A Victory over Terrorists Raises a Question over Election Reporting

by Chris Farrell
October 1, 2020 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16561/leila-khaled-terrorists-internet

An interesting legal question or two popped-up... right at the intersection of free speech and technology. Corporate standards for content and how Internet platforms engage in editorial decisions over content material (they supposedly are not responsible for) is increasingly becoming a point of contention.
Policing content and platform liability get more complicated with every passing day. The social media tech giants pretend they are not really responsible, unless they want to be -- or they do not like your politics -- or they are frightened of being prosecuted and fined for supporting terrorism.
Corporate America, and especially the Internet tech giants, do not see it that way. Consider the multi-billion-dollar Internet pornography industry that exploits and denigrates human beings through exploitation, child abuse and trafficking.
What happens when the giants decide that an election outcome must be decided in one way, and that anyone reporting or asking questions about a different outcome, a different way, must be banned and suppressed?

Policing internet content and platform liability get more complicated with every passing day. The social media tech giants pretend they are not really responsible, unless they want to be -- or they do not like your politics -- or they are frightened of being prosecuted and fined for supporting terrorism. What happens when the giants decide that an election outcome must be decided in one way, and that anyone reporting or asking questions about a different outcome must be banned and suppressed? (Image source: iStock)

We have good news: Terrorists were stopped from exploiting the Internet and a state university event to propound their violence-inspiring, hate-filled rhetoric. Ten days ago, several online news and social media fora sounded the alarm over San Francisco State University (SFSU) hosting the terrorist Leila Khaled on September 23, 2020 via an Internet-based open classroom event. The occasion was described as "a historic roundtable conversation with Palestinian feminist, militant, and leader Leila Khaled, followed by Q&A discussion with students, activists, and scholars."

Billed as "Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice, & Resistance: A conversation with Leila Khaled," the event featured at least three other terrorists from the Weather Underground, Black Panthers and an advisor to Hamas. Today, the good news with which we are following up is that Khaled and the other terrorists did not win.

While Khaled is not a specially designated terrorist, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is a designated organization -- and Khaled is a member of the terrorist organization's politburo. Because the online event was an Internet open classroom, there were no specific issues related to her physical admissibility to the U.S. Khaled has spoken in Europe several times (including at an EU conference in Brussels in 2017) but the same year, was denied entry to Italy.

Khaled was invited by the roundtable organizer, Professor Rabab Abdulhadi of the SFSU Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas (AMED) program. She has a long history of Palestinian, anti-Jewish activism, including establishing ties between SFSU and Hamas-affiliated universities. In 2014, she led a university-funded delegation of academics to the Middle East, where it met with Leila Khaled and Sheikh Raed Salah, "leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel who has funded the terrorist organization Hamas." Co-sponsors of the event included the Marxist Workers World Party and leading BDS organization Al-Awda -- The Palestinian Right to Return Coalition, which has called for the elimination of Israel and earlier this year had its GoFundMe account terminated on account of its anti-Semitic views.

Here is the good news: First, Zoom, then Facebook, and finally YouTube rejected hosting the terrorists. Zoom sent the following statement to The Lawfare Project:

"Zoom is committed to supporting the open exchange of ideas and conversations, subject to certain limitations contained in our Terms of Service, including those related to user compliance with applicable U.S. export control, sanctions, and anti-terrorism laws. In light of the speaker's reported affiliation or membership in a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization, and SFSU's inability to confirm otherwise, we determined the meeting is in violation of Zoom's Terms of Service and told SFSU they may not use Zoom for this particular event."

As one might expect, the SFSU president, Lynn Mahoney, conjured up an excruciating statement rationalizing virulent anti-Semitism:

"Zoom's cancelation of the event will be deeply wounding to some members of our community who will feel themselves and their dissent silenced once again, just as the participation of Leila Khaled in a class panel discussion is deeply wounding to others in our community. We cannot embrace the silencing of controversial views, even if they are hurtful to others."

Where does one go to have their Internet event cancellation deep wounds treated?

Some would argue a First Amendment or international Internet freedom case supporting the "right" of Khaled to contaminate the already poisoned minds of the students and faculty at SFSU. Material cooperation with atrocities -- in this case, terrorism -- explodes that argument. We cannot glorify or promote atrocities.

Corporate America, and especially the Internet tech giants, do not see it that way. Consider the multi-billion-dollar Internet pornography industry that exploits and denigrates human beings through exploitation, child abuse and trafficking.

In the case of Khaled, the other terrorists and their supporters, we can be satisfied that Zoom, Facebook and YouTube did the right thing, even if they did so for the wrong reasons. The corporate counsels were probably looking at the legal exposures and liabilities for charges of "material support to terrorist organizations" (18 US Code § 2339A) when they made their recommendations, not thumbing through the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. That's okay. Sufficient awareness and pressure were brought to bear by a legion of organizations, activists and ordinary citizens to make the tech firms, SFSU and senior U.S. government officials aware of what was planned and how it needed to be stopped. It happened.

An interesting legal question or two popped-up along the way, right at the intersection of free speech and technology. Corporate standards for content and how Internet platforms engage in editorial decisions over content material (they supposedly are not responsible for) is increasingly becoming a point of contention. Policing content and platform liability get more complicated with every passing day. The social media tech giants pretend they are not really responsible, unless they want to be -- or they do not like your politics -- or they are frightened of being prosecuted and fined for supporting terrorism. In this circumstance we have a victory.

