The White House has declined to endorse a non-binding response condemning the spread of hate speech and terrorist radicalization on social media. The response, dubbed the “Christchurch Call,” was written in the wake of the terrorist attacks that killed 51 people at two mosques in New Zealand and livestreamed on Facebook. The White House’s reasoning for not endorsing the statement is bonkers, to say the least.
The White House has declined to endorse a non-binding response condemning the spread of hate speech and terrorist radicalization on social media. The response, dubbed the “Christchurch Call,” was written in the wake of the terrorist attacks that killed 51 people at two mosques in New Zealand and livestreamed on Facebook. The White House’s reasoning for not endorsing the statement is bonkers, to say the least.
The Christchurch Call was spearheaded by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron to simply ask for “enhanced cooperation” in order to “eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.” The statement has been endorsed by 18 different governments, along with five large tech companies, but the U. S. says that it is “not currently in a position to join the endorsement” over First Amendment concerns, according to the Washington Post.
“We continue to be proactive in our efforts to counter terrorist content online while also continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press,” the White House said in a statement to the Washington Post today.
But then the official White House statement gets weirder.
“Further, we maintain that the best tool to defeat terrorist speech is productive speech, and thus we emphasize the importance of promoting credible, alternative narratives as the primary means by which we can defeat terrorist messaging,” the White House said.
