Slashdot Mirror

The above should be moderated up because, contrary to what many United States citizens believe, it is true.

Here are some examples from the aclu:

Unconstitutional Vehicle Seizure Ordinance

Mayor's Authority to Seize Property

and

A License to Steal !!

Imagine that the police have the right to seize your property -- your home, your car, your business, your cash -- and you haven't even been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime.

Then stop imagining, because such conduct by the police is perfectly legal under the law of civil asset forfeiture.

... some folks consider owning guns to be a civil liberty, while the ACLU, for their part, doesn't want anyone except the government to own guns. See this link on their site, for example. Amusingly, you won't find "Gun Control" to be one of the topics on their front-page "The Issues" list.

I don't recall asking the ACLU for their opinion on gun control. Once they have conquered all of the threats to the First Amendment in our society, then, and only then, should they consider themselves free to use their members' contributions to denounce and distort the Second.

This is why I'm a member of the EFF, but not the ACLU.

-- jm

2600 is calling for demonstrations against the MPAA, and I for one agree. We need to educate ordinary people on the fact that their right to free speech is in serious jeopardy thanks to the greed and stupidity of an organization (the MPAA) that fell for the DVD-security snake oil and can't admit that it's been had.

• If you're not a member of EFF or the ACLU, join now.
• If you are a member, or want to be more active, contact your local 2600 cell or Linux User's Group and help to organize a demonstration.
• If you have a DVD player, and you're too sick to even look at it, consider donating it to a local Geeks with Guns outing, in exchange for plenty of photos. Post them on a website, and mail them to DVD CAA and the members of the MPAA (listed on the 2600 announcement of the injunction).
• Consider buying a DeCSS source shirt; or if you're really radical, consider becoming a DOE (one of the 500+ anonyous people mentioned in the first injunction hearing).
• Boycott movies and videos until the MPAA drops the lawsuit!
• Most importantly: SPREAD THE WORD to other geeks and non-geeks. This is too important for us to keep silent!

This and the Etoy lawsuit are probably the most significant fights to hit our commmunity since the Clipper Chip fiasco. The lines are drawn, ladies and gentlemen; we need to fight with everything we've got to prevent Internet from becoming nothing but a huge, suburban shopping mall. Get involved in an historical fight and have something that you'll be proud to tell your kids and grandkids about, twenty years from now.

I believe in the ACLU, not necessarily in everything it does, but in its general idea. And is it extreme? Yup. But no more extreme than the people it is fighting.

This is what I once believe so I joined the ACLU and the Libertarian party.. figuring the bad parts would cancel out, but then I realized the ACLU is no where near as extreme as I though they were and the Libertarians didn't really get anything done, so now I'm just in the ACLU.

I feal like I have said this a dozen times, but check out the list of what the ACLU has done this year. The stuff is really not that extreem: Gay parter rights, protecting some nut who dosn't want his picture taken for dtrivers license for religious reasons, putting an end to driving while black stops, keeping the gov. from posting the 10 commandments in schools, getting some guy out of jail who the gov. has held for 3 years on "seret evidence."

The turth is you probable agree with them more then you know.. you just never paid attention to the issues.. and you heard on our two things (like arremative action if your a libertarian; or defending the free speech of the KKK if you are a democrat) which you were uncomfertable with. It nice knowing that the ACLU is really watching out for us.

Jeff

the ACLU scares me a bit

The religious right has gone to great lengths to damage the ACLU's credibility, but the turth is that many many of our freedoms would not exists today if it was not for the ACLU. Example: It was the ACLU that really put an end to the religious persicution of minority Christian sects by majority ones. Actually, just this year they defended a Christian priest who interprets the no graven image thing the way the moslems do so that he could get a drivers lissence without needing his picture taken. They are also defending people held in prison by INS on secret evidence. The people of the ACLU are not scarry.. they are heros.. look at the real history of the ACLU.

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

This is the essence of the ACLU. I suggest you look at what the ACLU has done this year and read What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU? by Shelia Suess Kennedy.

The best kept secret about the ACLU is that most americans would agree with more of what the ACLU dose then with what there own political parties do. You should not accuse them of being evil or scarry just because they happen to defend one or two things that you do not like (or becuase they neglect one or two things that you do.. like gun ownership). Look at what they really do.

