"Extreme" islamic sites such as revolutionmuslim.com keep saying that Daniel Pearl was a spy. Why the hell are they keep saying that? What's the proof and reasoning behind it? The US needs to censor hate speech such as these.
You must be stealing internet from me again since it's so slow for some reason today....void....if the internet cafe's down...just go home. I cant play today because there's a million people leeching off my net today.
Anyway, Scheneck v. US says that the US government does have constitutional right to censor anyone or any organization when a clear and present danger is presented itself.
That site hardly poses a clear and present danger, however, I would also like to know the reasoning behind the Pearl being a spy. This is the first time i've heard this allegation.
The assertion that Pearl was a spy, may have no proof or reasoning, and be merely cynical, false propaganda. However, censoring "hate speech" is a bad idea, since who knows what will be called "hate speech," and your speech may be called that and censored, next.
Better simply to point out that there is no apparent evidence, or provide contrary evidence, and let their assertion be recognized as lacking credibility (or as being outright false), and as tending to imply perhaps a general lack of credibility, for those who assert it. Besides, this would be more effective for discrediting them - in this regard, and generally - than attempting to censor them and letting them assert that "the truth is being suppressed;" people might believe that (providing no less propagandistic advantage to them, than their current assertion), and since the subject could not be fairly considered, due to the censorship, therefore such an advantage to them, could not be rectified.
One reason that we respect "free speech" in America, is that it best facilitates the ultimate recognition of what is true, and provides the beneficial consequences, thereof.
True, the problem is defining exactly what "hate" speech is. You can either be a complete totalitarian (like Singapore) or and free society (such as US). The Supreme Court already had a hard time defining obscene material, defining "censored" speech is even more difficult
See, the problem is, discrediting them is also difficult in itself. Because discrediting is also a subjective requirement which means the opposing party can be as unreasonable as they want. I'll use the example of Daniel Pearl. If the United States government demand that the CIA release their entire employee list to the public, do so and it reflects that Daniel Pearl has no relation with the CIA, then the other party might say "It's just a conspiracy, Pearl really was working for the CIA and the extremist were right in beheading him".
You might ask the reason behind the conspiracy of Pearl being a spy, and they can give you an incoherent theory that doesn't make sense. But to THEM it makes sense and that's all that really matters.
True, but psychology has proven that it also facilitates dilution. Humans have a tendency to see, hear and discover what they want to see, hear and discover. Even if the opposing view is discredited and the "ultimate truth" is revealed, people will still keep believing in the opposing view because they will find some way to discredit the discreditation itself. This in itself has proven to be very counter productive and at times destructive. So this is definitely not the best solution (but it is one that we use now)
I'm not sure that's true. They are presumably attempting to justify the killing of Pearl, by providing what they hope will be an explanation that others will regard sympathetically, rather than regarding them simply as murderers. If they were satisfied with only what makes sense to them, they would seem to have no cause for explaining their behavior, at all; they would be justified in their own minds, and that would be enough.
I don't know what would be a better solution. The alternatives seem to be that either everyone makes up his own mind, and we expect that eventually the truth will become commonly recognized, or we assume that the truth is already known, by someone, and we sustain that "truth" by forcibly suppressing any expression of disagreement with it. The latter is really not a solution, since it leaves the problems of who that someone is, and how it is known that he knows the truth, which leads back to the first solution.
Certainly, one can become impatient with letting everyone discover the truth on his own, or through communication, if one supposes that he already knows the truth. One can even doubt that the truth would ever become commonly recognized. And objectively, the process can be regarded as inefficient. But I cannot think of what would otherwise be "the best solution," absent a source of commonly recognized omniscience. So, the solution "that we use now" seems, to me, to be also "the best solution" that is currently practicable or likely to become practicable. If you have a better proposal, then I'm interested in considering it.