Should Internet Service Providers Be Allowed to Ban Extremist Content?
The internet has become a major centre of extremist activity, one so important that Osama bin Ladin back in 2002 said that 90% of all jihadist activity will soon be through the media, which in turn is increasingly being dominated, at least from a jihadi point of view by the internet. Often spread out geographically, communication online has become the primary tool for their discussion and organization. Not only cat-lovers but also radical Islamist movements have capitalised on the potential of the Internet. Using websites to spread their message, they have increased their reach in the 21st century, spreading its radical messages and gaining recruits in the West.
This growth has sparked serious debate about the role of Internet intermediaries (ISPs like AOL or BT but also OSPs like Facebook, Google and Twitter) in the combatting of extremist, dangerous groups using the web as a platform. Some groups suggest that it is should fall to the individual intermediaries to self-police and to block sites that promote various brands of extremism. Others question whether this action will adulterate free access to the internet more generally, or if this duty should fall to private agents and not the state.
It is necessary to make something clear in this debate that the arguments stand in most legal contexts. With some tweaks one might use these arguments to discuss a mandate from the state to require that ISPs block these sites, or to discuss the arguments in the context of a regime in which ISPs have freedom to allow or disallow these sites. The various arguments have different weight and different emphasis given the paradigm considered. The arguments presented in this debate seek to be open enough to be utilized in varying contexts.
For the purpose of this debate, “extremist” can be taken broadly to mean any group that promotes popular revolution or violent action against the state, individual human beings or groups within society. This definition is quite broad, and
This growth has sparked serious debate about the role of Internet intermediaries (ISPs like AOL or BT but also OSPs like Facebook, Google and Twitter) in the combatting of extremist, dangerous groups using the web as a platform. Some groups suggest that it is should fall to the individual intermediaries to self-police and to block sites that promote various brands of extremism. Others question whether this action will adulterate free access to the internet more generally, or if this duty should fall to private agents and not the state.
It is necessary to make something clear in this debate that the arguments stand in most legal contexts. With some tweaks one might use these arguments to discuss a mandate from the state to require that ISPs block these sites, or to discuss the arguments in the context of a regime in which ISPs have freedom to allow or disallow these sites. The various arguments have different weight and different emphasis given the paradigm considered. The arguments presented in this debate seek to be open enough to be utilized in varying contexts.
For the purpose of this debate, “extremist” can be taken broadly to mean any group that promotes popular revolution or violent action against the state, individual human beings or groups within society. This definition is quite broad, and