Drug Information Censorship Bill To Be Voted On 15
kableh writes: "H.R. 2987, also known as the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999", is scheduled to "mark-up" on Tuesday, May 8th or Wednesday, May 9th. This bill would make many things illegal, including: "...to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance..." This is yet another attack on free speech on the Internet. I understand that many Slashdot readers may balk at first, but what is next? The complete text of the bill can be found here. "
now that I can still tell you... (Score:2)
//rdj
Not quite but still chilling. (Score:1)
that the article reads fully :
`(2) PROHIBITION- It shall be unlawful for any person--
`(A) to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime; or
`(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime.
The distribution of the information rquires intent or the knowledge of intent of the person to whom you're giving the information. This is still chilling but it isn't quite as bad as the heading to the article suggests.
I feel that we should try to curtail drug use and manufacture, but when did it become a battle to win at any cost, including free speech.
I would suggest if you live in a state represented by the authors of the bill:
Mr. CANNON, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. ROGAN, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PICKERING, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. GALLEGLY, and Mr. SALMON
You talk to them and ask if fighting drug manufacture and use is a sufficient reson to risk first amendment rights.
We don't want to hurt the kids (Score:1)
--
Meth Bill Update (Score:1)
Republican backers are apparently feeling some heat, looking at narrowing the language, in particular removing the "use" from "information that can be used to manufacture or use..."
Since the H1b visa hearing was held, and all the big $ netfirms lobbyists were with Judiciary, I'm real curious what the had to say about the Meth bill.
Impeach the Bastards (Score:1)
Re:Impeach the Bastards (Score:1)
Re:Impeach the Bastards (Score:1)
Why can't we impeach these idiots for violating their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"? If they don't like something in the Constitution, they should try to amend it, not introduce unconstitutional bills.
Because the "Oath" is nothing more than a promise. And we all know what those are worth. Too bad the only real solution to this is an educated elotorate...Re:Impeach the Bastards (Score:1)
Re:Impeach the Bastards (Score:1)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took Congress to task the other day for relying on the courts to nullify blatantly unconstitutional bills, by the way.
But hell, back in 1988 George Bush got the support of flag-wrapped Americans by chastising Dukakis for vetoing a bill requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance that Dukakis's advisors had told him was unconstitutional.
Re:compare english words over a 100+ years period. (Score:1)
. however, I find:
HACK, v. t. 1. To cut up irregularly and into small pieces.
2. To speak with stops or catches, to speak with hesitation
HACK n. 1. A horse kept for hire, a horse used in draught, or in hard service, any thing exposed to hire
2. A coach or carriage kept for hire
3. Hesitating or faltering speech
4. A writer employed in the drudgery or details of bookmaking
HACK v. i. To be exposed or offered in common use for hire, to turn prostitute
HACKLE v. To seperate the coarse part of flax or hemp from the fine, by drawing it through the teeth of a hatchel
HACKSTER n. a bully, ruffian, or assassin
Finally, we can arrest the idiots at the US PTO (Score:1)
Burris
Article on WIRED - Bill Criminalizes Drug Links (Score:1)
"You have all sorts of First Amendment problems with that," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Civil libertarians said the measure should be rewritten to remove restrictions on Web publishing and eliminate a controversial section that would allow police to conduct secret searches and seizures.
Johnson has lobbied both Democratic and Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, arguing that the bill is so vague it could put even mainstream publishers at risk.
Senate version already passed (Score:1)
b) IMMUNITIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICES-
(1) IN GENERAL- Such section 422 is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(g) IMMUNITIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTR SERVICES-
`(1) IN GENERAL- An interactive computer service that satisfies the conditions of this subsection shall not be liable under this section or section 2 or 371 of title 18, United States Code, for the use of its facilities or services--
`(A) by another person, or
`(B) as an information location tool referred to in paragraph (6)(A), provided that the interactive computer service does not control or modify (except to prevent or avoid a violation of law) the content of the online location to which such location tool refers or links, to engage in activity that violates this section, except as provided in paragraph (2).
(2) NOTICE AND TAKE DOWN RESPONSIBILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- If an interactive computer service receives a notice described in subparagraph (B) that a particular online site residing on a computer server controlled or operated by the provider is being used to violate this section, the provider shall within 48 hours, not including weekends and holidays, remove or disable access to the matter residing at that online site that allegedly violates this section.
`(B) NOTICE- A notice is described in this subparagraph only if it is a written communication from the Attorney General, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, or a United States Attorney supplied to the agent of the interactive computer service designated in accordance with section 512(c)(2) of title 17, United States Code, or to any employee of the provider if no such designation has been made, and includes--
`(i) identification of the matter that allegedly violates this section and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled;
`(ii) an allegation that such matter violates this section;
`(iii) information reasonably sufficient to permit the interactive computer service to locate such matter; and
`(iv) information reasonably sufficient to permit the interactive computer service to contact the Federal official, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the Federal official providing such notice may be contacted.
`(C) FAILURE TO TAKE DOWN MATTER- An interactive computer service that does not take the actions described in this paragraph upon receiving a notice meeting the requirements of subparagraph (B) shall be deemed to have knowingly permitted its computer server to be used to engage in activity prohibited by this section and to have actual knowledge that the activity is prohibited by this section.
`(D) APPLICABILITY TO PROVIDERS OF BROWSER SOFTWARE-
`(i) INAPPLICABILITY- This paragraph shall not apply to a provider of browser software to the extent that the provider provides access to information location tools controlled by another party.
`(ii) APPLICABILITY- This paragraph shall apply to a provider of browser software which provides matter consisting primarily of matter prohibited by this section or which holds itself out to others as a source of, or directory for, or means of searching for matter prohibited by this section.
As a result of this amendment, the feds do not need to get a ruling from a Judge to yank copy, they can order the ISP to pull it. THis can be done from anywhere. The US Attorney in UTAH can order my Wisconsin ISP to yank my page, and if I want to contest it I have to bring an action in Federal District Court in Utah, where you can't even party between court dates!
Re:Not quite but still chilling. (Score:1)
Re:Impeach the Bastards (Score:1)
and in legal terms an Oath or affirmation IS more than a promise, or notarys wouldn't be involved in verifying that the person taking the oath is who
they say they are, aren't under duress, know at least basically what they are agreeing to, etc...
This is more than a promise. The purpose of all this fanfare seems to be to make it a legally enforceable promise. IANAL, but I would expect that in a system that purports to provide some sort of justice, if all these public officials have to take oaths, they should be held personally responsible for doing what they said.
And since when is a promise meaningless?
It's only so if while let it be.