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."
More news and background.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More news and background.... (Score:5, Funny)
Just don't take any pictures, OK? This kind of thing could be quite damaging when applying for jobs after college.
USA Patriot (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Is this a first Amendment issue at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this a first Amendment issue at all? (Score:3)
Examine the process
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? (Score:3)
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? (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:USA Patriot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:USA Patriot (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:USA Patriot (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Such as...
and the kicker:
-----------
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Virg
Re:USA Patriot (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Whaaat? (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:2)
"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... (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.
Nonesense (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (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: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?
Which is worse? (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:2)
Gasp, it couldn't be the parents who pay for it, and the kids who are taught there, could it?
Re:And? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great! (Score:2)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great! (Score:3, Funny)
* 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 (Score:3, Informative)
American Agenda for FARC: (via the School of the Americas [soaw.org]
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...
Wait.... (Score:4, Funny)
just kidding
yeahyeah...troll -1
Re:Wait.... (Score:2)
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
Re:Wait.... (Score:2)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.... (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Informative)
And here it is in English [farc-ep.org]
Now it's up to the lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lost, please return (Score:5, Funny)
If found, please return to Washington, DC, USA.
Thank you.
Re:Lost, please return (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Lost, please return (Score:3, Informative)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Compliance with a law is noteworthy? (Score:2)
Re:Compliance with a law is noteworthy? (Score:2)
If the universities don't stand up for free speech, we are screwed.
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:So can they do what Google did? (Score:2)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:2)
UC didn't say "we don't want you to link to that
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 (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
UCSD has done nothing wrong.
Re:Who owns the box? (Score:2)
Re:Who owns the box? (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Good! (Score:2)
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... (Score:2, Insightful)
If the 60's were like today... (Score:2, Funny)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Just because i invite you in my house doesn't mean you can spray paint "FARC ROOLz" on my walls.
Re:moot (Score:2)
What is, was. What was, will be. What will be, was, but will be again. -- Arnold Horshack.
Re:moot (Score:2)
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb
The King (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (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.
Thoughtcrime is death (Score:5, Insightful)
Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.
Rocky J. Squirrel
Wait a minute... (Score:3, Funny)
UCSD (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Puh-lease. And I bet you think their shit doesn't stink, either:
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 (Score:2, Funny)
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.
"providing support to support terrorists" (Score:2)
Yes, we must do something about these support terrorists!
The Che Cafe (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
ICANN oversees domain registration, and Network Solutions administers the root nameservers and the delegation of the
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:1st Amendment Problem (Score:2)
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
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
Re:1st Amendment Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
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