Terrorism is perceived as a pernicious influence because of what it stands for; namely violence, coercion and anti-democratic practises. It exploits the impressionable within society, and abuses the platform lent by freedom of expression in preaching hatred, and inciting violence. So would it be right to have a rule depriving terrorists of this platform, therefore thwarting the spread of their message?
When the media show hostage videos, or broadcast terrorist atrocities, it provides terrorists with the 'oxygen of publicity' which they would struggle to live without. These acts are designed to inspire fear in the civilian population, and by averting the publication of this message, it would not only minimise damage to society, but ensure that the demands of terrorists are not met. Terrorists would no longer be able to bring illegitimate pressure to bear on governments, and would lose a vital battle in the war for hearts and minds. It could perhaps be claimed, with some justification, that with the advent of the internet, it is no longer possible to control what enters the public domain. But while this may be true with fringe sites, it is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, the majority receive their news from mainstream sites, which are manageable in terms of regulation. They would comply or risk losing their reputation as a reliable broadcaster. Secondly, and more profoundly, it would set a precedent rejecting the acts perpetrated by these organisations, and reinforce the message of non-negotiation.
And preventing terrorists from achieving their objectives would have another benefit. It would also succeed in preventing future attacks, by neutralising their strategy, rendering their powers of intimidation useless.
Terrorism attacks are designed to play on the public's mass psychology. In broadcasting their attacks, the threat is exaggerated and blown completely out of proportion. The consequence is a climate of fear in which people wildly overestimate the danger they pose. This creates a further problem in that it licences further infringements of civil liberties, and yet more incursions into our rights by the state. The anti-terrorist legislation is a prime example of how the state has taken advantage of the public mood to enforce what is ostensibly undemocratic legislation. The climate of fear leads to the marginalisation of certain ethnic groups within society, as fear the public backlash they will be subjected to. This is a move in the exact opposite direction to harmonious dynamics, and will only contribute to less cohesion, and integration.
And by stopping the broadcast, it removes a powerful recruiting tool from the armoury of terrorists. They could no longer claim to trigger public sympathy as a basis for drawing people into the folds of murder and homicide. and equally, the incentive of martyrdom is eliminated from the agenda. All these steps would galvanise public opinion against terrorism, and make society a safer place. Free speech is only 'free' up to a point-it is a contingent right- and one that comes with certain responsibilities. If terrorists refuse to adhere to these guidelines, then they should forfeit their right to these fundamental 'rights'
No comments:
Post a Comment