By

In France bloggers have been investigated by police for inciting the riots.

Also, my audiocast on the riots for the New York Times website. (My first podcast-style effort)

Blogs and sms messages were apparently used to coordinate violent action on a large scale.

What should authorities do?

Is there an alternative to censorship?

31 Comments

Who benefits from fomenting hate and violence? Why are these same unseen forces becoming influencial in the Mexican reconquista movement? Until we understand this, the current situation will only get worse.

French Riots: Plan Engineered by Globalists
France erupts as rampant immigration reaps its vengeance

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | November 8 2005

http://infowars.com/articles/world/french_riots_engineered_by_globalists.htm

COMMENTS:
These riots are all part of the Globalists' divide and conquer strategy to get the populations of sovereign nations to accept global government.

The intention is plain and simple: seperate the tribes along racial, religous, and ethnic lines and set them off against each other. When a terrorist act might be too obvious, riots are the next best thing. Both accomplish the same goal of getting people stirred up, frightened and most of all to make otherwise clear-minded poeple willing to submit their liberties to the state in trade for "protection."

All of this is a device to broaden the police state to be used against the general public.

And just watch, these events will only lead to increased immigration into the country just like in the United States.

The world watches in trepidation as the wildfires of chaos sweep from France across Europe. We are witnessing the fruits of globalization. Rampant unchecked immigration policies and the enforced fusion of multiculturalism form the backbone of the New World Order's systematic purge of the sleeping middle class.

Empires that have historically dominated and conquered the barbarians will one day wake up to find the barbarians are at the gates.

A sizeable proportion of the secular humanist Westerners who like to think of themselves as part of the establishment, when in reality they are unwitting tools of the true elite, have bought into the cuddly utopian philosophy that the West is a global village which welcomes all comers and has the enlightened innate ability to homogenize millions of different people of all different colors and creeds into one giant melting pot.

The reality couldn't be further from the truth and images of flaming buses, schools, nurseries, terror and panic betray that fact.

The mainly Algerian Muslims causing the chaos hate the country that has afforded them a greater living standard than their birthplace ever could. They have been programmed from day one to believe that the West owes them big time, and this is only abetted by the establishment media and the liberal hierarchy in France.

Politicians and media mouthpieces have towed the rhetoric that somehow the state's ignorance of these individuals and their lack of care in providing them with adequate housing, health care and employment is the cause of the rebellion.

That in itself highlights the crux of the problem. The immigrants think the State owes them a living and are prepared to act as leeches and suck off all they can get with no return. The burden always falls on the middle class. France's six million strong Muslim population and its insane mass immigration policies is why French taxes are the highest in Europe.

The melting pot of multiculturalism does not work, it has never worked and it was never intended to work. The Algerians in France do not want to be part of the Western fabric because they fundamentally hate it to its very core. This is not helped by promotion of decadent and hedonistic lifestyles pumped out from every cultural and media orifice.

Pat Buchanan's analysis of this process makes for an excellent auderve
but it fails to address the overarching source of the chaos.

The real power behind the clash of civilizations lies with Globalists, in whose interest it is to foment race wars. Their vision of the Western world can best be described as a corporate fascist high tech slave plantation, with all the proles packed into high rise compact cities. The middle class simply won't exist.

But how will the corporate fascists make their money? The real money will not be made under the pretense of a free-market economy, but in the areas of police state security and prison complexes and in addition bombing broken-backed third world countries then rebuilding them with no-bid contract cronyism.

Besides, the Globalists print the money and can manipulate the phony fiat money system at whim.

The character of the riots was shaped and clarified today when a leader of the Aztlan ( http://www.aztlan.net/ ) movement in the U.S. said it was only a matter of time before similar unrest hit the streets of America.

Aztlan and Mecha groups advocate killing all whites and blacks and driving them out of the southern states by means of brutal ethnic cleansing. Flags and placards carried at marches depict white people having their heads cut off, as seen in the picture below.

Those that protest such groups are then attacked by the establishment media and labeled as racists, despite the fact that the Plan of San Diego, a rallying cry for the Hispanic Klan groups, advocates total eradication of any race but Hispanics.

Mecha's own slogan reads, "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing."

