That Link Is Illegal 779
buzzdecafe writes with a snippet from a Declan McCullagh piece on news.com today: "The University of California at San Diego has ordered a student organization to delete hyperlinks to an alleged terrorist Web site, citing the recently enacted USA Patriot Act.
School administrators have told the group, called the Che Cafe Collective, that linking to a site supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) would not be permitted because it violated federal law."
confused (Score:2, Interesting)
So can they do what Google did? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can these people do likewise? Instead of hyperlinking directly, give a URL that can be cut-and-pasted (or an image of a URL that would then need to be retyped)? If the PATRIOT act does in fact forbid the hyperlink, does it also forbid the information?
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but I think they are interpreting it wrong. The article says the following about the Patriot Act:
The law in question is one section of the USA Patriot Act, signed by President George W. Bush last October, which outlaws providing "material support or resources" to foreign terrorists who have been placed on a State Department list. Material support is defined as money, lodging, training or "communications equipment."
Since they simply link to the website, and aren't (that I'm aware of) providing any kind of support or resources to that group, they should be fine to keep the link up.
Although I gather through the article that UCSD really just doesn't want to even have the CHANCE of violating the Patriot Act, since they would largely be responsible for dealing with the legal repercussions from it. I understand that, but I still don't think they have the right to remove the link from the student group's website.
Mark
Re:USA Patriot (Score:5, Interesting)
Internet Unconstitutional. (Score:2, Interesting)
Federal Circuit Judge A. Lottabull declared the Internet to be "Unconstitutional". He was further quoted as saying "If the founding fathers were alive today, they would be completely offended at what the Internet allows into the homes of US citizens."
Judge A. Lottabull also said,"Yeah, it's almost as bad as mentioning God when pledging allegiance to the United States of America. The framers of the Constitution would have freaked at that."
When informed of the decision, most users of the Internet were quoted as saying (in the general direction of the Judge)"Bugger off you Shut-in Luddite SOB"
Judge A. Lottabull is one of the most overturned judges in the Union, and should not be taken seriously.
---Some News agency or other.
Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)
Additionally, material support could be interpreted to include publicity and propaganda.
Re:And? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm no expert on the First Amendment (IANAEOTFA?), nor have I read and understood the entire text of the USA PATRIOT act, but if the act prohibits providing support or resources to terrorists, then:
1. It seems to me that you are right that they are not providing support by having that link.
2. It seems that you have ignored "resources" -- maintaining that link facilitates the terrorists' efforts to spread their message, making the web page with the link in it a "resource" working for them.
Does that seem like a stretch?
Re:USA Patriot (Score:4, Interesting)
Who owns the machine? Even if they didn't, they are using the university ISP.
Doesn't the University have rules on what can be put on a webpage within their domain?
I'm sure if they put up a porno site, that it would be taken down the same way.
Now if this 'illegal' linkage was done on their own ISP, using another domain and the university had issues, we'd have a problem. But as I see it, this has nothing to do with the 1st amendment, because they can put it on the web, just not on the university domain.
Re:Internet Unconstitutional. (Score:1, Interesting)
It's funny you would mention that. The framers of the Constitution vehemently opposed the pledge of allegiance. It wasn't until many years after their deaths that congress managed to push the pledge through. The founding fathers felt that oaths and pledges were the tools of tyrants and had no place in a free society.
Re:Books Banned (Score:4, Interesting)
In SF where a woman was killed in the hallway exiting her apartment, BY A DOG that was on a leash, there is now (today) a proposal to make ALL parks in SF off leash areas for owners of dogs. These are parks where almost all have signs now that say that they are NOT off leash areas. People do not obey the signs now, and kids have been bitten by dogs off leash. The law would be if you can control your dog by voice. How vague is that? What about health codes. Dogs urinating and defecating on the fields where children play. Hmm I'd have to wonder if that would spread some new diseases, like discentary.
In CA, gov GD is or has signed a bill that would make stem cell research leagal in CA from ANY source even though this is against the fed gov. Hmm how does that one work?
In CA there are places where it is legal to grow pot, even though it is against fed law. So the state says its okay, but the feds will come in and arrest you. So much for state laws.
So they pick linking to a web site the time to obey fed law.
Does any one else see a problem with the way the CA is acting in all these cases?
Personally I am worried about the US being so scared about loosing our freedoms that we let our federal and state goverments take them away from us one by one.
Re:And? (Score:2, Interesting)
I suppose the target of the enforcement can always appeal, so I expect the system to work in this situation. Most likely, a little pushing-back by the che cafe will get the whole thing thrown out and forgotten.
