Glossy Internet Magazine Targets Americans for Jihad Training

Well, it was only a matter of time. But does this magazine violate any laws concerning violence and inciting violence?

www.foxnews.com...

It's been likened to Al Qaeda's "Vanity Fair," a new English-language Internet magazine called "Jihad Recollections" that focuses on the terrorist group, its founder, Usama Bin Laden, and how to commit jihad. It also predicts the demise of the United States.

“This is designed for Americans,” says noted terrorism expert Steven Emerson, founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism in Washington, D.C., and author of the book "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us."

“It’s not for Brits, not for Germans, not for jihadists in the Middle East. It’s designed for Americans and it’s designed to get them to convert to Islam or to carry out jihad acts of terror,” he said.

reply to post by jsobecky

Ah, another glorious expression of media freedom! May they live long and prosper!

What, you want to censor them because you don't agree with them? Or are you just voicing your disapproval? You're allowed to do that.

I, on the other hand, approve. Not of the content, but of the fact that there are societies in the world free enough to allow something like this to happen.

reply to post by Astyanax




That's all well and good, but we all know that free speech does not mean unchained speech. There are limits.

With rights come responsibilities. We have these rights to allow us to create a better life and land to live in, not to plant the seeds of our destruction in.

My question was, do they break any laws? Because if they do, I'd shut them down in a heartbeat, given their agenda.

Here's a pointer to their first issue. I shall leave it up to our Gentle Readers to make their own decision.

www.scribd.com...

reply to post by jsobecky

That's all well and good, but we all know that free speech does not mean unchained speech...

free speech does mean unchained speech

everybody is usually all for free speech - because it just sounds so right to say you are for free speech - and so American

then somebody says something you don't want them to be able to say - and suddenly it's dangerous

it happens to all of us :-)

fortunately - we can talk about it - question it - criticize it - get angry about it - get VERY angry about it...

because we have free speech

we should all be very, very happy about everything being out in the open - just the way it is

it's the stuff we're not hearing about that should concern us

I guess

“It’s not for Brits, not for Germans, not for jihadists in the Middle East. It’s designed for Americans and it’s designed to get them to convert to Islam or to carry out jihad acts of terror,” he said.

what are you afraid of? it might work?

do you have any idea how many other persuasive voices are out there - trying to convince people to join them - and to do who knows what?

this would be just one more

(bbcode)

[edit on Sun May 3 2009 by Jbird]

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

free speech does mean unchained speech

I was hoping I didn't have to bring up the 'yelling Fire! in a theater' example, but there definitely are limits to free speech.

You cannot go around slandering or libeling innocent people.

Many other examples exist.

Here's a good primer on the First Amendment:

www.freedomforum.org...

You're trying to turn this into a censorship debate; it isn't.

I was hoping I didn't have to bring up the 'yelling Fire! in a theater' example...

no - please, not that - anything but the fire in a theater thing

it is a drag - isn't it - especially since it's the only thing we got

:-)

I've used the fire/theater thingy often enough to become nauseous just thinking about it

You cannot go around slandering or libeling innocent people.

Slander? Libel? who did these jihadist wannabes slander or libel?

Many other examples exist.

no doubt

Here's a good primer on the First Amendment: www.freedomforum.org...

Spare me. Spare us - I'm begging you...

You're trying to turn this into a censorship debate; it isn't.

I'm not trying to turn this into a debate about censorship - your opening post did that part for me

:-)

like I said - free speech is always fun - 'til someone gets hurt

then - all of a sudden - it's dangerous

I don't get to hang out here much today - but I'll be back later on

meanwhile - why don't you read your primer and see if you can figure out exactly where your friends at boyscouts-gone-wild went wrong







[edit on 5/3/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

just for the heck of it - found these - without even trying too hard - all available on the internet - for anyone who has access to the internet

so - where do we start cutting? who gets to decide? how do we make that work?

should we make that work?

www.splcenter.org...
www.geocities.com...
www.themilitant.com...
flag.blackened.net...
www.uvmagazine.com...
www.michiganmilitia.com...
www.animalliberationfront.com...
www.sinnfein.org...
www.bso-na.org...
www.eco.utexas.edu...
www.kkk.com...
www.aryan-nations.org...
www.eln-voces.com...
www.patrialibre.org...
www.sudanjem.com...
www.blackpanther.org...
www.sanantoniobrownberets.com...
www.port7alliance.com...
www.freetheorder.org...
www.tmk-ks.org...
www.awb.co.za...
www.sauliusajunga.lt...
something for everyone I think

interesting - found so many Serbian paramilitary groups - had to wonder - are there any Serbs out there that just like to hang out?

wanted to add - of the choices I made above - there were so many more I could have picked

I realized as I went through them all that for different people some of these will seem reasonable, righteous, make perfect sense - and they'll wonder - what's wrong with this one?


