That Link Is Illegal

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."

More news and background....

[tiltowait]

here [dmoz.org].

Re:More news and background....

[Bilestoad]

Leftist dilettantes attending expensive college attain success beyond their wildest dreams, as administrators bring them more publicity than they ever believed possible. Bands are racing to book their events at the cafe, sure to be packed with students eager to show their support for their international comrades by getting very drunk and damaging their hearing. Not even the extreme flatulence of a vegan all-you-can-eat party will prevent these young activists from partying until they vomit in support of revolutionaries everywhere!

Just don't take any pictures, OK? This kind of thing could be quite damaging when applying for jobs after college.

USA Patriot

[cyclist1200]

Gotta love that 1st Amendment. Now, where'd that thing go anyway?

Re:USA Patriot

[FortKnox]

Is this a first Amendment issue at all?

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.

Is this a first Amendment issue at all?

[Rupert]

Yes. UCSD is (however indirectly) under the control of the state of California, and is almost certainly partially funded by the Federal government. Either of these would impose on them the restrictions imposed by the constitution on the respective government.

Re:Is this a first Amendment issue at all?

[HiThere]

So you consider the law to be more significant than the constitution? And that a law is a valid law whether or not it violates the constitution? In that case, how could an unconstitutional law ever be thrown out?

Examine the process ... the way unconstitutional laws are thrown out is that someone puts their neck on the line to get rid of them. If nobody does, then the law stays. That's how we have come to have so many blatently unconstitutional laws on the books. (Of course, if the Supremes are feeling political rather than judicious, you might loose your head even with a clear-cut case.)

Great process, isn't it? But it's the best (i.e., essentially only) one we've got.

Re:Is this a first Amendment issue at all?

[Rupert]

The school should not be obeying the law if they feel it is unconstitutional, particularly preemptively. They should wait for the DoJ to file a suit, and then ask for it to be dismissed since the law clearly violates the first amendment.

Of course they won't, since (a) no-one wants the FBI raiding their server room and confiscating their equipment, only to return it once it's obsolete; and (b) no-one wants to spend the money involved in legal appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court. And while that level of pragmatic cowardice is understandable in an individual, it's pretty reprehensible in a quasi-governmental organisation.

Re:Is this a first Amendment issue at all?

[DaytonCIM]

I can partially agree with your statements. However, by the school's own action (i.e. demanding that the site censure itself or "else") it's at fault.

If one acts on an illegal law, one acts illegally. The Che group may sue the school for violating its 1st Amendment right to free speech.

In fact, I hope that the Che group sues UCSD. That would open the door for the 9th Circuit to rule on the Patriot Act.

Re:USA Patriot

[dytin]

I believe that you are missing the point. The fact is that the Patriot Act is in direct violation of the First Amendment. The college is being forced to stifle free speeach in order to comply with the law. So yes, whether or not you agree with the Patriot Act IS relevent, and the issue IS free speech. So, while you "cannot question the University's right to attempt to stay compliant with existing laws", you can question whether the law should exist in the first place.

Re:USA Patriot

[netphilter]

The problem that I have with that logic in this case is that the Patriot Act does not say that you can't praise terrorists or say how wonderful you think they are or whatever you want. By linking them, the University is contending that you've provided a vehicle by which the terrorists can communicate. At that point it ceases to be about free speech. A more intelligent argument would be about whether or not linking a web site constitutes providing a vehicle of communication...and I would love to see what people think about that. But that is VASTLY different from the subject of free speech.

Re:USA Patriot

[Ian Wolf]

It is clearly speech in the same manner that a news article is. If the New York Times put this link in one of their stories, nobody would dare touch them. The fact this is not a "News" site is irrelevant, as many Appellate Court decisions have upheld similar protections for newsletters, BBS's, and other forms of new media.

The criteria for "Speech" has been intentionally left vague for more than two hundred years, a link isn't even a stretch. Why this hasn't held true for DeCSS, I do not know, but then again the fight isn't over.

Re:USA Patriot

[Henry V .009]

I don't think that you understand our first ammendment. It is perfectly legal for a book publisher to publish a book by Hussein, or for a news organization to run bin Laden's videos. A newspaper can even run unibomber essays if it wants.

Perhaps you can be a bit clearer about the difference between "vehicles of communication" and "speech."

Is a "vehicle of communication" anything like a volkswagon van?

Re:USA Patriot

[netphilter]

I think you're forgetting the fact that the government DOES see the bin Laden videos before the media is allowed to show them. This is so they can make sure that there are no "hidden messages" in the tape that allow the terrorist to communicate. I'm not necessarily defending the school's view on this. I think that it's a pretty gray area. On one hand it is essentially free speech. On the other hand by linking the terrorist web site you've allowed them to communicate their views to an entirely new audience (vehicle of communication). I defend the school's right to say that they aren't going to allow this based on the fact that they believe that it is providing terrorists with a means to communicate.

Re:USA Patriot

[Henry V .009]

My god. You have managed to be massively ill-informed. The bin Laden videos are shown on Al-Jazeera(sp?) TV before anybody in our government gets a chance to look at them. Hell, you can even get it on cable here. There is no one in government who later authorizes what is and is not all right to show on American English-speaking television. That would be suspiciously like an office of censorship.

Sure, there were a couple of videos picked up by special forces that got pre-viewed by the government, but that's about it. The media has it's own sources.

OT: bin Laden video

[Chops]

I think you're forgetting the fact that the government DOES see the bin Laden videos before the media is allowed to show them. This is so they can make sure that there are no "hidden messages" in the tape that allow the terrorist to communicate.

That's not what made the "hidden messages" argument so asinine... while Bush & co. were wringing their hands over hidden messages that could survive a (probably semi-competent) English translation, the original Arabic videos were being broadcast in full over Al-Jazeera, available via satellite anywhere in the United States.