Mexican owned radio stations erect giant billboards in Los Angeles claiming the city belongs to Mexico, as seen below.

Mainstream Hispanics who love America abhor the virulent racism that the Mexican Klan groups embrace.

And who bankrolls these pocket radicals? Billionaire tax-exempt foundations and NGO's owned by white men. Organizations like the Ford Foundation, groups who are zealous in their quest to eliminate the middle class and destroy America, turning it into a cashless society, compact city, surveillance control grid where only two tiers of society exist - the elite and the poor slaves.

Every major minority movement throughout history has been infiltrated and steered by the elite in an attempt to obtain these objectives.

The elite want us to be at each others throats while they dominate over the downtrodden and befuddled warring tribes. Race is the ultimate touchstone hot button issue and the Globalists have enacted policies of rampant uncontrolled immigration in order to force hostile cultures to intermingle. The outcome is always tribal warfare, as we saw in Bosnia and Kosovo and as we now witness unfolding in France.

On the other side of the equation Paul Harvey, a veteran radio host some consider to be the conscience of America, recently applauded black slavery and biological warfare and urged its reintroduction in Iraq. Harvey stated,

"Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and into this continent by giving small pox infected blankets to native Americans.

Yes, that was biological warfare!

And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever. And we grew prosperous.

And, yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves."

This kind of puerile nonsense only encourages the pocket radicals to think they're fighting the American Empire, when in fact it is the Empire itself that is using the radicals to dismantle the middle class.

The riots take place with the backdrop of draconian terror legislation being debated in the British and Australian Parliaments. Support for the new powers will only only increase as the turmoil drags on and the authorities prostrate themselves before the public, feigning weakness in order to justify greater control.

The biggest selling newspaper in Britain, the Sun, carried a photo of a bloodied man on its front page with the headline, Terror Laws: Tell Tony He's Right'. The picture was actually a London bombing victim but any passer-by would have easily mistook the man for a victim of the French riots. Thus reinforcing the belief that crime is terror and in times of strife, terror laws can be applied in either case.

The state of emergency and curfews that are now in place in France are exactly the kind of response we expected from a government that has only succeeded in fueling the flames of this anarchy. Criminals do not obey laws. These laws will only impact ordinary law-abiding people. Are people who are willing to set innocent women on fire going to take any notice of a curfew?

France is now reaping the whirlwind of warnings unheeded and a laissez faire attitude of trusting a government that, despite mock opposition to the war in Iraq, is a central pillar of the New World Order.

Jean-Marie Le Pen was the subject of a worldwide demonization campaign back in 2002 when he was called a racist and a threat to 'democracy' after he ran on a platform of sensible immigration control. The real reason behind Le Pen's pariah status could be found in the mandate of his own manifesto, which said that under his authority France would not be a part of the New World Order.

The hysteria of the time looks foolish now that France is in the grip of what some are calling the biggest threat to its peace since world war two.

Take a bow, Globalization. The gnashing jaws of world government have once again provided us an example of what life will be like in the New World Order. We must resist it now more than ever to prevent the chaos of France repeating in our cities and demolishing our very way of life.

Wow, I hope there is a touch of sarcasm in that. I'm new to reading your site, and have liked it a good deal. But, Is there and alternative to censorship? Isn't there always?
We can censor blogs outlaw SMS, and while we are at it we can go completely 1984 and alter the past, like the White House is attempting.

I realize a lot of damage can be caused by such things, but outlaw the damage being done, not the ability to say what you want?

"censorship"? Oh come on now. Aint this a bit like the old "yelling fire in a crowded movie house"?

Susano,
I think you have won the award for longest comment, which is quite an accomplishment on a site frequented by windbags like me.

One comment, however:
As for "The Algerians in France do not want to be part of the Western fabric because they fundamentally hate it to its very core. This is not helped by promotion of decadent and hedonistic lifestyles pumped out from every cultural and media orifice."


Obviously you've never gotten stoned on some wicked chronic (lovingly cultivated on the island of Maui) with an Algerian over a long and super-indulgent dinner party with some great, great wine. I have, and thus can testify that that hypothesis does not apply to all Algerians.