Jeff

the ACLU scares me a bit

The religious right has gone to great lengths to damage the ACLU's credibility, but the turth is that many many of our freedoms would not exists today if it was not for the ACLU. Example: It was the ACLU that really put an end to the religious persicution of minority Christian sects by majority ones. Actually, just this year they defended a Christian priest who interprets the no graven image thing the way the moslems do so that he could get a drivers lissence without needing his picture taken. They are also defending people held in prison by INS on secret evidence. The people of the ACLU are not scarry.. they are heros.. look at the real history of the ACLU.

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

This is the essence of the ACLU. I suggest you look at what the ACLU has done this year and read What's a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU? by Shelia Suess Kennedy.

The best kept secret about the ACLU is that most americans would agree with more of what the ACLU dose then with what there own political parties do. You should not accuse them of being evil or scarry just because they happen to defend one or two things that you do not like (or becuase they neglect one or two things that you do.. like gun ownership). Look at what they really do.

Jeff

First, is the reform party really any diffrent from the other 2? I sorta assumed it was diffrent when I heard about Jesse Ventura, but then the reform party tried to kick him out when he said something about organized religion being a problem and Pat Buchanen joined it. I assume that means the party was never really as interested in the kind of fundamnetal reforms you are talking about.

Second, I like both the Green party and the Libertarian party. I do not really agree with them, but I feal that they have a lot to contribute.. a lot more then the republicans or democrats. It seems to me that what we really need is not a reform through ellection but a reform through media. Example: the WTO protests probable did a LOT to advance the general public understanding of the problems with globilization.. and to take free trade off the holy words list. this is what will bring about real reforms.

It is also worth mentioning that the ACLU has been more effective then ANY political party in supporting generally good stuff. Check out the list of all the great stuff they did this year. While Katz was bitching about the Hellmouth they were suing the pants off of those schools.. and winning. If you are at all interested in the future of civil liberties you really should check out the ACLU.. you will probable find they do mcuh more stuff which you like then dislike. Everyone seems to pink the one thing which the ACLU dose which they dislike to grip about, but the plain truth is american freedom began 80 years ago when the ACLU started to enforce the bill of rights.

Jeff

At the high school i go to (Classen SAS in Oklahoma City) we have a web filter on all of the speed demon 486 internet terminals at our school, it is called WebSense, and like many others, it has a list of "bad" sites that you are not allowed to go to. I tested this web filter out, and several cracker pages were blocked, alright, no problem there. But bugtraq and rootshell were also blocked, and that annoyed me just a little. But what really ticked me off (and suprised the heck out of) me was that norml.org and aclu.org were blocked! NORML (national orginization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) and the ACLU (Americal Civil Liberties Union) were blocked! god forbid that some unsuspecting high-schooler wander into one of those pages and start thinking for himself!

Last month, the Wall Street Journal surveyed Americans to learn our biggest concerns in the coming millenium. Topping the list was not crime, not terrorism, not global war. Rather, the greatest fear we Americans have, as we face the new millenium, is losing our privacy.
(Wednesday, October 13, 1999)

What about the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1999? See what the ACLU has to say about it.
-- Begin thoughtfuly, end insensitively.

"parental responsibility"

Thank goodness someone at least had the good senses to mention this!

I often hear arguements similar to this one in the neverending business ethics classes that I take (my company requires them, but they are quite interesting--and increase your understanding of others' view points). The point most often overlooked, in my view, is the amount of responcibility that parents are expecting out of others.

A good example of what I am trying to point out is the .htaccess avenue proposed in another thread, that's a good way to go from the parents' perspective, it doesn't require them to do anything. But, instead of thinking of what the content providers responcibilities are, start thinking about the parents responcibilities.

There are plenty of content filters on the market, entire ISPs offer "child safe surfing" for the same price as an unrestricted content ISP. You don't want your kid at my site, block it. Problem solved, issue closed. It's that simple.

So, before you ask me to change how I do things, be sure you've done all you can to prevent the problem as well. Because, as others have mentioned, your rights do not supercede mine. This is the point that has been made via the ACLU's fight against the "Federal Internet Censorship Law." (it was defeated the first time in the Supreme Court, then rewritten, and the new version was challenged and defeated the second time around by the ACLU--Press Release Here)

Quoting from the first part of the complaint: [the FBI] acted pursuant to a policy ... to take actions to suppress speech without any judicial determination that the speech is unprotected by law. Well, they certainly extended him all of the courtesty that I extend them, ie, none.