"Hidden messages" was a smokescreen for censorship, pure and simple.

Re:USA Patriot

[quintessent]

by linking the terrorist web site you've allowed them to communicate their views...

So, let's see. As long as I agree with you, you can say whatever you want? Evil ideas and beliefs are out there. Our job is to learn which ones are sane and which ones are not. At the heart of freedom is the freedom to speak. If the government's job was to suppress all views that it disagrees with, then we would become an enslaved people, making choices out of ignorance, never being able to weigh both sides of an issue, because the right side has already been selected for us. "Communicating views" is exactly what the first amendment was written to protect.

Re:USA Patriot

[SubtleNuance]

that it is providing terrorists with a means to communicate.

And the FARC has been found to be "Terrorists" in what US Court? Oh I forgot, adding someone to the list of Enemies of the State means that they no longer have rights.. I forgot.

What is that I hear? Yankee Civil Liberties slidding quickly down a slippery slope?

Re:USA Patriot

[kallisti]

If the "PATRIOT" law attempted to forbid the media from playing or printing information, that would be a law "abridging the freedom of the press."

Such as...

Sec 501: [The FBI] may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

and the kicker:

No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

-----------

This means that the FBI can ask for anything and everything and no one is allowed to even mention it, much less report it in the media. If this power is being abused, how will anyone ever find out?

Re:USA Patriot

[MrResistor]

This means that the FBI can ask for anything and everything and no one is allowed to even mention it, much less report it in the media. If this power is being abused, how will anyone ever find out?

How can that possibly not be a violation of several Constitutional rights? Let's see: privacy, freedom of speech... If you consider the fact that (IIRC) they cannot be denied the warrant by a judge (or they don't even need one, I can't remember which it is at the moment) you get to add illegal search and seizure to the pile. Then there's all those people being held for an indefinate period with no access to legal counsel...

I hope more things like this start happening so the Supreme Court can do it's job and knock these unconstitutional laws down.

Careful of Overinterpretation

[virg_mattes]

You have to be careful to read the section exactly as it says, so as not to overextend the idea of what it does. The section quoted says that the FBI can demand production of any or all media necessary for an investigation, and the owner of the media isn't allowed to tell any unnecessary parties about the request. In real life, this means that if you had a video of bin Laden, the FBI could demand it, and you can't tell anybody that they demanded it. This section would not, however, prevent you from copying the tape, nor would it prevent you from airing it on TV (if you were a reporter). You can't announce that the FBI has a copy of the tape, but you can announce that you have it, and you can show it. It's the request and knowledge of the investigation that the law is designed to supress, not the evidence itself.

Virg

Re:USA Patriot

[MrResistor]

At that point it ceases to be about free speech. A more intelligent argument would be about whether or not linking a web site constitutes providing a vehicle of communication

What?

How exactly does the First Ammendment not protect "vehicles of communication"? If you can say anything you want, but your prevented from communicating it to anyone else, your speech has still been stifled, and your First Ammendment rights have still been violated.

The First Ammendment doesn't just protect the act of speaking, it also protects publication (freedom of the press), or in other words: vehicles of communication. The whole point of the First Ammendment is to protect all methods of communication. If it doesn't do that, it's useless.

If you honestly think that this is even a little bit different from the subject of free speech, then you have no idea what free speech means.

Re:USA Patriot

[alfredw]

he problem that I have with that logic in this case is that the Patriot Act does not say that you can't praise terrorists or say how wonderful you think they are or whatever you want. By linking them, the University is contending that you've provided a vehicle by which the terrorists can communicate. At that point it ceases to be about free speech.

No, it doesn't. A link is free speech. I am speaking your address when I link to you. For example, I could take a stack of paper and print an address to which you could write to get a pamphlet about FARC and this would not be illegal. Indeed, it is *exactly* the same as posting a link, except for the fact that printed material enjoys a wide body of case law defending it and online media does not. In any case, whatever the USA PATRIOT Act says about the legalities of this situation is irrelevant - it is blatantly unconstitutional in this regard, and is therefore unenforceable - it is an illegal law.

So this is still a free speech issue. Can I tell you where to find information? (I'd point out that both in the case of a web page and an address, the receipient of the information must initiate a request to receive it) If not, we'd better shutdown the search engines, lock up the library catalogues, tear the bibliographies out of the backs of our books, shut down the postal service and keep or children far away from schools.

Re:USA Patriot

[Darth_Foo]

"it is blatantly unconstitutional in this regard, and is therefore unenforceable - it is an illegal law" Sadly, not true. It is eminently enforceable until a federal court with enough balls to stand up to the Administration of King George II says it's unconstitutional and that ruling is affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. "Unenforceable" it is not - do you really think Ashcroft would hesitate to enforce that law just because a bunch of libertarian/anarchist/Slashdot types told him it was unconstitutional? Historically, to the extent that First Amendment precedent makes sense (and most of it is woefully inconsistent), most restrictions on speech that have passed muster have been "time/place/manner" restrictions that limit the time, place and/or manner of the communications, REGARDLESS of the content. In other words, if the statute prohibited ALL internet links as such, that is a manner restriction or perhaps a place restriction, but is neutral with regard to the content of the communication and under traditional Constitutional law analysis would be acceptable to the Court. The Patriot Act at issue is NOT content-neutral in its approach; links to the Boy Scouts are presumably okay while links to a terrorist group are not. Ergo, prior to Sept. 11, such a law would've been tossed by the first federal court to consider it with very little debate. However, with all the sheeple in this country now bleating for "security" and respect for the First Amendment at an all-time low, I seriously fear for the future of our free and open society. The Founding Fathers (who arguably were guilty of treason, conspiracy and terrorism against their lawful monarch, BTW) are turning over in their graves now.

Whaaat?