I suspect you will find susano's post cut and pasted elsewhere, I don't believe it's a spontaneous reply to Thomas' post and in spite of an occasional reference to France I see it as spam.

Thomas, I enjoyed the slide presentation it was quite informative. I do think it is naive however to dismiss the concerns of the French right wing so lightly.

Even if the civil unrest is TOTALLY home grown, which I doubt, foreign elements will be quick to seize upon the disorders to make them a part of the Islamic revolution. To deny this aspect of the rioting is very dangerous.

While the Communist Party did at times use the American Civil Rights movement the reaction from the right at that time was overblown because the Communists were ineffectual.

This situation is very different and when the left allies itself with the Islamofascists they play a very foolish game. The radical Muslims will use the left but in the end will seek to dominate it. The radical Muslims have more passion and dedication than the French left and will overwhelm it.

andi, no it is not spam. While I believe that the rioters are responsible for their own actions, I also see manipulation going on, for a larger, hidden agenda. Judging by your post, it appears that you do, as well.

Peter, sounds like a great night in Maui :o)
Obviously, there are exceptions, and in the piece that I posted, I felt that statement was too general. The overall analysis, I'm in agreement with.

susano I apologize for calling your rant spam but I do think your Globalist elite theory requires a tin-foil hat. There may be people who think they control things globally, and want to control things globally but these folks are deluded not dangerous.

I believe racial differences are responsible for much of the strife, but even if we were all the same color and had identical features discrimination would then occur among subtler attributes. Clannishness and xenophobia arise naturally out of social units beginning with the family so they will never disappear, we must just learn to live with them.

Please for the love of God, some people should stop talking out of their collective rectums : while there is indeed some form of muslim communautarism going on in poor areas around big cities, there riots are everything but driven by some "islamofascist agenda".

To say that people protesting (albeit in a stupidly violent way) against society are trying to push islamism in France is not only incorrect (a huge part of the rioters are not muslim), it's an insult to intelligence.

Somewhere (BBC?) I saw the suggestion that the French rioters are in general no more devoutly Muslim than the average white Frenchman is devoutly Christian (i.e. not very). The "Muslim" label is, to some extent, forced on them by mainstream France. However, it's the only identity they have, making them very vulnerable to exploitation by Islamofascists.

On the original post, *of course* there's an alternative to censorship. Inciting riots is already illegal, whether the incitement is done in person or online.

there's no censorship.
The autority are just looking who post about riots.
the google searchs are explicit.
that's my last post thema...
Big Brother's waching us !

Well, hell.

A) No one really has a evil globalist plan to eliminate the middle class and create a two party caste system with no cultural differences. They might have a plan to line their own pockets at any cost but, in this case the intention, regardless of the result is important.

B) susano "seperate the tribes along racial, religous, and ethnic lines and set them off against each other." reminds me of a recent post I made about cleft points. These are a the factors the a society divides upon, tribal factors. But again, as you say, the rioters are responsibly for there own actions. I don't really thing that anyone actively thought, "lets cause riots in France" they probably thought "Who cares if there are riots in France", again, subtle, but very, very different. The first line of thought is us seeking a figurehead to blame, the second line of thought is us seeking a more sustainable way of living together by eliminating social unconsciousness. The second method, also doesn't sound like a giant conspiracy theory when talking to most people.

Speaking of giant conspiracy theories, Big Brother is watching you. And now more than ever is a time to start minding your civil liberties. Again, they aren't being taken away just for the hell of it, but rather by people who feel they are doing the best thing for their friends, family, and their own interests. But this is all a classic case of mistaking what is the root of the problem. Removing anyone's right to speak their mind is wrong, even if it is to say hateful things or icite others to violence, and I mean that for the KKK, the taleban, for everyone. Outlawing them doinganything is another story. How does it go? Your rights end where my rights begin.

I thought the rioters were protesting a lack of economic opportunities. How poor are they if they can go online and coordinate?

On second thought, I guess they don't need to afford computers since Internet cafes are cheap and plentiful in Europe, but still, you don't usually imagine computer literate poor, it seems like an odd phemomina.

Authorities should be happy if blogs are being used to coordinate action -- blogs are publicly accessible by anyone, including the authorities. They should be reading these blogs, monitoring them, and possibly even enagaging in dialog on them.(via a bloglines aggregator?)