The "get a warrant" approach is the traditional "you're the FBI therefore I hate you until you are sent on a mission from God himself" approach...

No, the "get a warrant" is the "read the Constitution" approach. Since the Constitution was specificaly written to inhibit the power of the Government, I know that this is unpopular with them. Tough, as America isn't quite a police state, yet.

... but you're ignoring the point of my post. I'll repeat it : look at it from their point of view.

From their point of view, it seems to be: "Warrants? We don't need no stinkin' warrants! If you citizens know what's good for you, you'll just cooperate -- otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt."

You're looking at legal rights to free speech, let's also look at legal responsibilities of the FBI.

The first of which is to have a warrant, issued "...upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In other words, if you can't get a warrant, no "probable cause" exists. Now, there is always a judge who'll issue a warrant for anything, especially to the FBI. If they didn't bother with one, what does that say?

So by standing up so obnoxiously and uncooperatively for your civil rights, you've actually managed to reduce them by demonstrating that their misuse can lead to civil unrest for no apparent reason, and cause the potential loss of life.

Note Niven's Law: F * S = k, or the product of freedom and security is a constant. in other words, to get more security, you need to give up some freedom, and vice versa. You're confusing civil rights with security -- the two are not the same.

On a related point, isn't misrepresentation a crime of some sort in the States? If you claim you believe something came from the army, and it didn't, and you knew it didn't, is that not in some way prosecutable? What about inciting to riot?

Misrepresentation as in lying to certain people (police involved in an investigation) or on certain documents (applying for a loan) is illegal. However, you can claim to be God, or say that the FBI has a microchip implanted in your butt, with which they control your thoughts, and it's not a crime. As has been recently demonstrated, lying is legal, as long as you're not under oath. Charging him with inciting a riot might be possible, but is more tricky. You see, an actual investigation would have to be conducted, and then someone arrested and charged. It's much simpler to just "lean on him a little" -- no muss, no fuss, no paper trail.

Which makes me wonder, the ACLU hasn't been real swift to take up these issues, I've noticed.

The ACLU Cyberliberties page shows what the ACLU is doing about net censorship, encryption regulations, and digital wiretapping. The ACLU has been in the forefront of the fight against net censorship.

Folks:

Two years ago reasonable and informed people could (and did) doubt Echelon's existence. But today if you doubt Echelon's existence, then clearly you haven't been paying attention. Duncan Campbell is the man who blew the lid off Echelon, and his report in all of its detailed and independently substantiated glory is available for free on his web page.

The EchelonWatch page by the ACLU is another good source with current news.

Regards,
Zooko

let's keep as close a watch on these guys as we can, shall we?

Echelon Watch

I just thought I'd throw out one more link that wasn't mentioned in the post: Here is the ACLU's press release about the issue.

--
Reject

the link to Rep. Barr's remarks on the Highlights page?

--

Wow, I wouldn't have the balls to admit on Slashdot that I favor forcing telcos to build wiretapping-friendly systems, imposing state-approved religions on publically-funded facilities, and the FBI's handling of Waco.

Wow, I wouldn't have the balls to admit on Slashdot that I favor forcing telcos to build wiretapping-friendly systems, imposing state-approved religions on publically-funded facilities, and the FBI's handling of Waco.

Wow, I wouldn't have the balls to admit on Slashdot that I favor forcing telcos to build wiretapping-friendly systems, imposing state-approved religions on publically-funded facilities, and the FBI's handling of Waco.

First off, you stay informed -- thorugh sites like the Freedom Forum, Wired News, the ACLU, and even Slashdot. The ACLU in particular is the best firstbet to both staying informed and participating in "average Joe" armchair activism, mainly thorugh their Alert list, which often contains links to pages at the ACLU website where you can send free faxes to your Congressional representatives on a variety of pressing issues.

More, start finding the sources for keeping track of First Amendment issues locally where you live. Big national issues get decent attention sometimes, but local issues (often, these days, based around youth) do not. Not to come back to ACLU again, but it wouldn't hurt to join your state chapter.