[cje]

It's the fact that by linking this site the organization is provided the terrorist's with a vehicle for communication...

This is preposterous. The company or organization hosting the "terrorist's" Web site is the one that's providing the vehicle for communication, not any Web pages that link to it. By your logic, we ought to shut down Google and all other Internet search engines since I can run a search on "FARC" and end up with a web page that links to this same Web site.

Incidentally, the irony here is that if the school had left this issue alone, then virtually nobody would have seen the offending Web site. Now that they've raised a big stink about it wrapped up in the PATRIOT act, you can expect the URL to appear in countless places (as it already has done several times in replies to this story.)

Re:For Clarification...

[Tri0de]

With all due respect, the point is that the Patriot Act *MUST* be challanged in court, at least the provisions DIRECTLY in violation fo the First Admendment. This is as good of a time and place as any.

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW....."
Well Congress *DID* , and that needs to get to the courts, the sooner the better.

Not that I would cry if the group of people this linked to in Columbia just disappeared in the night, or got a 5 kiloton enema, but NOTHING is more precious (to me at least) than the right of free speech.

Shall Make No Law...

[RgnadKzin]

Let's see if we can reconstruct the chain of events, shall we? The US uses the CIA to overthrow the lawful government of Iran, and installs the Shah. Years later, the Shah is ousted in a coup d'etat and replaced with a regime unfriendly to the US (surprise). The US then uses the CIA to overthrow the lawful government of Iraq and installs the butcher Sodamn Insane. This was done to counter the influence of Iran (that fell because of interventionist policy). Next, the US uses the CIA to train Osama bin Laden and his ilk to fight the commies in Afghanistan. Then Klinton bombs him to wag the dog to avert attention from a certain stained blue dress.

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.

Nonesense

[Raul Acevedo]

Having a link to a web site is not providing "material" support. It's not providing anything except a link to information.

Following that logic, libraries should eliminate all books which discuss al Qaeda, even if they are just historical. Magazines and newspapers discussing any terrorist organization should be banned. Any articles discussing where to find more information on terrorist organizations would be banned.

The university is being ridiculous.

And?

[Kenja]

What's the problem with this? Its a school computer, they get to say whats OK.

Re:And?

[Sc00ter]

Because they're not saying to take the link down due to school policy.. They're telling people to take it down do the the patriot act.

Re:And?

[stefanlasiewski]

Because they're not saying to take the link down due to school policy.. They're telling people to take it down do the the patriot act.

Yes, but the Patriot Act is probably part of the School Policy, as is every other Federal and State law. UCSD's school policy probably says something like:

"Blah blah blah...
We also follow all federal and state laws."

When I was an office worker at UC Santa Cruz, I had to sign a contract that said something like "You will obey the University Policy. You will obey State Law. You will obey Federal Law. You will not attempt to overthrow the Government. If this country comes under attack, you will defend the country."

Note that I'm purposely excluding County and City laws in the above examples... most UC Universities aren't necessarily under the juristiction of their County or Cities, and don't necessarily have to obey the local laws.

You'll see contriversy come to light whenever a UC Campus decides to build a new building or otherwise perform some BIG activity, and a Citizens Group or the City Councel tries to stop the action.

Re:And?

[Lemmy Caution]

1. It's a public school. And a world-class research institute, at that. A school that gets lots of federal money. That increases their free-speech mandate.

2. They aren't saying "UCSD will not allow this." They are citing Federal law. They interpret the Patriot Act as making that link illegal. That's a direct first amendment issue.

Re:And?

[Geeyzus]

They aren't saying "UCSD will not allow this." They are citing Federal law. They interpret the Patriot Act as making that link illegal. That's a direct first amendment issue.

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:And?

[Lemmy Caution]

If they are using a proxy server, they are hosting those files on site. Interesting that anyone runnng a proxy server now may be, in fact, violating the Patriot Act, by "hosting" terrorist information on their hardware.

Additionally, material support could be interpreted to include publicity and propaganda.

Re:And?

[TyZone]

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.

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?

Which is worse?

[sterno]

I'm not sure which I find worse. The fact that they translated the USA patriot act to suggest that even linking to a website that supports a terrorist organization is illegal or that they might be right in their interpretation. In either case i'm sure the supreme court would have a few choice words for them such as "unconstitutional".

Re:And?

[xTMFWahoo]

It's a public university- i.e. they have to abide by state and federal law. If the Patriot Act prohibits linking to "dangerous" sites then to me it's in violation of the 1st amendment. So they need to decide which one is right- the 1st Amd. or the Patriot Act.

Re:And?

[SirSlud]

Public institution funded by my (and your) dollars. Its not 'their' schools .. its our schools. Who do you think owns the schools? And who do you think should have a say in what is and what is not allowed in schools?

Gasp, it couldn't be the parents who pay for it, and the kids who are taught there, could it?

Re:And?

[jgerman]

True, our tax dollars do go to funding for public schools, but the majority of the cash that funds a school is through tuition, books, fees ect. Furthermore, unless it's a "state" school, the tax money they get isn't very much. However, the money they receive is through the government, regardless of whether or not it comes from taxes, it is government money. So they are answerable to the government in how they use it. So yes you have a say, by choosing who you elect and what you vote for.

Gasp, it couldn't be the parents who pay for it, and the kids who are taught there, could it?

The answer to this is (unfortunately) no. The school is a business, the parents and students who pay for and go to the schools have no right to a say in what's allowed. They are paying for the service the school provides, not buying a share in ownership.

Whether the Patriot Act is moral or immoral is meaningless, it's law, and it must either a) be obeyed or b) fought. Obviously it's not that black and white, you could obey it while you fight it, ect. this school chooses to obey, they do get tax money, and I'm certain grants for research from the government and obviously don't want to rock the boat. I can't say I blame them, I don't agree with them, but I don't blame them.

