Diocesan Girls School

Liberal Studies (2013-2014)

News Analysis

Name: Jennifer Qiu ( 23 ) Class: ____5U_ Set:___E__ Marks:____/10

Task Fill in the appropriate information
1. Look up for a
newspaper
article

Name of newspaper: ______The Economist___Date of issue: 21/8/2014

Headline of the news: ______Should Twitter block Islamic snuff videos?__________


2. What is the issue
/ problem?
(Causes)








The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has publicised a video showing the
beheading of an American journalist James Foley ISIS and it has been circulating rapidly
on social media such as Youtube, Twitter and Facebook. The video shows gruesome
images and was intended to spread the organisations hateful message towards USA.
Before this video, the ISIS has already set up an extensive network of official accounts
and high-profile supporters that capitalize on social media sites. Ever since 2013, heyve
flooded Twitter with images of beheadings and crucifixions that document the groups
ruthless advance across eastern Syria and parts of Iraq. In response to this, sites like
Twitter have taken down the videos and terminated the accounts.


Task Fill in the appropriate information
3. a) Reflect the
views of author /
publishers?








The author opposes the taking down of ISISs video, as it is a direct violation of
human rights - freedom of speech. The author also quoted arguments against his stance,
and rebutted them respectively. First of all, he thinks that the video being a propaganda
and that it might hurt the family of the deceased are both not reasonable grounds of
censorship. He thinks that intentions of the ISIS is unclear and that the spreading of the
video even has its merits - to warn viewers of the barbarity of Islam extremists.

All in all, he strongly believes in peoples rights to be able to access information as
they wish. As the social platform boastful of its unedited content, twitter should not
undermine this by selectively taking down content. He thinks that this might create a
dangerous precedent which will lead to more and more social networks censoring and
filtering content, which will greatly violate human rights.


Task Fill in the appropriate information
b) Quote
evidence from
the article










At least in America, the suppression of disturbing or offensive content, if it does not
incite violence, is a direct violation of our principles of free speech. Especially in this
instance, it seems deeply inappropriate to respond to authoritarianism with authoritarian
action.

But the video isnt only propaganda. And since when has that label been sufficient
grounds for censorship anyway? The amount of online content that could be wiped
from social media if this reasoning was applied uniformly would be staggering.

But it is equally true that content of this kind wakes people up to the barbarity of
Islamist extremism and galvanises the public against its continuation.

Its hard for us to know their thinking with certainty, but intentionality does not factor
into censorship decisions anyway.

But people have to be able to access it on their own if they wish. Its completely
understandable that family members dont want footage of a loved ones death to
spread, but its not clear that thats their decision to make.

Is really not Twitters decision eitherunless we want to grant tech giants the power
to control public knowledge and discourse, a dangerous precedent indeed. Its
democratic power derives from the fact that its unedited; for better or for worse, its
the voice of the people. If Twitter wants to have political import, if it wants to be more
than a platform for Kim Kardashians vanity, then it doesnt get to choose which
political events to participate in.


Task Fill in the appropriate information
4. What is being
done to solve the
problem?
(different
stakeholders +
solutions if
applicable)
Twitter and other social networks:

Before this issue, there has been regulations on social networks. Twitter and
YouTube both have rules telling users what they can and cannot post. For example,
YouTubes community guidelines indicates users cannot post videos against the law, like
animal abuse, drug abuse, under-age drinking and smoking, or bomb making. Moreover,
it also also forbids legal content that depicts graphic or gratuitous violence.On the other
hand, Twitter forbids porn in users profile photos, threats, harassment and spam.

After the ISIS video was posted, YouTube removed one version of the video, citing
a violation of their policy due to its violent content. Later, Twitter announced that it will
remove images and video of the deceased at the request of family members. The accounts
that circulated that video were terminated.


ISIS:
In response to social network taking down the video, ISISs solution to solve this
problem is a five-point plan that counters the suspension of its accounts. It introduced
actions such as redirecting supporters to social networks other than Twitter or Youtube.
They also built an alternative server to support the publications of the Islamic State.










Task Fill in the appropriate information
5. How do you feel
towards the
issue? Explain?









I think this incident is the perfect example of the power and importance of the
internet in modern society. We have seen how the internet can be a quick leading source
of information, by how tweets of Ferguson was posted before professional media did.
However, the ISISs video proved exactly how dangerous the internet can be, as a tool to
disseminate violent and hateful messages, which sometimes might be propagandas.

