Terrorist speech can also benefit terrorists in the future. The U. S. Government should censor terrorist speech to minimize recruitment, lost lives, and terrorist supporters. Limited or completely eradicated media coverage can help fight terrorism. Terrorists utilize the media for propaganda, which aids them in recruitment of more followers. When future-terrorists follow up on media coverage, they convince themselves that joining can benefit them somehow. If media coverage was censored, fewer supporters could be recruited into participating into these wrongful acts.
If it wasn’t for media coverage, the most well-known and successful terrorist group, AY-Qaeda; would not have accomplished as much as it has. After 9/1 1 Al- Qaeda recruited many supporters due to media coverage. According to Retro Schillings, a journalist from a blob on SIN. Com, AY Qaeda was the most effective terrorist attack due to the media, but was also a beneficial asset, “What AY-Qaeda achieved on 9/1 1 was arguably not only the most extreme and effective terrorist attack ever carried out, but also a highly effective media spectacle with unprecedented return on investment. Due to all the publicity AY-Qaeda got, it became one of the most effective terrorist acts in the world. Once AY-Qaeda became so well-known, many followers wanted to have their share in fame and publicity. Greater publicity leads to a higher recruitment rate because new supporters will believe they can benefit from joining terrorist extremists. Publicity IS a major goal for terrorism, because of the fact that they can gain more supporters to help guide them in their future endeavors.
Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!
If the media coverage was censored, AY-Qaeda wouldn’t be as effective at gaining publicity and supporters as it is now. Media coverage can endanger hostages, and eventually get them killed. When reporters constantly display coverage about hostages, their lives are Ewing threatened. Broadcasting information about hostages can be very useful to other terrorists involved. Once the coverage airs about hostages, kidnappers will panic and may resort to killing the hostages in fear. Austin T.
Turk the author behind Sociology of Terrorism, made the argument that people who don’t respect others’ lives, should not get the gift of media attention, “people without respect for others’ lives should not be enabled to command public attention by using violence. ” Terrorists should not be promoted through media coverage because of their acts of violence. Acts of lenience should be shamed, not broadcasted throughout the whole world. We cannot reward terrorists with publicity for resorting to violence.
It’s hard to imagine how the parents of each hostage feel; they don’t want to constantly reminded of the horrors that occurred to their child through media coverage. Terrorists are a huge threat to citizens and media coverage can make that a lot worse. Media coverage can turn out to be very dangerous and risky to put out for the whole world to know due to the terrorists choice of risking hostages. Many news reporters don’t realize that what they air can actually UT many in danger. The media coverage should be censored because the media benefits terrorists in future attacks.
Media coverage can aid terrorists in communicating with each other in order to know where other terrorists are, where hostages are being held captive, or where to strike next. Sociology of Terrorism also acknowledges the fact the media coverage can even serve offer other terrorist’s ideas and replicas for their own attempts at terrorist attacks, “Detailed reporting of incidents gives potential terrorist suggestions and models for action. ” (Turk) When the media reporters air each threat, a efferent terrorist can learn from them and see them as a role model, leading to more terror attacks in the future.
If the media was censored many terrorists in action today, would not have the determination they have to kill. Censoring media coverage could leave many terrorists in the dark, lessening terrorist speech. Choosing to censor media coverage can result in a loss of freedom of speech. Many questions have risen about freedom of expression in this tragedy. Freedom of speech is one the first rights that are given to us as citizens of the United States. If reporters, journalists, and artists are censored hey will lack one of their basic rights.
They can be arrested, or even killed for simply doing their job. It’s not very reasonable for terrorists to kill people who simply share their opinion. Everyone has a different opinion, and should not be killed for sharing theirs. After the Charlie Hobo shooting, many have thought to wonder if free speech was violated in this deadly act. Terrorists are claiming to avenge cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that Charlie Hobo was responsible for. Artists should not be denied of their human rights even if they criticized other faiths. Tierney Sneed, from Sinews. Com, states that
France was a place to defend one’s ideas and should be protected by their rights, an act against journalists who had always wanted to show that in France it was possible to defend one’s ideas, and exercise their rights that are guaranteed and protected by the Republic. ” Everyone’s rights should be protected under the 1 SST Amendment of the Constitution. No matter who you criticize, your life should not be the price to pay for that action. Freedom of expression should not result in death. Although censoring media coverage can violate media expression, there are many benefits that can result from taking this action.