BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ISPs are not well placed to make judgments on what constitutes extremism

ISPs are businesses, not scholars or governments. They do not have the expertise to effectively define the parameters of what constitutes extremism or when a certain site is such, and cannot gauge the extent of damage the site is having. If governments give the power to ISPs to take down extremist sites they are giving these companies the ability to dissipate the freedom of the internet on the basis of its own judgment.[1] That is a very dangerous power to give the agents that are the gatekeepers of information to the people. Even if the state sets guidelines for ISPs to follow, it will be difficult to police their decisions effectively and will set the dangerous precedent that service providers should have a degree of power over what content citizens can consume. The ISPs also face the risk of legal challenge by groups blocked that claim to not be advocates of extremism at all so burdening the ISPs with long and costly court battles which would effectively be being fought on behalf of the government. Ultimately private actors cannot be given the authority of the public censor. [1] Mitchell, S. “BT Resists Move to Make ISPs Block Extremist Content”. PC Pro. 7 February 2012. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/372628/bt-resists-move-to-make-isps-block-extremist-content
Censorship provides a propaganda victory to its targets

By denying people the ability to access sites set up by extremists, ISPs serve to increase extremists’ mystique and thus the demand to know more about the movement and its beliefs. When the public appears to oppose something so vociferously that it is willing to have its internet provider set aside the normal freedoms usually taken as granted, people begin to take notice. There are always groups of individuals that wish to set themselves up as oppositional to the norms of society, to transgress against its mores and thus challenge what they see to be a constraining system.[1] When extremist beliefs are afforded this mystique of extreme transgression, it serves to encourage people, particularly young, rebellious people to seek out the group and even join it. Such has been the case of young, disaffected Muslims in Europe, and the United Kingdom in particular. These young people feel discriminated against by the system and seek to express their anger in the public sphere. Islamists have been able to capitalize on this disaffection in their recruitment and have become all the more attractive since their sites have come under attack by the UK government.[2] By allowing free expression and debate, many people would be saved from joining the forces of extremism. [1] Gottfried, Ted. Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001. [2] Jowitt, T. “UK Government Prepares to Block Extremist Websites”. Tech Week Europe. 9 June 2011. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/uk-government-prepares-to-block-extremist-websites-31283
It makes it more difficult for extremists to organize and spread their message when blocked

While it is true that extremists seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites challenging their skewed narrative is far more numerous. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the extremist view is fringe in the extreme. There is also little evidence that preventing access to some sites would make it more difficult for extremists, when large numbers of jihadi websites went offline in 2012 discussion simply moved elsewhere and leaders emphasized recruiting more people offline.[1] [1] Zelin, A. et al. “The State of Global Jihad Online”. New America Foundation. January 2013. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/opeds /Zelin20130201-NewAmericaFoundation.pdf  Pp.10, 15
ISPs are better placed than governments to make decisions on when and who to block

Putting the power to censor the internet, no matter how stringent or specific the guidelines, into the hands of a private organization is misguided. It is the state not individual ISPs who are needed to assess how dangerous a site is, whether it is actually promoting extremism, and ultimately make a decision as to whether a site needs to be blocked. The ISPs may end up being the actors that implement the policy but it has to be government that decides which websites to block and why. This also means that the decision would be much more centralised. Leaving this decision to the discretion of individual ISPs will mean that some websites will be blocked on some ISPs and not on others. Only government can ensure that there is consistency.
ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality

Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Extremism does not deserve its day in court, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and moderation. Besides, the nature of extremists is that they are not amenable to being convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, and that is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and validate themselves to a wider audience.
The freedom of speech can be curtailed when it represents a serious threat to society

Freedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when real harms can be shown to arise from it. Extremist sites serve as centers of dangerous dissent, whose members threaten all of society. They promote a message that is fundamentally bad speech, because it cannot it cannot be argued with and promotes aims that are so anathema to free society that its dissemination represents a true threat to people’s safety. The threat extremists represent to free society demands that their right to speech online be curtailed.[1] By blocking these sites, ISPs certainly are denying some freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the global commons. Thus, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring extremist websites. [1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009. http://www.cfr.org/terrorism-and-technology/terrorists-internet/p10005
It makes it more difficult for extremists to organize and spread their message when blocked

The ISPs are the gatekeepers of information. When the internet places no moral judgments on content and the ISPs let all information through without commentary, it lends an air of permissiveness to the beliefs put forward, that they are held by reasonable people. The internet is a great tool for education, but also one that can be used to sow misinformation and extreme rhetoric. Extremist groups have been able to use the internet to a remarkable extent in promoting their beliefs and recruiting new members. Worse still, the administrators of these extremist sites are able to choke of things like dissenting commenters, giving the illusion that their view is difficult, or even impossible to reasonably challenge. In doing so they create an echo chamber for their ideas that allows them to spread and to affect people, particularly young people susceptible to such manipulation. The best example of this activity is in the international jihadist community and its reaching out to people in the West. Young disaffected Muslims have received an introduction to militant Islamism from sites often based abroad, but also some domestically, increasing the number of believers in an extreme, militant form of that religion.[1] By denying these people a platform on the internet, ISPs are able to not only make a moral stance that is unequivocal, but also to choke off access to new members who can be saved by never seeing the negative messages. [1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009. http://www.cfr.org/terrorism-and-technology/terrorists-internet/p10005
ISPs are better placed than governments to make decisions on when and who to block