We have witnessed the great network effect. But with power comes
responsibility. This responsibility is not written in black and white, but it is an expectation
bestowed upon social networks by the public and its users. This responsibility is for
networks to handle content fairly.

I disagree with the author that Twitter and Youtube taking down this video is
a form of censorship that violates freedom of speech. Twitter and Youtube are private
websites and thus I think they have every right to set up policies regulating the content on
their sites. They have no obligation support free speech to the ultimate standard if they
dont want to . It is always the users choice of choosing which website to use. The
market if fair, if a user doesnt like the policy of this website, he/she can very well choose
another. However, the public has no right in controlling websites policies.

On this issue alone, I believe Twitter and Youtube did the right thing to
prevent the spreading of such a violent, inhumane and disturbing video. The amount of
attention this video is getting has already served as a warning to all, further speculation is
unnecessary, as it will just fulfil ISISs aim. As users, I believe we should exercise self-
regulation even if the sites we use doesnt regulate site activity. We should avoid
spreading propaganda or violent videos. I think the ultimate solution to internet safety and
wellbeing is keeping a check on ones behaviour, rather than external censorship. But if
users cannot do that, sites do have a right to regulate.





Should Twitter block Islamic snuff videos?
Aug 21st 2014, 11:17 by E.W. | WASHINGTON, DC

SOCIAL MEDIA erupted this week with footage of James Foley, an American journalist, brutally beheaded at the hands of ISIS. YouTube
removed one version of the video, citing a violation of their policy on violent content. On Tuesday, Twitter announced a new policy that it would
remove images and video of the deceased at the request of family members. Accounts that featured the graphic imagery started disappearing from the
site. Though Twitter can now remove certain images only at the request of family members, Twitter users started urging friends not to share the
content anyway. In less than two hours, the hashtag #ISISMediaBlackout had more than 3,800 tweets.
Should platforms like YouTube and Twitter really have the power to censor what content we can or cannot see? At least in America, the
suppression of disturbing or offensive content, if it does not incite violence, is a direct violation of our principles of free speech. Especially in this
instance, it seems deeply inappropriate to respond to authoritarianism with authoritarian action.
Censorship proponents are of the mind that the ISIS video constitutes propaganda and that its dissemination furthers ISISs aims. It is true
that extremist groups have been known to use social media as a means to circumvent the checks media organisations employ to stop the spread of
propaganda. But the video isnt only propaganda. And since when has that label been sufficient grounds for censorship anyway? The amount of online
content that could be wiped from social media if this reasoning was applied uniformly would be staggering.
I do not believe in censorship, insisted a representative Tweeter, but I believe those who promote #ISIS filth must be stopped, and that
gives sufficient grounds for censorship. The logical incoherence of this statement aside, is disseminating offensive material the same thing as
promoting it? It is conceivable that the video could incite potential terrorists and others harboring anti-American sentiments to copycat acts of violence.
But it is equally true that content of this kind wakes people up to the barbarity of Islamist extremism and galvanises the public against its continuation.
Others have argued that the video shouldnt be shared because thats what ISIS wants. Dont give it to them, reads a tweet. Does it matter
what ISIS wants? Would the video be okay to view if it had been leaked by a Western source? Part of ISISs aim is presumably to terrorise us
remotely, but most people are just getting angry. Beyond that, the intention of the video is unclear. Should we take it at face value, as an attempt to
coerce America into backing down? Or is ISIS trying to provoke America to further military action in order to win more local supporters to their
camp? Its hard for us to know their thinking with certainty, but intentionality does not factor into censorship decisions anyway.
Twitter is not television. No one is being forced to view the footage. Evening news shows can decline to show the video because not all
their viewers might be comfortable seeing it. But people have to be able to access it on their own if they wish. Its completely understandable that
family members dont want footage of a loved ones death to spread, but its not clear that thats their decision to make.
Its really not Twitters decision eitherunless we want to grant tech giants the power to control public knowledge and discourse, a
dangerous precedent indeed. Twitter has become a global political force, conveying real-time information and coordinating action around conflicts like
Egypts Arab Spring or protests in Ukraine. Its democratic power derives from the fact that its unedited; for better or for worse, its the voice of the
people. If Twitter wants to have political import, if it wants to be more than a platform for Kim Kardashians vanity, then it doesnt get to choose
which political events to participate in.