A Sept. 22, 2010 Congressional hearing explored the issue of extremist websites that promote violence, and what the U.S. government’s response should be. Three witnesses testified on a range of options, from shutting down websites to countering their message with alternative web-based information. The ACLU submitted written testimony warning that “Focusing on the tools used to transmit despised ideas as the key to solving our security problem only increases the likelihood that censorship on the Internet will be part of a proposed solution.” After the question and answer period it was clear several members of the committee are interested in pursuing some kind of legislation on the issue.
The hearing, in the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, opened with Chairman Brad Sherman (D-CA) noting use of the term “jihadist” used in the announcement of the hearing, has wider meaning, referring to personal struggle rather than violence. For the rest of hearing he used the terms “terrorist” or “extremist” instead. Sherman went on to say that “extremists use the Internet for a growing number of activities including recruitment, propaganda, psychological warfare, and soliciting financial support.” The purpose of the hearing, he said, was to “focus on how best to counter these activities and ask the question why we aren’t doing so.” (See the transcript of remarks of committee members and presentations of witnesses here.)
The testimony
In his testimony Christopher Boucek, Middle East Program Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, cautioned that “There needs to be a strong and coordinated approach to understanding how and why the internet is used by extremists before we can begin to design appropriate strategies for addressing these different factors.” (emphasis added) He said that, while in some instances shutting down a website advocating violence may be justified, “we must be clear about the limitations of such strategies and we must also be realistic about what we can accomplish. Shutting down websites will not completely eliminate the sentiments behind them. The appeal of taking down such sites should also be weighed against all the potential unintended consequences, including driving users to other sites and social media.”
Boucek noted that “On many levels, the struggle against violent radical Islamist extremist is about ideas, and unless we are active in meeting and challenging those ideas, we have all but surrendered this vital space.” He called for further research to better understand the issue and develop a comprehensive approach.
Mansour Al-Hadj, of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) testified about his personal experiences growing up in the Sudan and Saudi Arabia and the exposure to many forms of extremist messages, including tapes, songs, television shows and others. He was turned away from extremism after reading an article by nonviolent activist Dr. Khales Jalabi. Based on his experience, he said, “jihadi websites are very effective at recruiting Muslims to their cause…” In his current position as Director of Democratization in Arab & Muslim World Project at MEMRI, he is “focusing on liberal voices and advocates of reform in the Arab and Muslim world, including those speaking out against online jihad.” As part of this work he conducts research into extremist sites, and coordinates a project to get Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to voluntarily remove these sites from their servers. This lead to the Civil Action for a Jihad-Free Internet Project, which notifies ISPs about problem sites on their servers and encourages voluntary action.
Al-Hadj discounted the value of intelligence to be gained from extremist website, saying they “are for ideological recruitment and provide no actionable intelligence.” He also noted that it is illegal for communications companies to provide services to designated terrorist organizations, including Internet hosting services.
Prof. Gregory MacNeal , of the Pepperdine University School of Law, argued that more can be done under current law to counter extremist websites. In his testimony he said Treasury can use its sanctions powers under economic embargo laws against terrorist websites, preventing U.S. based ISPs from hosting them. Noting that these sites could just relocate to overseas ISPs, MacNeal said “new legal tools are necessary to further counter the threat…” For example, he suggested “a new process whereby those foreign communications companies that provide material support to terrorist organizations may be designated as ‘cyber supporters’. Such a designation would prevent US companies from conducting business with designated entities.” His overall strategy recommendation was to pursue a variety of methods of shutting down terrorist sites.
The written testimony from the ACLU took the opposite approach, opposing removal of websites based on their content. Instead, they said “If you find that our enemies are using the Internet to recruit, we encourage use of the Internet to dissuade.” In a press release Michael Macleod-Ball of the ACLU’s Washington office said, ” Not only is censorship inconsistent with American values, it also is counterproductive to preventing extremist violence…The Internet is, and must remain, the most open marketplace of ideas in the history of the world.”
Legislation to follow?
During the question and answer period Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) said “I think it’s maybe more effective to compete with their ideology rather than simply suppress it…if we just suppress it and don’t really compete – offer a competing vision then we may be missing an opportunity…” He went to say he is considering “a study bill on violent radicalization.” Acknowledging that similar proposals in the past have raised civil liberties concerns, he said “we don’t know enough about this topic, which is why we profile…” (For more information on the debate of a study commission, click here.)
MacNeal volunteered to draft legislation that would implement his recommendations, which Sherman encouraged.