Being worried about SMS, or IM, or encrypted communication mechanisms is kinda like being worried that people will talk, convene, and associate. This is a basic human capacity and drive, and like the internet, it will route around obstacles.

Steve: Yes, you have a real point about the advantages for the police of being able to follow things on a blog.

If people feel blogs are being censored, that will surely lead to creation of a darknet - encrypted Internet- that will shut off the openness that has characterized the medium.

I'd love to be able to write everything off to a massive conspiracy theory; it's so much easier than looking for a realistic solution.

Religion is not the cause, rather the lightning rod. If you've lapped up the "fundamentalist Islam is the root cause of all evil" argument then the government propaganda is working, and that's the one conspiracy theory I would credit. Except that it's the elephant in the room so it's hardly secretively conspired.

I posted about this today but in short I believe that the "leaders" - Bush, Blair, Howard, Chirac and the list goes on - are failing to act to prevent the feelings that lead to unrest. By the time the individual and the mob is so marginalised and angry that they would consider torching a car in their own street (quite possibly owned by another Muslim) or killing themselves for a cause with some promise of virgins in heaven and blessed martyrdom, it doesn't take Einstein to work out that we're talking about deep-seated anger. Detention or expulsion of those who have reached the end of their tether does nothing to intimidate those left behind, of whom there are many more. On the contrarty. For every angry young man, or full-blown terrorist whose blog you take down and whose freedom you confiscate, you simply martyr that person in the eyes of those who remain. That provides, as does religion, yet another motivating force in pushing the next person, already close to the edge, to do something drastic.

What's it actually like to be an Algerian living in a Parisian suburb in what amounts to a ghetto and to be told by a government minister you are scum; to be in a village in Afghanistan growing opium poppies to survive whilst the Taliban curtail your freedoms; to be second generation Pakistani immigrant in London where white skinheads hassle your father in his shop; to be a white skinhead in Germany where you feel you cannot get a job because the Turk took it?

None of what is being proposed by any leader seems to ask these questions nor to propose answers. This is where the problems begin, and an ounce of prevention is worth much more than a Guantanemo of cure.


If someone is actively encouraging people to do violence, inciting them to riot or to continue rioting and it's evident that this is what they are doing, then I think they deserve to not only be censored, i.e. have their blog or publication shut down, but also arrested.

Freedom, even freedom of speech, implies *some* responsibility.

Noel - I have to say that any Freedom doesn't "imply" anything. There is a very definite line between saying aomething and doing something. Nobody was ever physically hurt by words alone. Now, there is a case to be made for liable, and slander causing reputation, or even property (in the case of stocks etc.) damage. But as far as the confines of this discussion being about incitation to riot, nobody has ever been, nor will they ever be, physically hurt by words alone.

Censorship is wrong. The only exception's I can make are publications that are being used as communications amongst enemies in times of war, but then, that isn't so much censorship, as censorship implies 'by one's own government'.

andi - No problem :) I see this as everyone attempting to understand what is behind these problems, and how we (the human race) can overcome the constant violence that plagues us. I happen to believe that there is a lot of evidence that some people benefit from that, so I like to share ideas, in the hopes of solving a puzzle. I can handle the tinfoil hat label, LOL (heck, I've even seen a UFO)!

Sam said :

"Speaking of giant conspiracy theories, Big Brother is watching you. And now more than ever is a time to start minding your civil liberties. Again, they aren't being taken away just for the hell of it, but rather by people who feel they are doing the best thing for their friends, family, and their own interests."

Sam, I'm half with you, there. I agree that our civil liberties are under assault. Not just in the US, either. Legislation similar to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act is being pushed around the world. Australia and the UK are some examples. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same in France. The idea of censoring blogs is only the tip of the iceberg, imo, regarding the crackdown of law and order that will arrise from fear. Funny, populaces are manupilated by fear into accepting constraits on their own freedoms. See Goebells for details.

Brett said:

"Religion is not the cause, rather the lightning rod. If you've lapped up the "fundamentalist Islam is the root cause of all evil" argument then the government propaganda is working, and that's the one conspiracy theory I would credit. Except that it's the elephant in the room so it's hardly secretively conspired."