Incidently, I attend UCSD. I was there about an hour ago.
Re:History is just doing that cyclic thing it does (Score:2, Interesting)
However, in this case, our freedoms are being taken away in the name of a war that cannot ever be won.
When will these freedoms be returned? When Bin Landen is found? When Sadam is out of power? Never?
I hope with all my heart its in my lifetime.
Scott.
FARC (Score:2, Interesting)
I cant stand the FARC, but is stupid to try to deny them their right to express their ideas...
Re:It's a university computer... (Score:2, Interesting)
Relavent UCSD Policies
UC Business and Finance Bulletin G-29, Procedures for Investigating Misuse of University Resources Appendix C, Whistle Blower Policy [ucop.edu]
Acceptable Use Policies [ucsd.edu]
When I attended SUNY Geneseo [geneseo.edu], the dean made me take down my personal web page. It consisted of a classified ad listing for students to buy/sell their textbooks. There was no money in it for me at all but the school used a broad interpretation of their rules to take it down anyway. The real reason was because the school has an agreement with a local book store saying that all book orders will be placed through that store and no where else. I think that is even more controversial than what we are talking about here but they still got a way with it. Small town politics.
Re:1st Amendment Problem (Score:2, Interesting)
The term nymphomania also only refers to women; the masculine term for the same addiction is satyriasis, but it's not used much anymore.
Shall Make No Law... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, we complain that the enemies that we trained are out to kill the masters who trained them. Pity.
Today's issue with the USA PATRIOT (sic) Act is the fact that it is an implementation of executive authority pursuant to law martial rule of necessity in the face of a Clear and Present Danger. It does not matter that it is decades of American Hegemony and interventionist foreign policy that created the situation (or is it?)
[findlaw.com]
American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 396 (1950):
The Court sustained a law barring from access to the NLRB any labor union if any of its officers failed to file annually an oath disclaiming membership in the Communist Party and belief in the violent overthrow of the government.
For the Court, Chief Justice Vinson rejected reliance on the clear and present danger test. "Government's interest here is not in preventing the dissemination of Communist doctrine or the holding of particular beliefs because it is feared that unlawful action will result therefrom if free speech is practiced. Its interest is in protecting the free flow of commerce from what Congress considers to be substantial evils of conduct that are not the products of speech at all. Section 9(h), in other words, does not interfere with speech because Congress fears the consequences of speech; it regulates harmful conduct which Congress has determined is carried on by persons who may be identified by their political affiliations and beliefs. The Board does not contend that political strikes . . . are the present or impending products of advocacy of the doctrines of Communism or the expression of belief in overthrow of the Government by force. On the contrary, it points out that such strikes are called by persons who, so Congress has found, have the will and power to do so without advocacy."
The test, rather, must be one of balancing of interests. "When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgement of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of these two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the particular circumstances presented." Inasmuch as the interest in the restriction, the government's right to prevent political strikes and the disruption of commerce, is much more substantial than the limited interest on the other side in view of the relative handful of persons affected in only a partial manner, the Court perceived no difficulty upholding the statute.
So, in the current climate of a Clear and Present Danger, political speech has now been relegated to a loyalty test. A test to see if the people will blindly follow a sucession of leaders who drew us into this situation in the first place.
So now the friends of my enemies are my enemies, and the First Amendment be damned if it questions the authority of the butchers living in the District of Criminals.
This is not the first time (Score:1, Interesting)
Careful of Overinterpretation (Score:5, Interesting)
Virg
Re:Books Banned (Score:2, Interesting)
I fail to see anywhere in the Constitution that gives the FedGov the right to make consuming a substance illegal.
Transporting across state lines? Fine.
Transporting into the country? Fine.
Conducting transactions in the sale of such substances across either state or national boundaries? Fine.
The FedGov HAS authority over these. But I think they have ZERO jurisdiction if everything takes place entirely within a state's boundaries, according to BOTH the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Period.
Don't like it? Then leave California! Or if you're like me and live in, oh, PENNSYLVANIA, then kindly shut the hell up. It's their state. Sheesh, there are too many arrogant people in this country. Let other people decide how to live their lives as they see fit. If that's what they want, it's no one else's business.
Re:Oh sure... (Score:1, Interesting)
Communism is simply an economic model -- the fact that every instance of a communist economy so far has been overseen by a totalitarian government leaves us no conclusion to draw about communism itself, as we know that totalitarian regimes cannot sustain themselves in an informed and massive populace.
There's nothing in the commie books that rules out a communist democracy. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like anyone will ever have the opportunity to try it, since the McCarthy-trained kneejerk responses such as yours are the norm now.