I do too. I'm not asking for government censorship here. But I am upset that private individuals in the USA provides direct support for an al-Qaeda linked group.
There's a lot more to it than just the SNUFF videos. These sites are used for recruitment, for training, for extortion (shows they deliver on their threats so they will be taken seriously next time) and they also contain gigabytes of terrorism manuals.
Why isn't it called "SNUFF PORN" if it is done by terrorists? Think about the dichotomy for a few minutes: If some pervert had posted murder videos the police would be all over him. If terrorists post murder videos then their videos are protected speech.
We talked to the FBI -- the FBI tells us they aren't looking at the sites.
Johnathan
I think there needs to be emphasis in this discussion on what you have referred to in the past as "TOSSing". TOSSing starts with a respectful, polite and informative email to the host's abuse department re: the putative Terrorist Site listing the criteria for what determines a Terrorist Site and showing the host that the Site is involved in the conduct of Terrorism. Yes, the Site should be allowed to stay for a period of time for the downloading of 'research' but then it should be rapidly taken down the by the cancellation of their account based on violation of Terms of Service. This "TOSSing" bypasses the First Amendment argument which could not be avoided in the trial of Sami Al-Husseyn and it is the only method available, other than hacking, for the proactive shutdown of Terrorist Sites. However, citizens with 'research' interests need to work in synche with the 'TOSSers'. This is a rather sophisicated form of citizen vigilance developed by you and appreciated, I suspect, by both Republicans and Democrats like myself.
Thanks,
Philip "Rick" Henika