Unless, Brett, someone is prodding the rioters, taking advantage of their anger. I find it extremely difficult to believe that teenagers are able to bring France grinding to hault. In addition to 300 cities in France, this arson has spread to Belgium and Germany - coincidentally, the three most outspoken countries AGAINST the Iraq war. Perhaps a little unrest, maybe even a Jordan type event, will bring them in line? Call me crazy but, this is exactly what happened after 9/11. Even now, four years later (in June), the senate voted UNANIMOUSLY, for a preliminary version of P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act II, which is Act I on steroids. People who are marginalized and angry are very easy to manipulate, that's all I'm saying. Now, I wonder who is doing it. If you would go back and look the Aztlan link in my original post (the Jones/Watson piece), I think you will be shocked at just how well that point is demonstrated.

For the record, I do not approve of the censoring of speech - even the most offensive. The flip side of speaking is listening, and it seems that is what we need to do more of. When people are so miserable that they riot, manipulated or not, something is terribly wrong. Naturally, any powers that be will consider reaction from the masses to be a threat, and try to criminalize it. Look at how they cordone themselves off from public scrutiny of their planning sessions (WTO, GATT, G8, whatever). So far, they have not shown any inclination to hear the grievences of the people. They only pass more draconian laws to take away our civil rights. In the end, nobody is safer, just more controlled.

Anyway, good food for thought from everyone. I'll gladly be the tinfoil hat so that angle is covered ;)

Well, as I say here in French, I strongly doubt public blogs can be very efficient at organising large-scale violence and riots. They're a public space! Try to plan a riot on your blog, you can be sure the police will be there too to pick you up when you turn up.

The youngsters arrested are much more likely a case of "forgot the internet was a public space". I give "blog risks" conferences for teenagers, and I'm always amazed at how in denial they are about the fact that anybody (including parents, teachers, police, the headmaster, grandparents) might access their blog. They don't realise what public means.

And in case somebody did come up with the bright idea, Skyblog is a pretty basic platform which certainly does not allow private blogs or posts.

Sam, are you tellng me it's a more serious crime to slander than it is to incite people to cause actual bodily harm? How can damage to property or reputation be more important than damage to life and limb? Which is more precious to you? A human life or a human reputation?

Inciting to riot, by the way, is a crime, just like slander, libel and fraud, but that's not why I'm against it. I don't like the idea of censorship anymore than you do, but I'm sorry, freedom does imply responsibility. You're perfectly welcome in my view to an opinion that says all Irish people are purple spotted martians. You step over the line when you say all Irish people should be beaten up or shot.

What freedom means is that instead of having kings and queens or governments tellling us how to think and how to live, we are able to govern ourselves and that requires a degree of self-control.

Noel: US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 102 to be specific. You'll also find that almost every legitimate case regarding incitement to riot has been accompanied by a coutercase regarding people's right to protest.

What I am talking about is a serious semantic difference. There are only a handful a situations that the law (in America anyway) can suppress your right to say whatever you want. I mentioned slander and liable because those are two of the cases. Treason is a third (plotting against the US, plotting to kill the prez., speaking state secrets, etc). A fourth is incitement to riot... and that is one I personally thing has too broad a scope.

Look at it this way. I can tell everyone on this site right now that because of the injustices that we are subject to, we should go burn down something or other. It is my contention, that if you go do just that, I shouldn't be held culpable. Why? Well, I didn't burn anything down. Responsibility is the carrying argument in this. You are responsible for your own actions. No matter who told you to do them. Personal responsibility, nothing more, is what would prevent you from going out and commiting outrageous crimes, because someone incited you to.

I do believe there is a place for incitement to riot laws. Manipulating crowds into frenzies, leading them somewhere and actively rioting, does need a prosecutable category. But I really don't think that type of incitement is possible over any other mode of communication outside personal appearance, public speaking, the like. And almost definitely not through blogs or SMS.

We agree on one thing:

Freedom by its nature implies no responsibilty. Meaning, you are garunteed these rights, no matter what. You can be the worst slime of the earth and you should still be entitled to X, Y, and Z. Now, in order to avoid infringing on others rights a certain personal responsibilty is needed. In fact, a lot is needed. This is what I mean by your rights end where my rights begin.

