I saw this article on the front page of the New York Times today and it caught my attention, not because of what the subject of the article, Samir Khan, is writing about, but because of the fact that he is using a blog to spread his message.
The article is a result of journalist Michael Moss’s interviews with 21-year-old American blogger Samir Khan and several others who promote Al Qaeda’s message through the use of the Internet, including the popular site, YouTube. Moss gives some details on the content of a few of these publications and briefly talks about Samir Khan’s life before he created his blog in 2005. The full article can be read here.
I looked at the comments that readers posted on the New York Times website, and there were a few people who were angry that anyone would be permitted to say these things on the Internet. Michael Moss responded to these comments, writing that Samir Kahn is still within the protections of freedom of speech, though Moss mentioned in his article that there have been several attempts to shut down the blog. Moss wrote in another response that Samir Khan’s family does not share his views, and in the article he reports that Mr. Khan’s father even cut off the Internet access once in an effort to “placate” his son.
This concern with the content of Samir Khan’s blog seems to go back to the problem that people have had with technology for a long time, and I wonder if technology is really benefiting us more than it’s hurting us. Cars are a way to get from point A to point B but they are also the source of traffic and parking problems. The Internet is a great way to send and receive information until someone writes something you don’t like, and then you might wish that you weren’t so connected to the rest of the world. Even a recorder seemed like a good a idea for the Culture and Expression classes, until it broke in the middle of a lecture (and I here I thought I was sparing myself that problem by getting a cassette recorder instead of digital one).
Any thoughts on the article? Does anyone have an anecdote about the inconveniences of technology? Did any malfunctioning robots wreck havoc on the city last week?
3 comments:
I will bring this up in my Tech and Public Policy class today, especially since we are covering Privacy today.
There are at least three issues here. One is that if you rely on technology, you need a backup plan when the technology fails. The second is that freedom of speech and the press only means something if you have access to a podium and a press, and the internet makes these more accessible. The third issue is that just because technology allows you to do something does not necessarily mean that it should be done. For example, while I was watching a play recently, two people sitting next to me were text messaging during the entire performance. I wondered whether they were capable of enjoying a play without distractions. Perhaps they found the play boring, but they did this from the beginning, without giving the play a chance. This is not in the same league as advocating violent jihad, but neither is it the type of behavior we're aiming for in education.
John Stuart Mill argued that even truly offensive and outrageous ideas should be heard, because it was only by having them aired and then discussed, critically examined, rebutted, etc. that their true worth would be known. Of course, one problem is when speech and ideas are a basis for inciting action, and the internet has provided a whole new forum for speech that never existed on this scale before.
Post a Comment