Thinking more broadly, one can imagine how the same techniques could be employed and justified to suppress the speech of domestic political opponents of the social media tech giants. What happens when the giants decide that an election outcome must be decided in one way, and that anyone reporting or asking questions about a different outcome, a different way, must be banned and suppressed? Perhaps we will find out.

Democratic political operatives are already feeding the "Don't Fall for the Red Mirage" storyline -- suggesting a Trump landslide on election night is "fake" and that "all of the ballots must be counted." This narrative suggests that there is no way there could actually be a legitimate victory by the candidate they do not like and that election night becomes election month. The Left wants to count and count and count until they get a number that beats Trump.

Suppose Trump declares victory? Is that "fake news?" Does Trump's Twitter feed get cut? What about the Trump campaign's social media accounts? You see how this all plays out, of course.

Chris Farrell is a former counterintelligence case officer. For the past 20 years, he has served as the Director of Investigations & Research for Judicial Watch. The views expressed are the author's alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Recent Articles by Chris Farrell

Biden's Borders: The Threat to America and the Threat to the Free World, 2022-02-01
Biden's Budget Priorities and the China Threat, 2022-01-12
Biden's Global Challenges, 2021-12-24
Vaccines and Power, 2021-12-02
The Supply Chain and Border Security, 2021-11-25

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

3 Reader Comments

jule • Oct 1, 2020 at 22:46

I guess since America is so young, people do not (for some reason) realize how dangerous incitement is..... would this University spotlight a person like Hitler or any other Supremacist group order the demise of a minority or even majority? This is something I do not want USA to learn the hard way. Supremacist groups and Supremacist religions cannot be allowed in USA as they are ANTI-FREEDOM. We are not showing we are a free country to allow them but we are showing we will tolerate genocides or 'wiping out' others and rallies to recruit and incentivize such things. THAT IS NOT WHAT FREEDOM IS. Supremacists cannot live within freedom as their goal is to kill it. Germany had to learn the hard way. We cannot repeat this kind of history for anything.

Reply->

Oldguyincolorado • Oct 1, 2020 at 12:22

I suppose you are politically pregnant or not. Only time will tell. This is the substance of this very legitimate article. The problem is: who has the right to decide if, on a political issue, you should have an abortion, or the even right to one? We are used to " fair play" in America so long as we are willing to live with the outcome. We are now coming into an era where many want to play, but not be fair about it and change rules, predetermine the outcome and prevent the other guy from even entering the arena.

As you see, I strongly disagree with some of what this former counterintelligence author says about election results and approaches. My time in the intelligence corps was on the other side of things: collecting information and attacking the enemy in his arena so we would not have to defend against him in ours. Sister services, each with the same goal: Keeping America Safe. Each with a different approach.

I prefer the old America which might still be saved: let every vote be counted if timely cast under the rules, no matter how. If it takes a while to make the count then it is a defect in the system of counting and not a defect in determining the will of the majority. Which is more important, how long it takes or getting the outcome right? But let every voice be silenced if it is designed to destroy our way of life because if it is allowed to be heard it does not promote the public good. If we can't determine which voice is dangerous then we are allowing our freedoms to be used against us. Just because someone opposes us does not necessarily mean that he should not be fairly heard under the rules. Just because someone wants to speak does not mean that he has a right to do so if he doesn't follow the rules. Not all of the rules are codified. Remember the Supreme Court has already ruled that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not covered under free speech.. And certainly we can tell what is appropriate or not in our American way of life because courts have already made final determinations in cases which are not covered by specific rules, these under the concept of : I can't describe beauty, but I know it when I see it.

I know hate speech when I see it. I know a cheater when I see him. Is the majority of us so far gone that they can't see it? I would hope not.

The academic world knows what it is doing when it allows defamatory speech. It tries to excuse it under the concept of academic freedom. This is not an absolute freedom when it amounts to yelling " fire" in the crowded classroom. This expression of academic freedom is faulty. It promotes things which are frankly unAmerican and the school knows it. The schools should recognize it as they should recognize ugliness: when they see it. They are given great latitude, but there are limits. We should not tolerate it when they exceed the limits. This school apparently goes far beyond the pale as a matter of common practice. This needs to stop. Now. The controllers of the Internet should recognize it, too, this even though it may cost them money. They have a duty to keep it out of the mainstream and let it go back under the rocks from which it came. All of it. And let's be truthful: they do know it when they see it.

Reply->

Jon z

Oldguyincolorado • Oct 1, 2020 at 23:58

Thanks for your comment. Sanity is hard to find on a college campus or in any Public Ed. these days. I prefer the old America too. It was much easier to navigate and teachers were fulfilling a vocation or doing what they loved. Today, if you're a conservative and are outed in Public Ed. you will be canceled. That's shameful and very un-American. We have 3 generations that have no understanding of their own history. Only lies told by liberal indoctrinators who hate America and what she stands for. We have to stop what's going on and assess a new rout. These current jokers need to be re-educated themselves. Just a bunch of angry America haters.

Reply->