As the access providers for the internet ISPs are best placed to implement policies for blocking extremist sites and so are the natural option for deciding when and which sites to block. Furthermore, because the state is often slow due its extensive bureaucracy, it is less able to respond with alacrity to extremist sites popping up online. ISPs on the other hand are likely to be able to act as soon as they are informed of the existence of a website whereas working through government would simply add an extra layer of requests and orders. The ISPs blocking the site also creates a fire break between the state and the action so not giving the extremists the ammunition that state intervention might give them. Essentially, the good result of eliminating these sites from public access is accomplished faster, more effectively, and with lesser backlash than if any other agent did the blocking.
ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality

The internet is such a great thing because it is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted for the scrutiny of the global online community. Debate online and rational argument serves as a major check on the extreme views of the political fringe. By maintaining net neutrality in the provision of internet and not blocking websites, ISPs allow this process of the exchange and scrutinizing of ideas on which liberal democratic society relies.[1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the freedom, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided, and unafraid of artificially constructed bias. [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html
Blocking extremists will make anti-terrorism surveillance more difficult as the organizations go underground

A major risk with any extremist organization is that its members, when put under significant legal pressure, will go underground, or find other means of communicating, or use any ISPs that not blocking extremist content. The power of ISPs, or the state for that matter, to actually stop the development of extremist networks is limited, as they will be able still to organize in secret, or even semi-publicly, via social networks and hidden websites that evade detection by the censors. As Mark Burgess, director of the World Security Institute warns ““too much focus on closing down websites could also be counter-productive, since it likely forces terrorist websites to go underground to the so-called ‘deep’ or hidden web.”[1] Terrorist groups visible profile would be blunted, but it would not guarantee any positive gains in terms of stamping down on the number of extremists. Indeed, when extremists are driven from public channels it will be ever harder for the government to keep track of their doings and of their leaders. The result of this censorship is a more careful organization that now has a sense of victimhood against the society that censors it, which it can use to encourage even more extreme acts from its members and can spin to its advantage during recruitment efforts. By leaving them in the open extremists feel more comfortable acting within the confines of the law and are thus less dangerous, even if they are more visible. [1] Andrews, S., “The dark side of the web”, PC Pro, 9 March 2010, http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356254/the-dark-side-of-the-web/4
ISPs are private service providers and should thus be able to have some filters on the most extreme spectrums of extremism

While ISPs are private firms, they perform a public service. They have a special duty in society as providers of information not to bias that information through private censorship policies. When they embark on any form of site-blocking, ISPs cease to be doing their job. Governments should maintain that ISPs act as neutral gatekeepers of information and not take up the role of ad hoc censor. Moreover this would be different from filtering adult content as that is a service that is provided if the subscriber wishes it, if this was the case with extremist content then such a block would be useless as those interested in extremist content would just opt for packages that do not restrict access.
Everyone, even extremists, deserve their freedom of expression protected

Freedom of speech is important, but must be curtailed when people are threatened.  Extremists are a very real threat because their messages and actions galvanize people to take violent, disruptive actions against the state and its citizens. ISPs have a right, and even a responsibility to block extremist websites if it is written into the contract when a user purchases the service. When people opt into an ISP they accept the parameters of the service, so their freedom is not being limited by the blocking of extremist content as they have already accepted that extremist websites are not a part of the access package they bought.
Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so.

Migration puts too heavy a burden on receiving countries, and it essentially means giving up on source countries. It is not a mechanism of the market, but rather an unfair system that takes money from taxpayers in certain countries and gives it to people in other countries. Not all aspects of migration are bad, but in addition to its workplace protections, the U.N. Convention would protect the right of immigrants to send money home. This would solidify the current unfair system (Article 47). Remittances are a short-term fix that come at a high cost for receiving and source countries. If migrants are not allowed to send home remittances, it is possible that the most skilled workers would stay in their home country and work to rebuild the economy for the long-term. The supposed intangible benefit of “innovation and invention” is much less important than the real cost that these countries feel as a result from the unemployment and increased cost of health, education, and welfare systems that migrants cause. improve this
States should form their own migration policy, because the U.N. Convention violates state sovereignty.