Re:And?

[Skjellifetti]

Umm, no we did not. Gore won more votes across the nation and lost the election due to a Supreme Court ruling that prevented a recount of Florida votes.

Great!

[seizer]

Let me be the first to congratulate Slashdot on their courageous stand [farc-ep.org] against the Patriot Act. ;-)

Re:Great!

[donutz]

Also, let's put our support behind Google for standing up [google.com] to this outrageous law....

Re:Great!

[DrXym]

FARC Agenda for the Week:

• Launch preemptive strike against government troops massing near Betania.
• Kidnap foreigners and hold for ransom to raise capital.
• Buy more stinger missiles on the black market.
• Bombmaking training with assistance of IRA experts.
• Implement Slashdot filter on website

Re:Great!

[stefanlasiewski]

FARC Agenda for the Week:

* Launch preemptive strike against government troops massing near Betania.
* Kidnap foreigners and hold for ransom to raise capital.
* Buy more stinger missiles on the black market.
* Bombmaking training with assistance of IRA experts.
* Implement Slashdot filter on website

* PROFIT!!!!

Re:Great! - like the School of the Americas

[Lechter]

American Agenda for FARC: (via the School of the Americas [soaw.org]

• Train Latin Americans to follow in alumnus Manuel Noriega's footsteps and establish abusive military dictatorships (we can always "take them out" later wen we need the political capital)
• Train Latin Americans to kill impoverished families seeking their basic human rights
• Sell Latin American thugs stinger missiles (we know they'll use them to crush communist revolutions [though we call them Unions here in the US]. They would never resell them to "terrorists")
• Sell Latin American thugs A-37 dragonfly jets (they won't resell these to terrorists either they'll use them to fire rockets in to "dissident" families' thatched huts)

Since we're already pretty far off the topic of potential legal challenges to the USA PATRIOT Act, I'll carry on the topic of "terrorists." The fact is that the US has an excellent history of backing up truely vile regiems (the afforementioned Noriega) until there's political capital to be gained from going to war with them. We're doing the same thing in Iraq: when the Iraqi's were fighting the Iranians (back when they were terrorists not allies against terrorists) we had no problem with Hussein trying to take over his neighbors (we didn't like Iran then), gassing dissident groups within his country, or buying weapons of mass distruction (from Lockheed-Martin). There's two sides to every story here...

...we now return you to the previous conversation on freedom of speach in the digital age already in progress...

Wait....

[booyaka]

Where's the link?

just kidding ;-) although it would be fun to /. a terrorist group's server.

yeahyeah...troll -1

Re:Wait....

[stefanlasiewski]

FARC kidnaps and kills Columbian civilians, has bombed public places, burned down villages, and killed [ucsc.edu] American activists [socalbirth.org] who were working with the U'wa indiginous people to prevent large Oil Companies from drilling on U'wa land.

FARC is one of the most disgusting revolutionary groups in S. America.

Unfortunately, the Columbian Government has also kidnapped and killed civilians, and has bombed public places ... so by what defination is the Columbian Government not a terrorist group...

Re:Wait....

[Henry V .009]

Forget the Columbian Government--our U.S. government has done all that.

I'm not a lefty either. But war is always horrible. I think this concentration on terrorism is too much emphasis on tactics and not enough on causes. We'd get a lot farther with a war on aggresion and oppresion.

Oh sure...

[sterno]

Fine, just go ahead and start a political debate why don't ya? :)

It's real easy to tell that the FARC is a terrorist group. The US doesn't like them, thus they are a terrorist group. This seems to be about the only qualification to get labeled a terrorist by this government.

Genuinely I think you can say that the FARC is a terrorist organization because they have been responsible for military attacks on civilian targets. Having said that though, so's the columbian government and the militia groups that said government backs. And you might even imply, by extension, that the US government is a terrorist organization since they back the columbian government. But now I'm splitting hairs.

It all boils down to the fact that "terrorist" is the new version of "communist" which was itself a newer version of the term "witch". You apply it to anybody who interferes with the way you want the world to run and see how long you can get away with it.

Re:Wait....

[Anonvmous Coward]

"That brings up an interesting question: would Slashdotting a terrorist group's server be considered a patriotic act?"

That was an interesting quesztion!

Here's another: What about Google's cache? Are terrorists going to be required to put 'terrorist' meta tags in their web pages so Google doesn't violate the Patriot Act?

Some illegal links

[buzzdecafe]

Here is the FARC site [farc-ep.org]

And here it is in English [farc-ep.org]

Now it's up to the lawyers...

[netwiz]

And that's kinda sad. Unfortunately, someone's going to have to die on this hill (perhaps literally) before we get that shred of freedom back.

to quote Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

What's worse, is that now that someone making "subversive speech" can be labeled a terrorist, they can be treated as an enemy of the state, regardless of their citizenship or the rights therein guaranteed by the Constitution.

A double pointer?

[Joe the Lesser]

What if a website had a link to a anonymous website of links that has a link to a terrorist website? Wouldn't be fair to be guilty by association.

Lost, please return

[FU_Fish]

Lost: 1 Bill of Rights.

If found, please return to Washington, DC, USA.

Thank you.

Re:Lost, please return

[Ian Wolf]

We've come so far to go full circle. Fortunately, the following didn't last too long.

Section 2 of the Sedition Act (July 14, 1798)

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

This administration scares me.

Re:Lost, please return

[Henry V .009]

Look up the Sedition Act in a history book.

Re:Lost, please return

[Ian Wolf]

My post agrees with you, that is what I can't understand.

The Sedition Act was passed in 1798 and was a blatant violation of the first amendment pushed through Congress by the Presidency of John Adams. Fortunately, the Sedition Act was struck down, rather quickly. The Patriot Act's whole concept of "Vehicle of Communication" is simply a slightly better veiled Section 2 of the Sedition Act, hence my statement...