And extrapolating that, and apparently where we differ is where that line is crossed.

You say: "You're perfectly welcome in my view to an opinion that says all Irish people are purple spotted martians. You step over the line when you say all Irish people should be beaten up or shot."

I say: You're perfectly welcome in my view to say all Irish people should be beaten up or shot. You step over the line when you beat up or shoot anybody."

That is the difference between action and speech. Simirlarly, I'm allowed to say that I find anybody who speaks out in support of rioting morally reprehensible, but my rights end when it comes to hurting, maiming, imprisoning, fining, or killing them to stop them from talking. Free Speech is where their rights begin.

Sticks and stones, may break my bones...

apologies. I meant to delete the "we agree on one thing" above, but missed it. It makes that whole part confusing. Although I sincerely hope somewhere that we do agree on at least one thing, if not more.

Susano writes:

>

you know the story, right? - two teenage boys accidently electrocuted running from a police check. Followed by a government minister calling the rioters scum. Tick, provocation, from employees of the Republic. No conspiracy here. Ask any Parisien and they'll tell you that highly selective police ID checks happen ALL the time, with anyone of Arab or North African descent being actively discriminated against. The kids run from the flics because they don't want to be hassled and waste hours in the police station just because they weren't carrying the right piece of paper. Sometimes it's easier to run and hide, but substations are bad hiding places. And the scum-calling minister is just being a hardass (a position he is backpedalling now that he sees how it backfired) to placate the conservative masses whom he wants to elect him in a couple of years. Because being a hardass has worked really well for Bush, Blair and Howard who were all reelected in the middle of GWII.

>

That's because they haven't. They're just massively embarrising the government and soiling their own nest. I am sure everyone reading knows not to believe every beat up you read in the papers or see on TV. In central Paris noone notices nor seems much to care what is happening in the suburbs, and that's precisely the root cause of the problem. I've just come from dinner, maybe 15 minutes by car from where the riots are happening, and it's been the same in Paris every night since the rioting began. Nothing whatsover has changed outside of the handful of effected areas. Not to deny that what's happening inside those areas isn't dreadful, and painful for the people living there, but it's not bringing the country grinding to a halt. It's terrifying people because they cannot believe it would happen here, in much the same way as many Americans didn't believe what happened in New Orleans.

>

Yup it is just a coincidence. The problem of marginalised and disenfanchised immigrants predates both Iraqi invasions by the US and its allies and it is Europe-wide. The root causes are the same, and the ignition of violence recently is a kind of flash-mob effect at work no doubt propelled by mass media + blogs + sms. That Bush, Cheney and co lied to the US and the world and embarked upon a war that was unjustified and has killed tens of thousands of (mostly) Muslims has absolutely provided yet another catalyst for the anger of these people; many of whom are also Muslims, living on the fringes of European cities. Ahh, but Dubya told us we have to fight 'em there so we'll be safer over here. Yea, right. That's working a treat. The irony is now that the anti-war Europeans got caught up in the neocon's war even though they staunchly, and turns out accurately, opposed it. (Probably a few Sam Adams being sunk at the VPs, in between catching up on Scooter's trial, to celebrate the fact that Chirac got what was coming to him.)

>

Absolutely. But two boys running from cops and accidentaly dying is not proactive, intentional manipulation by anyone. It's a random event, like Katrina, that stirs the pot, breaks the thin veneer, and uncovers the truth of what's really happening in all cities all around the world.

>

Oops, too late. Globalisation has happened and we must now deal with the consequences. Talk to some of the folks who were in the Superdome. And which way of life exactly do you mean? The one in central paris/new york where you're white and have a job, or the one in the suburbs where you're not white and unemployed and have no flood insurance, no car to get you out of town and no luck.

Its so nice to see a few sensible voices amidst the conspiracy driven clamor. Part of the price of freedom is vigilance against one's own actions as well as those of others, to paraphrase Franklin.

