limits in place to prohibit or at least diminish the capabilities of these people who are using the net (and other resources) to destroy the state.

You cant rationally argue with a fanatic, can you? You yourself refused to believe that I could rationally argue with extremists in a previous thread on Iran. You must legislate then; collectively the state's people must not stand for it.

I do owe you an apology there, K. Sorry about that.

Yes, in the process of trawling through the thread, I missed your which is most unusual of me because I typically try to read the more serious threads/posts a little slower, etc..

That said though, its moot because I do remember your perspective on firearms and I wholeheartedly agree with it and I remembered that fact as I replied so at no stage did I misunderstand your tongue-in-cheek reference.

My last couple of paragraphs were general and not specific to any one person.

This is a trifle verbose. Sorry for that too.