We've come so far to go full circle.

You obviously skipped direct to the quote and didn't read...

Fortunately, the following didn't last too long.

Section 2 of the Sedition Act (July 14, 1798)

I'm not blowing off steam, just amazed that you jumped all over me for sharing your point of view.

You in the beret!

[rbanzai]

Put your hands up and step away from the mouse... slowly...

Compliance with a law is noteworthy?

[Logic Bomb]

If UCSD's attorneys determine that the university is at risk of liability or non-compliance with the law, the tax-paying citizens of California should be glad that they are attempting to stay within the lines. It is the place of private citizens using private money to fight unjust or unconstitutional laws. And anyone who says UCSD is overstepping reasonable interpretation better not have "IANAL" anywhere in their comment. :-P

Re:Compliance with a law is noteworthy?

[geekoid]

If I was a taxpayer of CA.(and I was for a great many years) I would be upset that they didn't take a stand against this stupid law.
If the universities don't stand up for free speech, we are screwed.

So can they do what Google did?

[billbaggins]

I can't seem to find any of the relevant pages now, but iirc at one point Google had to remove links to certain pages at xenu.net [xenu.net] because the Church of Scientology claimed their copyrights were being violated. So instead, on any search that would have returned one of the offending pages, Google instead gave a link to a page containing the notification letter, that in turn contained the URLs of the offending pages.

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:So can they do what Google did?

[(trb001)]

I think, actually, it was because Google caches a page's content on it's local machine (for example, this is why you can take a look at /.'d pages using the Google cache). The Scientologists claimed that in order to cache the page, Google had to copy the page's contents, thus violating copyright.

This, on the other hand, invovles a hyperlink, which contains no content other than the page's web address. I don't see the issue here.

--trb

Re:So can they do what Google did?

[billbaggins]

The Google issue was that they were linking to copyright-violating content at xenu.net, which linking is apparently illegal (ObIANAL). The DMCA cease-and-desist letter was an order to remove these links. So instead of links Google gave a copy of the letter, which helpfully contained the exact URLs of the offending content.

Now that I read the article more thoroughly, I see that the college's problem with the page was that it might be providing "material support" to FARC by sending people to their page. To answer my own question, then, they probably can't pull that trick, because any action to send people to that page would (I presume) still be "material support". Probably. At least, until a case like this ends up in court.

It's a university computer...

[stefanlasiewski]

If I understand the story correctly, the Contraversal Website resides on a UC-owned computer, and uses a UC-owned domain. UC has the right to restrict content on it's own computers... for years, they've maintained the right to restrict content on student flyers on the campus. This is similar...

Solution? Get your own computer, and get your own domain name.

Or am I missing something...

Now, another question I have is: Why does UC San Diego allow student organizations use a subdomain under ucsd.edu ? It's asking for trouble...

Re:It's a university computer...

[LMCBoy]

I think the thing you are missing is that UC aren't the bad guys in this story. They are the messenger.

UC didn't say "we don't want you to link to that .org from our computers because we find its content distasteful". They said "as we interpret the USA Patriot act, the act of linking to that .org is a federal offense, so you must stop".

The implication is that it would be illegal even if it was done from your own private webserver. Hence the stifling of free speech, at least hypothetically. BTW, IANAL (FWIW).

incorrect

[geek]

Its a universitys job to mold and shape ideas, not allow students to go rambling on in the wrong directions. Hence no classes in Satanism to compliment Buddhist/Christian and Muslim studies.

You sign on to a university because you agree with it's ideals and want to learn what they have to teach you. Not because you want to smack government in the face for the sake of smacking government in the face. If you do not agree with your Uni's principles you are free to go elsewhere.

Who owns the box?

[southpolesammy]

If the school owns it, then they're within their right to do with it as they please. If the individual owns it, then the rules are different.

UCSD has done nothing wrong.

Re:Who owns the box?

[WildBeast]

Absolutely. But the problem is that the school removed it only because of the Patriot Act, otherwise they where okay with it.

Re:Who owns the box?

[geek]

"But the problem is that the school removed it only because of the Patriot Act, otherwise they where okay with it."

I disagree, I believe it was brought to their attention due to the Patriot Act. I find it hard to believe they new about it before hand. It obviously offended someones fragile sensabilities and got reported. UC's don't keep track of every link of every page of every students websites. They have a enough to do.

Regardless, it's their system, they dont need to justify it to anyone. Those students are free to get a geocities account if they like.

It doesn't matter who owns the box.

[Valdrax]

If the school owns it, then they're within their right to do with it as they please. If the individual owns it, then the rules are different.

I question whether or not what they did was legal at all. By citing federal law, they are providing a very clear Constitutional challenge to the PATRIOT Act. Censoring political speech based on content is a clear 1st Amendment violation. This kind of behavior will have a "chilling effect" on free speech among students. The idea that the government can list a group as a terrorist and ban all information on the groups views and supporting arguments for them is a defilement of what our nation was founded on. It discourages rational discussion and questioning of the motives of the government.

Futhermore, public universities are quasi-government entities in most states. It may be flatly illegal for them to censor content on their servers as their servers may be considered a public resource. Even so, perhaps legally they have done nothing wrong, but one should question whether or not what they've done is ethically reprehensible as a place of learning and as Americans.

Re:Who owns the box?

[southpolesammy]

OK, let's go beyond the physical box and look at UCSD's acceptable use policy which will undoubtedly cover both computers and network usage. If the group in question has violated one or more of their policies, then they are within their right to request for the removal of the links. Alternatively, they can shut off the network connection to their node.

