[anigbrowl]

It'd be great if people who want to explore this as a free speech issue would engage with the question of what happens to the free speech (and other) rights of people who are killed by extremists, and whether they are more or less important than the rights of people who advocate such killings.

[BigJono]

The comparison isn't between 40 people's right to live vs every terrorist's right to free speech. It's between some probabalistic chance that 40 people's right to live isn't violated in the future due to these actions, versus some probabalistic chance of millions of innocent people being silenced and having their privacy violated in various ways due to the collateral damage from this kind of policy making for the foreseeable future. This shit never gets revoked once it's in place.

History is wrought with examples of people's free speech being violated. How many examples do we really have of when someone's free speech was successfully violated to protect proportionally more important rights?

The entire western world is slowly giving up every single ounce of privacy and freedom, in exchange, and for what? ISIS is finished, the rate of Muslim terrorist attacks seems to be falling off pretty fast, and the swell of fascist sentiment will slowly wind down too once the factors that triggered it are no longer present. This isn't some new concept that's never happened before. And in 10 or 15 years are we going to be happy with the state of government control in countries like Australia, NZ, UK etc given what we've got out of it?

[anigbrowl]

There's a lot of counterfactuals here, both numerical and historical - for example, your suggestion that policies put in place to deal with a problem never being revoked which is simply not supported by fact. As your whole post is dedicated to invalidating the question I posed I hope you'll excuse me for not spending an hour on a point-by-point refutation of your numerous and very broad claims.

[tathougies]

Those killed by extremists have a right more fundamental than free speech violated -- their liberty. However, free speech did not cause their lives to be ended -- another individual's choices did. We have a system to deal with this. It's called courts, the justice system, and prison. It's worked for thousands of years to produce reasonable societies.

[anigbrowl]

Sorry for not responding earlier. I largely agree, but I think we are at a point where we need to weigh the actual costs that are involved and assess how well our approach is working - in my view, increasingly poorly.

[tathougies]

> but I think we are at a point where we need to weigh the actual costs that are involved and assess how well our approach is working - in my view, increasingly poorly.

Luckily, we don't need to consult your 'view' to see how these systems operate. Given that violent crime is at an all time low, especially when considering the entirety of history, I think it's safe to say that if we consult reality, things are for the most part working just fine.

[Rapzid]

Free speech is just as much about those on the receiving end as on the producing. And, once the information passed into other hands your dealing with producing end again.

Your thesis is a non sequitur as well; people sharing and receiving the information are not necessarily advocating the killings. In fact, just like with War footage from the past, they could be using it to the opposite effect.

[anigbrowl]

You're refuting claims I'm not making, while avoiding the question I am asking. As an extremism researcher I'm well aware of such complexities, thanks.