In 1994, following two separate terrorist bombings incidents, one in New York and the other in Oklahoma City, Americans came together to express their intolerance for crimes of this nature. President Clinton gave a radio address on the one year anniversary of the Oklahoma incident, demanding that
"we must give nothing less than everything we have in the fight against terrorism in our country and around the world, for the forces that are sparking so much of the progress we see today -- lightning-fast technology, easier travel, open borders -- these forces also make it easier for people with a grudge or a cause to launch a terrorist attack against innocent people."
This 'lightning-fast technology' mentioned in Clinton's address, known as the Internet, was the focus of anti-terrorism legislation introduced by Congress. As the Internet facilitates communication more speedily and effectively for many people, it is also provides a forum to disseminate potentially harmful information, e.g., information on how to build bombs, reasons to overthrow the United States Government, and how to organize violent militia groups. This, in turn, faces us with a difficult question - the question of how to respond to controversial or extreme uses of this new information technology.
Much of the debate that has arisen over counterterrorism policy in recent years, however, has blindly presupposed that the openness of our society is at odds with the fight against domestic terrorists. Does the government have the right, despite potential First Amendment violations (specifically, the restriction of the freedom of speech and the right to public assembly), to protect itself and its citizens in the electronic domain? In an April '95 Gallup poll, when asked the question, "Should the government investigate and infiltrate groups that have firearms and are resisting the government -- even if doing so may infringe upon their constitutional rights?", 72% responded yes. Why is an overwhelming majority of the nation so afraid of terrorist activity, afraid enough to have their First Amendment rights as citizens violated?