In short, this is not really an issue regarding First Amendment rights, but more related to ownership and acceptable use policies. On a non-university computer with an ISP w/o the restrictions on content, then the group would be within their right to take on the Patriot Act and possibly the First Amendment, but they fall under the umbrella of a parent organization and therefore must abide by their rules.

At some point you have to draw the line...

[raehl]

Between bad laws, and bad applications of laws.

Granted, I'm not familiar with every provision of the Patriot Act, or even saying I like it, but it would seem that this is a case of the school misreading and overapplying what they think the law might say instead of taking the time to actually know what the law says. Ye Ole "Covering our ass is more important than letting you speak your mind" overreaction.

Once again, common sense and reason has taken a back seat to administrative hyper-reaction.

Well Bush is the guy

[SquadBoy]

who said during the campaign "There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this [web] site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is." I mean the man clearly has always wanted to be in complete control and the whole 9/11 deal just gave him an excuse and convinced many other people to go along with him. Hopefully we will be able to get rid of him shotrly. But this is just going to be more and more common till then.

Good!

[American AC in Paris]

Enforce it, and enforce it hard!

That way, there's some chance it'll be repealed. How are we to go about fixing this thing if we don't make it painfully obvious that it's a bad law?

Since it on the school's server...

[Shant3030]

Doesn't the school have the right to restrict the content on their servers??? If you set up a web site that is against your company/college/school's policy or beliefs, I think they have the right to ask you to take down the objective material.

If the 60's were like today...

[tekrat]

Would student protests against the Vietnam war have been illegal? Would the school sue their own students for *daring* to change societal issues?

It's nice to see that the former hippies of the Baby boom are now more conservative, and have screwed up the world more than their predecessors have. They have *become* extactly what they were protesting against. There's an irony there that just makes me smile.

It's going to take a social revolution like the 60's to change the wacky way things are now. It'll probably take the death of 4 in Ohio over filesharing to spark that revolution however.

Oops, can I say the word revolution anymore? I think that's illegal...

Grr

[Hamster Of Death]

The part of this article that I will rememeber and that annoyed me the most at first glance, was the incorrect spelling of Colombia.

Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights

[scheming daemons]

The current regime in Washington has effectively eliminated the 1st, 4th, and 10th ammendments of our constitution.

1. In a Pittsburgh campaign stop last month, the Bush people made local law enforcement herd sign-carrying protestors into a fenced off, "designated free speech zone" (that's what they called it! I'm not joking...) more than 1/2 mile from the event. One protestor, carrying a sign saying "Bush must love the poor, he's created so many of us", decided that a "designated free speech zone" is a contradiction in terms (and unconstitutional). He decided to hop the fence and stand next to the people carrying pro-Bush signs. He was arrested. He violated no law, but was considered a "threat" because he had the nerve to carry an anti-Bush sign where Bush might see it.

2. The voters of California decided, through ballot initiative, that medical use of marijuana was legal. The Ashcroft justice department, deciding that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply anymore, decided to arrest Marijuana growers in California who were growing it with the expressed permission of the California government. "States' Rights" Republicans are apparently only worried about those rights when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and abortion laws, apparently.

3. And finally, the U.S. Patriot Act. Practically authored by Ashcroft, and passed overwhelmingly by a fearful and gutless congress (only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate), the Patriot Act effectively eliminates all remaining protections of the 4th ammendment... The "drug war" weakened it, and the Patriot act killed it.

With the current group in charge, you can bet that every ammendment in the Bill of Rights, save for the 2nd, is in danger.

Wait until some alleged terrorist tries to "plead the 5th". Then we'll be down to 6.

Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights

[Meenky]

With the current group in charge, you can bet that every ammendment in the Bill of Rights, save for the 2nd, is in danger.

Nope, even that amendment is in danger. When things get bad enough those in charge won't want the public to have weapons they could rebel with.

Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights

[taxman_10m]

1. In a Pittsburgh campaign stop last month, the Bush people made local law enforcement herd sign-carrying protestors into a fenced off, "designated free speech zone" (that's what they called it! I'm not joking...) more than 1/2 mile from the event. One protestor, carrying a sign saying "Bush must love the poor, he's created so many of us", decided that a "designated free speech zone" is a contradiction in terms (and unconstitutional). He decided to hop the fence and stand next to the people carrying pro-Bush signs. He was arrested. He violated no law, but was considered a "threat" because he had the nerve to carry an anti-Bush sign where Bush might see it.

Abortion protesters have had to deal with this for some time. They are called "buffer zones."

2. The voters of California decided, through ballot initiative, that medical use of marijuana was legal. The Ashcroft justice department, deciding that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply anymore, decided to arrest Marijuana growers in California who were growing it with the expressed permission of the California government. "States' Rights" Republicans are apparently only worried about those rights when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and abortion laws, apparently.

You mentioned abortion laws and the second amendment, but the courts have already said the 10th doesn't apply. Bush's judicial apointments get asked about it all the time and if they don't agree it is "settled law" then they don't get confirmed. And the "state's rights" republicans basically have no voice in the Republican Party. They would be "paleo-conservatives" and have been ousted since Reagan by the "neo-conservatives". Neocons are really just New Deal democrats.

3. And finally, the U.S. Patriot Act. Practically authored by Ashcroft, and passed overwhelmingly by a fearful and gutless congress (only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate), the Patriot Act effectively eliminates all remaining protections of the 4th ammendment... The "drug war" weakened it, and the Patriot act killed it.

You can blame Bush for appointing Ashcroft. But who can we blame for Congress? The American people.

Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights

[rw2]

Abortion protesters have had to deal with this for some time

Woah, slow down there a second. Abortion protestors are removed from private property regularly, which is fine. They are told they cannot bar entry to a facility regularly, which is fine. They are told they must provide a walkway regularly (typically in the range of a few to a few dozen feet), which is fine.

In no case have they been penned up in a cage 1/2 a mile away from the clinic in a 'free speech zone'.