Thomas: In regards to this "darknet" you speak of, do you understand what that actually means or are you repeating some words you saw somewhere else? Setting up a large scale private communications network within a public network involves far more than the KoolAid Technologists would lead one to believe. Above and beyond the technical problems, there is the age old "web of trust" problem. You cant allow anyone to read the private content unless they are trusted else the secrets are secret no more. What remains is the problem of who to trust with access to your secrets.

to answer the question "Is there an alternative to censorship?" I'd like to say that there must be, simply because it wont work.

Skyblog is in focus here, beacuse althoug there are three million bloggers at Skyblog, its still confined and commercial. And where did the bloggers go when Skyblog was off-limits?

Blogs created and hosted by its own blogger(s) can not be shut down so easily.

There might be many blogs elsewhere that the police does not know of- some of them created after the Skyblog incident.

And it's impossible to find and shut them all down. So a different appoach than censorship is most needed. A dialog via Skyblog could have helped. At least the police would know where and what the bloggers are posting.

Sam Tresler wrote @20:
I do believe there is a place for incitement to riot laws. Manipulating crowds into frenzies, leading them somewhere and actively rioting, does need a prosecutable category. But I really don't think that type of incitement is possible over any other mode of communication outside personal appearance, public speaking, the like. And almost definitely not through blogs or SMS.
Note that France has pretty strict laws as far as “hate speech” is concerned. An extreme right wing politician like Le Pen can be found liable by a French court for some of his declarations in a newspaper. The case for arresting bloggers inciting others to commit arson and attack policemen is thus pretty strong. In their case, the actus reus (the writing on the blog) and the abetting mens rea (the intent to incite or facilitate the criminal acts of the actual perpetrators) seem pretty obvious. We'll have to see, however, whether those arrested will be charged and found guilty of “incitation à la haine raciale” like Le Pen, or found liable, as aiders, encouragers, instigators and abettors, for the “simple” criminal offenses like arson commited by others.

Sam, you said: "I'm allowed to say that I find anybody who speaks out in support of rioting morally reprehensible, but my rights end when it comes to hurting, maiming, imprisoning, fining, or killing them to stop them from talking. Free Speech is where their rights begin."

I agree. I think it's fine to protest, to speak freely about what you think is wrong and how it could be improved. This is not only acceptable, but necessary. It's one thing however, to say "this is wrong, this why it's wrong and this is what we think should be done about it" and a completely different thing to say, "we should rise up and shoot the oppressors in the head. Let the bloodshed begin." This is not freedom of speech. This is incitement to riot.

People who go around carrying out violence, i.e. blowing themselves and other people up to make their point are one kind of danger. Another and far worse danger in my opinion are the people who organize them, encourage them, lie to them and incite them to carry out the bombings. Our security forces want to investigate these people for good reason and I think should have the freedom to do so.

There is no doubt in my mind that radical groups are looking at the situation to see how they can manipulate it. They are not interested in seeing peace.

Mostlyvowells: Wow, I didn't know that was the case in France. I guess I believed that they had a similar degree of freedom of speech as Americans are supposed to be garunteed (although that has fallen through on many points in history). As much as I stand by my opinions, I'll need to take this more into account when stating them.

Noel: The very words "organize", "lie" and "manipulate" are all perfectly prosecutable under everything I've said and should be investigated. Investigating and prosecuting them has nothing to do with cesorship, though. Lie - to decieve or misrepresent is on par with Fraud, slander, and liable. But in a civil rights context it is imperative to realize the wrong action isn't in the act of speaking but in the act of decieving! Organize - in any mass organization of people I would judge it to be impossible to purposefully organize large groups of people without violating several laws that have nothing to do with freedom of speech, and Simalarly, "organizing" is an action totally seperate from speaking your mind. Manipulate - see fraud, liable, slander, etc. Manipulate is levying some other means of force to get a certain reaction.... againi - an action prosecutable outside of speaking. All of these are good examples of prosecutable incitement to riot that do not involve encroaching on freedom of speech

My point, is: In any incitement to riot scenario, there is no need to prosecute the speech. Doing so, puts civil liberties on a very slippery slope. There will always be something else prosecutable that, while having the same effect, will preserve these rights as untouchable

Take your example: "It's one thing however, to say "this is wrong, this why it's wrong and this is what we think should be done about it" and a completely different thing to say, "we should rise up and shoot the oppressors in the head. Let the bloodshed begin." This is not freedom of speech. This is incitement to riot."