Shameless plug time -

The constitution by itself does not protect freedom in America: the division of power only works if the public campiagns for openness and civil liberties, so support the ACLU ...

What I like to do is if someone states something such as what Mr. Singer has stated, I try to read as much as possible about the issue, then form my own opinion. I try not to form an opinion based on what a single group says, until I've heard both sides of the issue.

What scares me is when governments refuse to listen to both sides of an issue, or atleast acknowledge the other side of the issue.

An example of this can be found in a blurb in Focus on the Family which it appears as though the government is ignoring a study done by the American Psychological Association simply because what the APA is saying does not fit politically with what the government has been saying since the 1970's. At the time of this writing, the Focus on the Family web server is down, and I don't want to make a statement regarding the contents of the blurb because I can't quote it exactly. However, there are several good articles on the APA where if you just search on APA, you will find them.

Another example of this would be government funded studies which say that marijuana is not any worse then cigarettes or alcohol. Because the government has been saying for years that marijuana is bad for you, they refuse to acknowledge their own studies. The information regarding marijuana can be found on the ACLU website in their drugs section.

In both of these cases, I have not made a decision as to what I think about them, but I try to get further information in hopes of making a better decision.

Generally, even if I don't agree with what a person is saying, I will not try to stop them from saying it. They have that right to say what they think regardless of whether or not I agree with it.

I realize that you were only playing Devil's advocate, but there are a few problems with your logic.

The ability to intercept communications does not figure into the majority of criminal prosecutions. If you kill somebody, it doesn't matter if the government can't hear your phone call telling someone about the murder you just committed -- there's still a dead body sitting somewhere with your clothing fibres clinging to it, and a bullet traced to your gun sitting inside its skull.

Indeed, telephone wiretapping -- which the government says is equivalent to law enforcement cracking crypto -- is almost never used to combat serious crimes. According to the ACLU White Paper on the subject, "in the past eleven years, fewer than 0.2 percent of all law enforcement wiretap requests were made in the investigation of bombings, arson or firearms" while 83 percent of "...wiretaps and other forms of surveillance have been authorized in connection with vice crimes, like gambling and drug offenses..."

How different would the Microsoft anti-trust trial have been without any of the internal Microsoft documents? If strong cryptography were routinely used for everything, the Microsoft trial would have been a completely different affair.

This is the /. equivalent of the "Save the children!" argument: Point out one case that hits at most readers emotionally, and the whole argument is accepted without much thought.

I personally don't think that there should be any antitrust laws, or any case against Micro$not. I hate their products as much as anybody here does, but I'm a libertarian; they have a right to do what they want, and I have the right to do what I want. Just as I have a right to complain about Windows and/or switch to something else and/or create a competing product, they have a right to be assholes.

And in the end, you're forgetting about the three key points in favor of widely implimented strong cryptography: Privacy, corruption, and the criminals themselves. For the first, it doesn't matter if I'm not doing anything illegal; for my part, I don't want the anybody unintended, government or otherwise, having the ability to read my secret love letters, diaries, hopes and dreams, &c. The argument that those who don't commit crimes shouldn't care if they're watched doesn't hold up in my view; after all, in that case, why should I care if police can routinely come into my bedroom and check to see what I have in my bedside drawer, my dresser, and my closet?

Then, enter the issue of corruption. How likely is it that my weakly encrypted communications will only be cracked by the government under warrant?

And lastly, everybody seems to be forgetting that if the government can break it easily, so can criminals. I don't want Joe Ex-Con stealing my credit card number. I don't want Tom Voyeur reading my correspondance with my SO. I don't want Mr. Sleazy Dishonest Corporate Head Honcho finding out my business plans and potentially patentable ideas that I at least want credit for. And I want to be able to communicate those things with people that I want to, even if they happen to reside outside the United States. Every day I thank Phil Zimmerman for distributing PGP so that anybody could get it anywhere.

Restrictions on strong crypto increase crime far more than they prevent it.

These points should strongly outweigh any reason to restrict strong crypto. Really, would you trade all of the money in your bank account, your privacy, and your greatest ideas for the ability to litigate against Microsoft?

-- Rene --

Agreed that this is a beautifully thought out protest.