Let's keep a sense of scale about this.

Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights

[taxman_10m]

It has nothing to do with scale. It is natural progression. The buffer for abortion protestors is 100 ft last I've heard, doesn't matter how much of that buffer includes public land. How many feet in a 1/2 mile? Progress.

Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights

[robson]

(only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate)

This is a little off-topic, but I listen to C-Span streamed [c-span.org] every day over the web, and DAMN Russ Feingold has his shit together. He consistently impresses me with his eloquence and grasp of the issues. Why can't we get the really good people running for President? Who are we going to have next time, Bush v. Gore again?

Why can't we get a win-win choice for once?!? Feingold v. John McCain, or Feingold v. Colin Powell? I'd be proud to have any of those men leading the U.S.

Okay, okay... I'm done now. :)

Armchair lawyers

[dschuetz]

Okay, before we all predictably get up-in-arms about how this violates the 1st amendment and all that, let's take a moment to review what we actually know about the situation:

1) The article cites the portion of the PATRIOT act regarding "providing material support to terrorists." It's not clear to me from that snippet what "material support" means. So there might be something to fight on these grounds -- but I'd bet that 90% of us aren't familiar enough with the act or pertinent case law to answer the question.

2) They're not actually providing FARC info, just a link. So they're at least not "acting" as a terrorist group, they're just telling people where you can find 'em. Which might or might not constitute some kind of support -- if the link said "can you believe these jerks?", you might be able to argue that it's actually anti-FARC, but I doubt the context of the link was such as that.

3) We'd all like to think that there is some kind of due process available here. The group should be able to appeal to someone who can make a review of whether the information being linked to is truly covered by the act. Of course, this being on (to my understanding) institutionally-owned hardware, the school's own internet policies may trump that kind of review, even though it's a public institution.

and, MOST IMPORTANTLY,

4) We have not yet established that linking is protected. At least as far as I can recall, some people won in the "linking to DeCSS" case, and some people lost, in different districts, and it hasn't hit the Supreme Court. So, everyone who is so damned sure that this is an illegal restriction of free speech, well, you can't really say that, 'cause it hasn't been decided yet. (though I think that one of the pro-"linking-as-speech" decisions was in California, so they'd be bound by that decision). Morally, I'd agree that it should be protected, but legally, nobody can say for certain.

Anyway, I just thought I'd point these things out up front, before everyone starts posting their own defiant links to FARC and complaining about the bill of rights being trampled and armchair lawyers trying to sound smart by summarizing the whole complex issue in four bullet points.

Oops. Too late.

moot

[geek]

The UC can remove whatever they like on their system. they don't even need a reason. Citing the Patriot Act or no, they didn't want it on their system so it's gone. They need not justify it in court in any way. Those students can get a geocities account and host it there if they like. Or get a domain from he.net or something. The school is within their rights regardless of anything some armchair lawyer says.

Just because i invite you in my house doesn't mean you can spray paint "FARC ROOLz" on my walls.

Re:moot

[dschuetz]

-- If it was so, it might be; and it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic. - Lewis Carrol

What is, was. What was, will be. What will be, was, but will be again. -- Arnold Horshack.

Re:moot

[geek]

You'll find a similar variation in "Alice in wonderland"

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb :)

The King

[sdjunky]

Also in news today the British Empire has arrested several Colonial presses because they printed material that references those who would "revolt" against the empire.

Now that we have the Revolutionary Eradication and Destruction Covert Operations and Threat (REDCOAT) ACT we can further supress these threats to colonial safety and stability

Internet Unconstitutional.

[_Sambo]

For immediate disperesment:
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.

Thoughtcrime is death

[RockyJSquirel]

Thoughtcrimes are double plus ungood.

Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.

Rocky J. Squirrel

Wait a minute...

[Washizu]

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, does anyone know what the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia's linking policy is? Maybe they don't allow deep links.

UCSD

[br00tus]

I've been reading the UCSD site for a long time. It has been very informative for me, it has information that you can't find elsewhere easily.

I find it distressing that this has happened. The Patriot Act seems to violate the first amendment. They don't even host the FARC material, they just link to them.

And as far as FARC - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who are the terrorists who have killed hundreds of union leaders over the past few years in Colombia, it certainly wasn't FARC. The government is pretty bad, but made much worse with their close ties to drug traffickers and right-wing paramilitaries.

The US has been messing with Colombia for over a century. Ever since Teddy Roosevelt decided he wanted Northern Colombia for the Panama Canal, and bankrolled a revolution in Northern Colombia, now called Panama. Then they called Colombia's leaders (or rebels, depending on who was in charge) Russian proxies, then they became drug couriers, now they're terrorists. Ironic since FARC had a ban on drug growing for years, with the right-wing paramilitaries making money from the drug growing. The US army's top anti-drug guy in Colombia, James Hiett, was arrested (in the US) because he was trafficking drugs into the US from Colombia. These are the people stopping drug flow from Colombia into the US? That's accepting the premise that the US has a right to go into Colombia militarily because they're shipping deadly drugs to US consumers trying to procure them. Imagine if Thailand invaded North Carolina for shipping the deadly tobacco drug to them. Thailand doesn't want to import US tobacco for health reasons, but the US used GATT to force them to import it.