I have to ask does it make more sense to put a blanket censorship out to prevent person A from saying "we should rise up...", or to say that it is illegal to A) Organize a crowd or group of people to riot. i.e. actively give orders to a group, which is different than simply speaking, making the organization of people to riot illegal. or B)Manipulate people through deception or fraud to riot. Example: "Hey the police just beat a man to death in the streets over there" when no such thing had happened, again making the fraud illegal. or something else or something else.

I said a few posts ago that this is a semantic discussion. I meant it. It is a very serious semantic point. Once one small portion of a right is infringed upon it is a slippery slope. Taking the above example, who is to say what incitement to riot is? Where is a stone cold definition? You say it is incitement to riot to say "we should rise up and shoot the oppressors in the head. Let the bloodshed begin." OK. Is this: " We should rise up and fight, lets burn the governmant building down!" Probably. And this? "We shouldn't stand for this! Lets stop it at any cost!" Maybe. And this "We're not going to stand for this anymore, lets show them what we are tougher than them!" or "We hate the current political party, lets force them out of office, now!"

If anyone can tell me exactly where in that series of statements we crossed over from incitement to riot, to normal speech, I'll eat my words. It can't be done. Conversely it can be told exactly when someone crosses the line through organization, manipulation, lying, and other means of incitement (provided evidence exists, etc, etc).

I agree with you, there is no doubt in my mind that radical groups are looking at the situation to see how they can manipulate it. But if we look to censorship for the answers, we are doing nothing but giving those radicals a foothold they didn't have before: fear. In some small way we are becomig more like them, by manipulating our own situation to be more oppressive.

People may think I'm overreacting. But come to New york City where I live and here in America I am subjected to a bag search before I get on the subway where, incidentally they could arrest me for anything illegal they find whether it is related to the subway or not. Does it make me safer, hah, half the time I just walk to the next subway station. It inconveniences me for about 5 and a half minutes. I am no safer, but one of my rights has mysteriously disappeared. Now my internet records can be siezed off the server - not just my blog but my e-mail, private correspondance, without a warrant. Now people are be detained for years without charges being pressed. When I say it is a slippery slope it is because I've been watching it... in the course of five years this has happened, where I thought it could Never happen. And worse, I see people around me applauding it. Saying that we are doing a good job preventing people who want to do us harm from doing anything.

I know, I know, poor me I live in America and my rights aren't being respected, look elsewhere in the world. Ah true.

I believe radicals are out there looking for a way to manipulate the situation.

Sam, I lived in New York City for 13 years, left after the buildings came down. I have not had to endure the subway bag searches or the online privacy invasions (at least none that I'm aware of). It worries me too that many of our rights seem to be disappearing. I'm in the UK at the moment - the government here wants to be able to lock people up without trial for 90 days and they also want to introduce ID cards. Our rights to privacy are becoming non-existent.

At times it seems to me that the 'war on terror' is being used as an excuse by government bureaucrats to police ordinary and for the most part law-abiding citizens since no matter what laws and countermeasures are introduced, terrorists will always find a way around them. It is us, the great masses of regular people and not the terrorists, who end up being policed, as though we've broken some law.

I don't want to come out in favor of anything that would restrain Freedom of Speech. My experience in America caused me to fall in love with that particular ideal, but I think that having any Freedom does imply a responsibility. When it comes to Freedom of Speech, there is a line, an obvious line, and if someone crosses it, i.e. by calling on people to destroy, or maim, or kill other people, and it is evident that this is what they did, then in my view it is reasonable for the security forces to shut them down, conduct an investigation and if necessary, prosecute them in a fair trial.

Someone taking advantage of our tolerance and respect for Freedom of Speech to promote anarchy and incite others to riot as a means to further their own agenda is something we should watch out for and discourage. We are not fools who should allow our own ideals to be used against us.

stick the froggie

Thanks, Irsh, you're living proof of an old saying I've suddenly invented:

"Nothing beats the occasional lobotomy to help clear up one's thinking."

Leave a comment

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Business and the Economy category.

Books is the previous category.

Computer and Network Risks is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index.

Monthly Archives