[edit on 5/3/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by Spiramirabilis



You need to stick with the discussion and stop trying to deflect it with cutesiness.

Slander? Libel? who did these jihadist wannabes slander or libel?

You said free speech was unchained speech, my 'slander and libel' retort was an answer to that.

I'm not trying to turn this into a debate about censorship - your opening post did that part for me

Sounds like that is a perception problem on your part.

Perhaps you can go back and show where I stated, implied, or intoned anything about censorship.

Here's a short excerpt from the primer I cited above. Now, given this info, and given the content of the 70 page first edition of the magazine, which I cited, I repeat my question to the members that might not be here just to scream censorship:

Limits of Freedom of Speech

Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

Clear and Present Danger

Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

[edit on 3-5-2009 by jsobecky]

cutsiness? really?

Clear and Present Danger

where is this clear and present danger then?

and how can this not be about censorship?

you want the entire discussion then to just be about how you're right?

you get to decide - for me - that I can't see it as censorship?

you want to censor my attempt to cry censorship?

:-)

I'm not deflecting - I'm not altering the course of this in any way

you think that there's an illegal activity happening in this internet magazine - I disagree

however - even if I did agree - even if I believed that there was some sort of incite to riot activity going on (which - it's not too far off really - I'm not blind or stupid) that's not the point

what happens when you want to be able to put your point across - to the masses?

what happens when you see a clear and present danger - and you are prevented from making your call to arms?

the thing that's happening here is - you just don't like their point of view - because you see it as being anti American - and a threat to America

OK - so it is

so, with freedom of speech then - we're allowed freedom to say what we want and need to say - as long as it doesn't threaten America?

which part of America - my part - or your part?

if this one magazine isn't allowed - then how many others aren't allowed?

I'm reading through that magazine - by the way - still have a ways to go

have you read it - all of it?

I swear - large chunks of it - so far - make me think a little fun is being had at our expense



[edit on 5/3/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
you want the entire discussion then to just be about how you're right?

I haven't even made a stand on this yet, how can you ask such a silly question?

you get to decide - for me - that I can't see it as censorship?

you want to censor my attempt to cry censorship?

Go ahead and think what you want. I'm just saying, you're wrong when you try to paint me with the same brush. I never implied censorship.

Of course, you will ignore that reprimand, and continue to say that I want censorship. The more you say it, the more you will believe it. Good luck.

I'm not deflecting - I'm not altering the course of this in any way

you think that there's an illegal activity happening in this internet magazine - I disagree

I asked the question in my OP. I made no presumptions. For your edfication, here is the question that I asked:

But does this magazine violate any laws concerning violence and inciting violence?

Now, that question was posed to inspire discussion. Yet you seem to want to continue that I implied censorship. You are wrong.

the thing that's happening here is - you just don't like their point of view - because you see it as being anti American - and a threat to America

You have no idea what I think of their point of view. Once again, I am looking for input into what those who decide what is permitted and what is not.

so, with freedom of speech then - we're allowed freedom to say what we want and need to say - as long as it doesn't threaten America?

which part of America - my part - or your part?

The part which affects any or all of us.

if this one magazine isn't allowed - then how many others aren't allowed?

Any that present a clear and present danger to the US, as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm reading through that magazine - by the way - still have a ways to go

Have you got to the part that advocates using EMP grenades against the US infrastructure?

[edit on 3-5-2009 by jsobecky]

But does this magazine violate any laws concerning violence and inciting violence?

I don't know - does it?

Now, that question was posed to inspire discussion. Yet you seem to want to continue that I implied censorship. You are wrong.

it did inspire discussion - just not the discussion you want to have

:-)

I never even implied that you implied censorship - not once - I just dug into the whole thing from the very beginning because you can't get around it - you just can't

you ask if it's illegal - and I'm being sincere when I say - I don't know if it's illegal

I'm also being sincere - and not argumentative by the way - when I ask - what is different about this particular example from the others that I listed?

why does this one bother you as opposed to the any other magazine or websites of this kind?

why does the content of this one strike you as being possibly illegal?

it's obviously provocative - and not exactly America friendly - definitely not a 4th of July sort of friendly

censorship is part of your topic - even if you don't want it to be

because any time we start questioning whether someone has the right to say something - we're talking censorship

so - in the spirit of the whole ATS thing - it's really not very sporting of you to tell me to not bring it up - just because you don't want to talk about it

but - I'll just shut up now, go away - and let you continue on with the discussion you really want to have

:-)