There is plenty of international law on the books, and it is legitimate when it protects rights that ought to be universal for the individual, no matter what country you are in. The right to have a family is not a Chilean right, or a German right, or a Malaysian right; it is a human right. As is the right to work without being harassed. The huge increase in migration over the past two decades shows that individual well-being has developed into a more important concern in the world today than state sovereignty. Migrant protections are moral because they reflect this change. improve this
Ratifying the U.N. Convention would increase unemployment rates in receiving countries at a time when they are already painfully high

The effect of migration on unemployment is actually positive: it provides cheap labor for receiving countries, and lowers the supply of labor in source countries where employers can often not afford to pay sufficient wages to their workers. The claim that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens is unfounded. In the United States, for example, visa applications for skilled foreign workers are extremely difficult to receive and are limited to a small number of people. Foreign students at U.S. universities even need special authorization to work a summer job. Immigrants cannot undercut U.S. workers wages, taking their job away for less money, because foreign workers must be paid a minimum salary, mandated by law.[1] Even illegal immigrants who do not follow these regulations tend to take very-low-paying jobs that are unwanted by U.S. citizens and that would not otherwise exist. [1] Farhad Sethna, “Immigrants Don’t Take Away U.S. Jobs!” Immigration Law Blog, July 9, 2009, accessed June 30, 2011, http://blog.immigration-america.com/archives/131.   improve this
The U.N. Convention would make it harder for states to deport illegal immigrants who broke the law by entering the country.

It is in the nature of international treaties that they represent a compromise, if it was not a compromise receiving nations were willing to make they should have made changes during the negotiations. However the convention does not impose a heavy burden on states wishing to deport migrants, it simply ensures that their human rights are upheld. Suggestions such as “Migrant workers… who are subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment… shall enjoy the same rights as nationals of those States who are in the same situation.” (Article 17) is simply asking for equality for all rather than allowing the current inequality to continue. improve this
The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights.

Because the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to act because although the situation for migrant workers may be slightly different in each state, there are basic rights that they all deserve. In addition, even if each state sought individually to protect migrant rights, they might not be able to, because governing migration takes coordination between states. With international legislation, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights; and, migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, with such bodies as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy."[1] The U.N. Convention would fill this gap. Indeed, the U.N.’s solution to regulate migration represents a reasonable and thorough approach. It is reasonable because it does not ask too much of states, requiring only that they provide migrants with basic rights. It is thorough because it provides protection for each of the many challenges and injustices facing migrant workers. Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world. [1] Deparle, Jason. "Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move," New York Times. June 26, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/weekinreview/27deparle.html   improve this
Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so.

The economic protections in the U.N. Convention are not only good for migrants themselves; they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. In a globalized world, migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization. The growth of the world’s great economies has relied throughout history on the innovation and invention of immigrants. The new perspective brought by migrants leads to new breakthroughs, which are some of the most important benefits to receiving countries from migration. The exploitation of migrant workers that exists in the status quo creates tensions and prejudices that hamper this essential creative ability of migrants in the workplace. Irene Khan shows that migrant protections are important for everybody involved:  "When business exploits irregular migrants, it distorts the economy, creates social tensions, feeds racial prejudice and impedes prospects for regular migration. Protecting the rights of migrant workers -- regular and irregular -- makes good economic and political sense for all countries -- whether source, destination or transit."[1] The U.N. Convention works to combat this exploitation, ensuring equal treatment for migrants in the workplace, and requiring, in many Articles (e.g. Article 17) covering various aspects of political life, that migrants are treated with respect. This will create an atmosphere in which migrants can contribute their invaluable input as well as their low-wage labor, to help boom the economies of the receiving countries that have not yet ratified the Convention. [1] Irene Khan, "Invisible people, irregular migrants," The Daily Star, June 7th, 2010, http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=141601.   improve this
States should form their own migration policy, because the U.N. Convention violates state sovereignty.

Every state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to ratify a piece of one-size-fits-all legislation, like the U.N. Convention. Instead, immigration policy and migrant rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis. The U.N. Convention would violate state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many additional citizens from less-well-off states. It is not surprising that only source countries have ratified the Convention thus far; that is because those are the countries that would benefit from the changes, at the expense of those countries that are still holding out.  improve this
Ratifying the U.N. Convention would increase unemployment rates in receiving countries at a time when they are already painfully high

Increasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Article 8 of the U.N. Convention grants all workers the right to leave their state of origin. This implies an obligation of other states to receive them, and so it would protect increased migration. Further, the right to family reunification for documented migrants, found in Article 50, would also increase migration. This increase in migration would be problematic in many countries. It could worsen overpopulation problems, increase tensions between ethnic and/or religious groups, and raise unemployment rates. The economies of many receiving countries are barely managing to fight unemployment in the status quo. If migrants receive further protection, they will take more jobs, making it harder for citizens to find employment. Everybody should have the opportunity to work in his home country, but the economic protection of migrants overcrowds receiving countries, driving up unemployment. In America, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled workers is caused by immigration, and around 1,880,000 American workers lose their jobs every year because of immigration.[1] In addition to unemployment problems, overcrowding can have a variety of negative consequences affecting air pollution, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life. So, why are migrants deserving of "protection"? It should be the other way around: the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking. [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration." Accessed June 30, 2011. http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html.   improve this