It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Tech firms' response to questionable content is largely to remove it retroactively after it has been flagged by users. So hundreds, if not thousands, of people could see the content before it gets pulled, researchers say. A 26-second YouTube video explaining how to carry out a truck attack was viewed more than 360 times by Monday evening since it was posted Sunday.
The video suggested using a "double-wheeled, load-bearing truck" to attack "large outdoor festivals, conventions, celebrations and parades," among other targets. The video was unlisted, meaning viewers could only find it if given a link to it, suggesting it was shared among viewers.
Rick Eaton, a researcher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks hateful online content, said on Monday that he flagged it to YouTube twice. The video was pulled minutes after The Wall Street Journal asked YouTube about it around 6:15 p.m. Eastern time on Monday.
The above video, produced by what is ostensibly ISIS’s English and German propaganda outlet, is one example of how the militants are selling the cause to young Westerners. Meanwhile, J.M. Berger unpacks ISIS’s Twitter strategy, which is among the most effective of any Jihadi organization:
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Hollywood does it all the time. As for the Youtube they have the right to remove any video for any reason. I remember the controversy over "The Anarchist Cookbook".
Anyway free speech does cover this.
For most of American history, the courts held that no one has a right to advocate violations of the law. They ruled that advocacy of crime is wholly outside of the First Amendment--akin to a criminal attempt and punishable as such. Indeed, many of the judges revered as the strongest champions of free speech believed that express advocacy of crime was punishable. Judge Learned Hand, in his great 1917 opinion in Masses v. United States, established himself as a true hero of free speech by saying that even dangerous dissident speech was generally protected against government regulation. But Hand himself conceded that government could regulate any speaker who would "counsel or advise a man" to commit an unlawful act.
In the same period the Supreme Court concluded that government could punish all speech, including advocacy of illegality, that had a "tendency" to encourage illegality. Justices Holmes and Brandeis, the dissenters from this pro-censorship conclusion, took a different approach, saying that speech could be subjected to regulation only if it was likely to produce imminent harm; thus they originated the famous "clear and present danger" test. But even Holmes and Brandeis suggested that the government could punish speakers who had the explicit intention of encouraging crime.
For many years thereafter, the Supreme Court tried to distinguish between speech that was meant as a contribution to democratic deliberation and speech that was designed to encourage illegality. The former was protected; the latter was not. In 1951 the Court concluded in Dennis v. United States that a danger need not be so "clear and present" if the ultimate harm was very grave.
The great break came in the Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio. There the Court said the government could not take action against a member of the Ku Klux Klan, who said, among other things, "We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengence taken." The speaker did not explicitly advocate illegal acts or illegal violence. But in its decision, the Court announced a broad principle, ruling that the right to free speech does "not permit a State to forbid or proscribe 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."
No. SJW's are nothing more than domestic terrorists, they care not for their own country, they are ruining it.
Seems a bit hypocritical to call SJW's as bad as terrorists when you are the one who said it's ok to sell terrorists weapons doesn't it?
Also on May 18, 2017, Bloomberg confirmed that the Pentagon and their Saudi counterparts would finalize a $6 billion deal with Lockheed Martin for four modified versions of the company's Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship – six percent of the total U.S. arms package. The rest of the deal will include thousands of precision guided munitions, 50 CH-47 cargo helicopters, 60 smaller UH-60 transport choppers, 115 M1A2S Abrams tanks, among other items.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: face23785
It's still up there on Youtube with other videos.
There are videos on the methods and on how to kill people.