Twenty-five years after September 11, 2001, Americans face a different challenge: how do we ensure that a generation born after 9/11 understands the impact of what terrorism can do to a society? For millions of young Americans, September 11 is something learned in history, rather than a personal memory. They did not watch the Twin Towers’ collapse on live television. They did not experience the fear that followed, did not witness in real time the firefighters, police officers, journalists, and ordinary citizens as they risked their lives to save strangers. Forgetting the lessons of 9/11 would be a grave mistake. The attacks, carried out by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers, killed 2,977 people. The victims of the attack were not only Americans, they also came from countries and communities across the world. They were parents, children, coworkers, travelers, and first responders whose lives were impacted because a terrorist organization decided that political and ideological objectives justified mass murder. That is the first lesson the youth of America need to understand: Terrorism is never justified by ideology. America’s younger generations should also learn to distinguish between political activism and extremism. Americans have every right to criticize their government, oppose wars, protest foreign policy, and defend causes they believe in. Freedom of speech exists precisely to protect dialogue and disagreement. The US should know that a group of people in Palestine annually celebrate the 9/11 anniversary. But there must be a moral boundary. Supporting the rights of Palestinian civilians, criticizing Israel, opposing U.S. military policy, or questioning the Iranian government does not automatically make someone a supporter of terrorism. At the same time, celebrating the mass murder of civilians, or glorifying organizations that deliberately target them, should not be dismissed as ordinary political expression. That distinction is becoming increasingly important in the new age of social media. Within seconds of going online, young people can encounter highly emotional videos and manipulated images containing selective historical narratives. Extremist organizations understand this environment; they can present violence as heroism, terrorists as revolutionaries, and victims as statistics. This is why media literacy is an essential part of the fight against extremism. Americans should thoroughly question what they see online: Who created this content? What facts are missing? Is the source credible? Is violence being justified simply because the victims belong to an opposing group? America also has the responsibility to teach history honestly. The rise of al-Qaeda emerged from a complicated geopolitical environment, including the Soviet-Afghan war and the international networks that developed around it. That history should be studied carefully—not reduced to simplistic claims such as the United States “created” al-Qaeda or directly funded Osama bin Laden. The lesson of 9/11 is not that Americans should fear Muslims, immigrants, or people from different countries. Terrorism has no ethnicity or religion, and extremism can emerge in many different ideological forms. The lesson is that democratic societies must remain vigilant against anyone who believes violence against innocent people is an acceptable political tool. The youth of America should question their leaders. They should protest. They should debate. They should demand accountability. However, they should prioritize protecting something more fundamental: the value of human life. Remembering 9/11 is not about living in fear. It is about refusing to become indifferent to terrorism. Twenty-five years later, that may be the most important lesson that Americans can pass onto the next generation.
By Suzzy Majumder
The government can not criminalize the private possession of child pornography, so long as it is AI-generated. That is the new precedent set after Steven Anderegg was dismissed of one of four charges after investigators found him in possession of hundreds of AI-generated sexually explicit images depicting children. Due to the decades-old Supreme Court ruling, which rejected restrictions on sexualized depictions of fictional children when real children were not involved, the court was forced to protect the in-home possession of AI-generated child-sex abuse material. Despite Anderegg being charged with producing and distributing AI child porn, a federal court did dismiss the possession charge on First Amendment grounds. The Justice Department appealed the dismissal, but was unsuccessful, as the government cannot generally criminalize the private possession of obscene material inside someone’s home, unless it is sexual abuse material involving real children. However, as AI content has become more lifelike, real children and fake children can now be virtually indistinguishable from each other. As time goes on, more predators and pedophiles will likely use the excuse that their child pornography is AI-generated as a way to escape punishment, as certain child porn is now classified as free speech. This situation is abhorrent, as whether or not real children are being depicted and abused in this content, it is still seriously damaging to not only the children, but those watching and possessing it as well. AI cannot create anything original; it can only replicate what it sees online, meaning that any AI-generated content will be a replica of real videos of kids, whose likeness will be used to make sickening content. Moreover, if AI child porn is permissible, those that consume it will be less likely to be subject to punishment and more likely to perpetrate acts of sexual violence on real children in the real world. This whole case is abominable, and there is no reason why child sexual abuse should fall under the First Amendment, whether it be real kids or not.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Blaming Western countries and civilization for the world’s tragedies and inequalities is common among progressives on virtually every issue, and environmental protection is no exception. The United States and countries in the European Union are widely criticized for their high ecological footprints and greenhouse gas emissions but the methodologies used to calculate their environmental damages are likely severely flawed. This becomes apparent when they are compared to many non-Western countries, whose cultural norms have led to massive pollution, environmental destruction, and inefficient resource usage that plague their lands’ sustainability. The governments’ reluctance to encourage their citizens to become more environmentally conscious implies that these patterns are not the result of European colonialism, no matter how much leftists use it as a scapegoat. A simple visit to India shatters the anti-Western narrative. Indian rivers have been filled with trash and sewage due to local manufacturers’ dumping their waste without regard for those that rely on those same water sources. In addition, despite India’s per capita waste generation being magnitudes lower than that of western countries, its lack of sanitation facilities and failure to enforce laws on waste removal have resulted in landfills of plastic waste that line streets throughout most of its cities. Climate activists regularly scrutinize the use of natural gas or coal-powered plants for electricity generation in the United States, but the air pollution generated from those is miniscule per energy unit in comparison to power generators widely used in Indian households. This is widely due to catalytic reduction and desulfurization processes required by American law on power plants, which successfully controls air pollution in the United States. In contrast, Indian cities’ air regularly ranks among the most polluted in the world due to generators that lack these filtration processes, costing Indians billions of dollars each year in healthcare. Yet environmentalists are strangely silent on urging India to become more sustainable. Capitalism is often blamed for environmental catastrophes, despite the tendency of many high-performing countries on the Index of Economic Freedom to have strict regulations on asbestos, carbon taxes, pesticide use, and nuclear power plant safety. In contrast, the communist USSR was responsible for the destruction of the Aral Sea, some of the world’s most polluted mining towns, and the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. Despite the Chinese Communist Party’s strong grip over the national economy, it has failed to control smog and air pollution from the rapid industrialization that has occurred in the 21st century. In addition to these pollutions, two communist states suffered from major famines. were exporting vast quantities of grain while tens of millions starved to death. When the behaviors tolerated by these countries are ignored by climate activists, the question rises: Is their movement more about sustaining the planet for our descendants, or tearing down Western civilization and capitalism, which have produced the most affluent and environmentally conscious countries in human history?
By Edward Kim
Follow Us