Terrorist activity has expanded its influence in recent years with the aid of Internet and social media. Efforts have been made to censor terrorist content, but careless implementation of censorship devices has inadvertently caused these Internet companies to infringe on the users’ freedom of speech. However, if no action is taken to censor terrorist content, terrorists are given a platform to promote they’re dangerous agendas and spread their influences. In order to successfully control terrorism, modern media should increase censorship of terrorist content because the security of society is more important than individual Internet rights in this instance.
In the commentary essay “Industry Efforts to Censor Pro-Terrorism Online Content Poses Risk to Free Speech,” authors Sophia Cope, Jillian C. York and Jeremy Gillula comment on the haphazard devices used to censor terrorist content on the Internet and the effect it has on platform users. They argue that Internet sites are unintentionally infringing on users’ freedom of speech in an effort to censor terrorist content from their sites. They believe that government entities are pressuring Internet companies to censor this offensive material and as a result commit to a careless implementation of censorship devices such as Artificial Intelligence. However, they address the implementation of successful censorship methods like the “Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism,” which works to protect the Internet services from terrorism by working to, Cope, S., York, J. C., & Gillula, J. (2017 ) “formalize and structure existing and future areas of collaboration between our companies and foster cooperation with smaller tech companies, civil society groups and academics, governments and supra-national bodies such as the EU and the UN (para. 4).” Cope, S., York, J. C., & Gillula, J. (2017) They propose that Internet companies create precise, clear and fair guidelines for their platform users, enforce said guidelines, “fairly and consistently (para. 8),” increase the accessibility of the site by including appeal processes and increasing transparency behind the censorship decision, and by avoiding the use of AI censorship until it is proven to be a successful alternative to human efforts. They also argue that censorship of terrorist content has been proven to have little effect on the global war against terrorism.
In the article written by Jamie Doward, “Media Coverage of Terrorism Leads to Further Violence,” Doward questions the attention terrorism has received from modern media and its correlation to an increased number of terrorist attacks. He argues that the large amount of media attention terrorism gets is creating a platform for terrorism to expand their influence. Doward references professor Michael Jetter’s data on terrorist attacks, showing an increase in the total number of casualties from 3,387 to 15,396 deaths in the last 15 years. They claim that this is due to the increase in media coverage of terrorist activity in the last 15 years. Jetter also found that the most reported method of terrorism was suicide missions, which has as a result become a popular method amongst terrorist groups. Doward claims that terrorism is getting more media attention than other important topics and quotes Jetter’s solution, Doward, J. (2015) “What this article is suggesting is that we may need to rethink the sensationalist coverage of terrorism and stop providing terrorists a free media platform (para. 14),” and instead diversify media coverage to include other arguably more important issues.
Cope, York and Gillula had more credibility in their subject matter. Published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Industry Efforts to Censor Pro-Terrorism Online Content Poses Risk to Free Speech” conforms to the core beliefs that the EFF holds. Cope, York and Gillula are all authors experienced in the argument involving human rights and technology. Because they are professionals in this field, they hold a very high authority. Doward has less credibility regarding this issue than Cope, York and Gillula. Doward is a journalist, not a professional in the field of media and terrorism. He does, however, quote Michael Jetter, who is, Doward, J. (2015) “a professor at the School of Economics and Finance at Universidad EAFIT in Medellín, Columbia, and researches at the Institute for the Labor of Study in Bonn, Germany.” He has analyzed 60,000 incidents of terrorism from 1970 through 2012 (para. 3). He has a high degree of authority in this field and Doward quotes Jetter’s work on media in relation to terrorism as well as his data, reinforcing Doward’s argument and increasing the authority of the article.
Cope, York and Gillula’s commentary essay was published on July 12th of this year by the Electric Frontier Foundation: a nonprofit group of activists that promote civil liberties and user rights over the Internet and influence government to adopt policies in favor of Internet users. The EFF is a reliable source because of its nationally renowned profile and position as an intermediary between Internet users and the government. However, in this instance there is possible bias because they’re article conforms directly to they’re agenda. The Guardian, an internationally renowned source for news, published Doward’s article in 2015. The reliability of Doward’s article is very high because of the strong reputation the Guardian holds among journalists. Although the source is very reliable, there is still a possibility for bias because journalism often has a political agenda. Both articles are relevant for the argument today because the issue has changed very little.
Both articles adequately cover the subject matter, however, Cope, York, and Gillula’s essay focused mostly on the ways in which users’ rights are violated by censorship and write less on why censorship is not an effective way to stop terrorism. Doward’s article covered the subject matter very well but could have contributed more of his own ideas to the argument. Often times he was just restating the argument he quoted from Jetter.
As far as writing style and organization are concerned, Cope, York and Gillula’s commentary had a weaker organization and often-placed information in inappropriate spots. For instance, they almost impulsively included the argument of whether or not censorship was effective in counter terrorism, making the article seem unorganized. The implementation of that argument could have been much better. Their style lacked the professional quality that was very apparent in Doward’s writing. His paragraphs were concise and sharp, giving the reader only what they needed, and all of it. His writing style and organization was superior to Cope, York and Gillula’s efforts.
Doward’s argument was a much stronger argument than Cope, York and Gillula’s. He had a greater reliability, less bias, and a polished writing style. However, he didn’t add enough original thought to the argument and relied too much on Jetter’s research and opinions. He improved his article’s authority greatly by quoting Jetter and using his expertise to reinforce his argument. Cope, York and Gillula’s article had a strong authority in the subject matter and came from a reliable source, but are biased because they have an agenda involved with this issue. In spite of their inferior organization and writing style, Cope, York and Gillula’s essay still works as a cohesive argument.
References
Cope, S., York, J. C., & Gillula, J. (2017, July 14). Industry Efforts to Censor Pro-Terrorism Online Content Pose Risks to Free Speech. Retrieved September 24, 2017, from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/industry-efforts-censor-pro-terrorism-online-content-pose-risks-free-speech
Doward, J. (2015, August 01). Media coverage of terrorism 'leads to further violence'. Retrieved September 24, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/01/media-coverage-terrorism-further-violence