Even if we do not trust a specific President, there is no denying that they know things we do not. It must be necessary for them, from time to time, to persuade the nation. The use of a persuasive rhetoric in this instance may be justified. And especially when a President uses rhetoric to invite a response from the audience and critics, as Zarefsky notes, I can appreciate the President's intention. I am in general very skeptical of any form of government control. I strongly believe that in a democratic state, citizens should have access to free choice and free flow of information. If the citizens can make responsible decisions based on what they themselves figure out, that makes democratic institutions strong. Therefore, I am very skeptical of any attempt by any organization to control or filter the Internet. So, I started reading Timothy Thomas's article "Al Qaeda and the Internet: the Danger...

I thought Thomas would unnecessarily defend law enforcement agencies that aggressively monitor the Internet in the name of "war on terror." But Thomas, I think, has a point. Reading about techniques used by Al Qaeda to plan terrorist operations and recruit sympathizers for their cause indeed suggests that the free flow of information on the Internet has led to an unsafe environment. The environment unfortunately has become a double-edged sword. When it is free, the Internet becomes a tool that can be easily used by people with nefarious plans (e.g. terrorists). But granting law enforcement agencies greater control of the Internet is also dangerous. It is indeed a dilemma I cannot easily resolve.
The readings in general make it clear that the power of rhetoric, whether by political leaders or terrorist recruits online, is something we need not…