This is an attempt to censor political opinions, pure and simple. The White House, which via the FCC has a lot of leverage over the media, called in TV stations and major newspapers and told them they didn't want Bin Laden's statements printed or broadcast. Only the New York Times refused. The powers-that-be in the US want only one side and one side only of the story to be put out - theirs. Not that Bin Laden's side is right, but when his statement's are censored a priori, I begin to wonder what he had to say. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, and the US has had a massive military presence there for over a decade, Bin Laden and the hijackers were almost all from Saudi Arabia, is there a connection there? From Bin Laden's statements there seems to be. Bush would rather say the US military guarding ExxonMobil's oil supplies has nothing to do with the attacks, and they're just fanatics who hate America for no reason. That might make sense to the As someone once said, government's do not desire to shut down magazines like PC world. They start with views they do not want you to here, like FARC's, or whomever's. If the Colombian rebels are so ridiculous, and every American would automatically side against them, why is there the rush to silence them? To me it's almost a clear sign that the one source we've been hearing it from (the State Department) hasn't been totally honest and they do not want people to hear any other view. Why have hundreds of union organizers been killed in Colombia? Who was shipping cocaine to the US when FARC had a ban on coca growing in areas they controlled? And I'm not suggesting a "conspiracy", but is James Hiett the only American military or intelligence officer involved in shipping drugs from Colombia to the US? Hiett is significant because the billions we send down there every year to fight drugs seems to wind up bringing even more drugs in. There are many Americans who sympathize with FARC, the dead (and living) union organizers, the indigenous tribes liek the U'wa and so forth, but it seems not only is our tax money going billions a year down there in guns so as to protect a non-Middle East oil supply, we can't even hear what's going on down there do to US Patriot Act censorship. The people controlling the US aren't satisfied with just the billions in arms going down there, now we can't even have free speech in the US about it, that my tax money is funding all of this death can't even be discussed.

Re:UCSD

[crawling_chaos]

FARC had a ban on drug growing for years, with the right-wing paramilitaries making money from the drug growing.

Puh-lease. And I bet you think their shit doesn't stink, either:

• But then the FARC discovered drugs, not consuming them, which is prohibited in the rebel ranks, but taxing them BBC News [bbc.co.uk]
• "The narcos brought the paramilitary because they didn't like the FARC controlling the market," Salon link [salon.com]

And that's leaving out links from obviously biased sites like the DEA or the Washington Times. Both sides in Columbia are inextricably tied up in the drug trade. They have to be, it's the only way they can fund their fighters. War crimes are expensive.

Books Banned

[m0rph3us0]

In other news books are now banned, Film at 11

Re:Books Banned

[josepha48]

no kidding... I guess I am amazed at what is going on in CA theses days.

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.

"providing support to support terrorists"

[gentlewizard]

I've seen those guys. They're the ones who lurk around the IS department in black T-shirts, usually with computer vendor logos on them. Every once in while, they attack a helpless user's desktop PC and install new releases on it, thereby breaking everything else on the system. Then they chortle and run down the hall to the Jolt Cola machine.

Yes, we must do something about these support terrorists!

The Che Cafe

[Arandir]

I'm a former student of UCSD, and a former occasional patron of the Che Cafe.

The primary service provided by the Che Cafe is not sproutburgers or macrobiotic bean chili. No, the primary service provided by the Che Cafe is to be a living example of the effects of bad parenting.

You see, current and future parents, when you do not instill a minimum level of moral values in your child, then send them off to UCSD, they will fall prey to the Che Cafe. Empty heads are their fertile soil, for only in empty heads can the contradictory values of the Che Cafe thrive. They claim to be anarchists, yet named their cafe after Che Guevara, a confirmed totalitarian statist. They claim to be anarchists yet are in favor of participatory democracy and progressive taxation. They are what you get when you cross whiny brats with Bakunin.

Should UCSD force the Che Cafe to remove that particular link? Heck no! They're so much more hilarious when their antics are unfettered.

ICANN and Network Solutions break Patriot Act!

[EJB]

Hey, if linking is illegal, then providing a domain name (farc-ep.org) is surely also illegal! If they didn't have a domain name, then everyone would have to type their IP address. That's a lot of hassle, so providing the domain name is supportive of that group.

ICANN oversees domain registration, and Network Solutions administers the root nameservers and the delegation of the .org domain to the registrar.

If this student collective is breaking the law, then ICANN and NS are. If ICANN and NS aren't, then the student collective should go free.

And I don't see the government suddenly making demands on ICANN and NS after so many years of letting them run rampant in all kinds of areas.

confused

[polakk]

ok, so a student posts a link to an alleged terrorist website and he gets the boot. Now news.com posts a url themselves. Isn't that contrary to the USA Patriot Act? aren't they an american based company?

Re:1st Amendment Problem

[SirSlud]

Freedom does not occurr in a vacuum. See: Freedom to kill other people and make them Unfree.

Any Freedom you enjoy will have ramifications on other people. For that reason, Freedom of Speech does not permit you to run hatemail campaigns. There are instances in which freedom invades the freedom of other people to live .. well .. free lives.

As for Too Much Sex, they have a condition for that: nymphomania. People lose their friends, family, jobs over this stuff.

Every single thing can be overdone, because nothing occurrs in a vacuum. When you overdo one thing, it has implications on the other things you and we need to survive and progress.

So please, don't wrap yourself up in the flag and dream of ideals. I agree that we must work to protect each others freedoms, but the trick is in figuring out when granting people a certain freedom impedes others' freedom more than it benifits those you grant it to.

That being said, if the Patriot Act has these implications, thats crazy. I like the idea of the 1st amendment (so long as it doesn't excuses abusing it, a la hate campaigns or manipulation .. for instance, freedom of speech doesn't grant you the freedom to lie on your taxes.)

Re:1st Amendment Problem

[jgerman]

As for Too Much Sex, they have a condition for that: nymphomania. People lose their friends, family, jobs over this stuff.

Too Much Sex != Nymphomania. Too Much is a relative term, nymphomania describes an addiction, not the condition of having too much sex. Oversexed does however, but that's not proof that such a thing exists ;) But I do agree with you, it's nice to be idealistic and believe in absolute free speech, but we do have to be pragmatic, there are certain things that, if allowed to run unchecked, could bring the whole system down.