It’s not everyday that you get to see, first hand, NATO battling the Taliban. Thanks to Twitter, people have at least been able to witness verbal sparring matches, between NATO’s ISAFmedia account and the Taliban account, ABalkhi.
The Twitter ‘conversations’ were quick to make headlines, but according to a report in the LA Times, members of US congress want Twitter to ban the Taliban presence altogether from the microblogging site.
The reasoning behind the ban is that the pro-Taliban accounts cross a line with the nature of their tweets, which callously record and announce the deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan.
However, Twitter execs have reportedly stated that the tweets do not violate the website’s terms of service, since the Taliban isn’t listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization.
While Twitter’s terms of service do forbid threats of violence, Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University told the LA Times that the tweets are well within the rights of those posting them, saying, ”The Taliban feeds, although they use incendiary language, are essentially a news feed of attacks.” According to Rosen, since the Twitter accounts are not announcing “specific and immediate threats of violence” – nothing can be done.
Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, is spearheading the campaign which aims to have any traces of the Taliban removed from the Internet – whether videos, blog posts or otherwise – which promote terrorism. Google has also been targeted by the Senator, due to a lack of restriction on content posted to its blogging platform, Blogger.
Lieberman asked Google to implement a ‘flag’ feature on Blogger, mainly due to the recent arrest of Jose Pimental, on charges of constructing a pipe bomb, the instructions for which were hosted on his blog.
The request is a tricky one and treads a sensitive and fine line – is the Taliban Twitter account simply exercising its right to free speech? The right to free speech only holds true if the statements originate from a country where it’s actually a legitimate right – so where does that leave the Taliban on Twitter?


















Lol first time I noticed that twitter convo, I gotta admit it is funny reading it. It is like two little girls trying to blame each other for the mess they made on the floor.
I reckon they should have a 'twitter war'.
But as for this congressman he does not have the right to deny us funny convos like that just cos he don't like it and besides them removing the taliban from the internet will just make everyone think they have something to hide (which they prolly do). I mean I am anti-taliban but at the same time NATO has made some serious undeniable and easily avoidable mistakes in Afganistan they don't really wanna admit.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeOh and yes if he was to win his ban he would blatently be breaching free speech.
This is going on in the UK way too much atm, parts of our internet are being blocked nationally because people/companies "don't like its content" it is disgraceful and is an afront to democracy easily. I guess what makes it hurt more, that companies and individuals are able to block sites, is that it is our own law (the same law designed to protect us from this kinda stuff) that they use to get it blocked by sueing.
Just because he doesn't like it does not give him the right to restrict our view. Maybe he should look else where for something he does like.
Everyone has a right to a voice whether they be idiots or not, it is your choice to listen to that voice.
The internet is very quickly, on many fronts, becoming the symbol of freedom and it is being repressed massively even in 'totally' free countries. It is wrong and it should stop now.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like