Your tone about how great rights are in the US strikes me as a bit complacent however. British rights against governmental intrusion, and the poor defence of free speech are poor, rooted in an odd view that these aren't really matters of government at all. However the British track record on rspecting the paper rights that exist are better guaranteed than in the US. Also the US has extraordinary archaicisms existing (and occassionally enforced) at the state level. Check out the ACLU website and weep. I would say that overall, Germans have better rights in practice than Americans.

Lastly, the merits of of a formal constitution are easily overrated. Russians had excellent constitutional rights in th 1930s, and they weren't worth an awful lot.

This is from 1996 so it's not too current but I think it's safe to assume the amount of wiretapping hasn't gone down in the past few years. ACLU Calls on Congress To Kick Wiretap Habit...

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has released "Filters & Freedom: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content Controls". The report is a collection of articles from anti-censorship organizations such as Peacefire, the ACLU, and the Internet Free Expression Alliance. The report is available from Amazon.

According to this ACLU page,
"The First Amendment prevents the government from imposing, or from coercing industry into imposing, a mandatory Internet ratings scheme."

Isn't that what this is?

There is currently a bill before the U.S. Senate that will prevent states from receiving federal funds if they allow distribution of personal data from driver's licenses or any motor vehicle record without express written consent of the individual which would prevent this invasion of privacy. The bill is S. 1143 and the privacy section is Section 339.

For more info and to send your senator a free fax in support of the bill (assuming you are a US citizen) see http://www.aclu.org/action/drivers106.ht ml.

Vehicular seizure for mere suspicion of drug use has become a normal practice (one that, by the way, disproportionately targets blacks and latinos) - police in many states do not even need to arrest a suspect or charge them with anything, and they can simply take and sell their vehicle. It has become a very profitable enterprise for many departments.

The ACLU has a good resource page with links to information about some of the abuses - both illegal and currently legal - that law enforcement agencies are engaging in, but one of my favorite sites is this one, run by a former LA policeman who began documenting police abuses and racism after he was attacked by another cop while operating undercover - he now leads a non-profit group that 'stings' officers with hidden cameras and recorders in new vehicles being driven by black men, and the results are dismaying. It's a bit disappointing to me that many so-called libertarians seem a lot more concerned about getting rid of environmental and consumer protection regulations and lowering taxes, than actually protecting citizens from direct and overt abuses of power. The selectiveness of law enforcement is excrutiangly painful in light of the G.W. Bush debacle - the powers-that-be are more than happy to jail the rest of us for mistakes that they have the luxury to simply "outgrow."

Here's another story of police enforcement going out of control, and another.

The National Institute for Drug Abuse estimates that while 12% of drug abusers are black, 50% of drug possession arrestees are black.

55% of the prison population is black, despite the fact that only 12% of the US population is black. 96.5 % of those tried for crack cocaine charges are minorities, although 2/3rd of all crack cocaine users are white.

Look here (wherein Janet Reno admits a 100 to 1 disparity in enforcement, and commits to get it down to "only" a 10 to 1 disparity) and here (a surprisingly good essay in a Scientologist magazine. Go figure.).

How'd you find out about this law? Any idea where I can find similar information for my state (Minnesota)? I'd like to know if I'm breaking the law...

The ACLU has a list of laws regulating sexual behavior in different states.

The ACLU helps defend matters relating to civil rights.

This, IMHO, is indeed a violation of basic rights, not the least of which is freedom of speech. This bill allows organizations to, among other things, dictate and enforce regulations regarding "proper use" of their software. That means that Microsoft (for example) could say "you are not allowed to use Word to disparage Microsoft" and shut down your license if you do. Given the fact that most people don't read their EULA's, items of this nature can and will appear.

Another effective tack would be to vote with your money. Educate your employer about the dangers of using UCITA-protected software and suggest free or non-UCITA alternatives. It sounds to me from the nature of this bill that would merely allow EULA's to contain clauses allowing things such as remote shutdown -- if product EULA's don't include this clause, then UCITA is ineffective. Simply put, if it's UCITA, don't buy it.

Also, take the time to let vendors know that you will not purchase any software from them if it is protected under UCITA.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (IANAL), nor a lawmaker -- my interpretations are subject to error. Further, I am human... :P

Posted by the Proteus

I don't know about campaign funding, but if you're a civil libertarian, you can find the voting records on ACLU issues at ACLU's website:

Representative Scoreboard

• Kevin Mitnick was an ordinary guy who was curious.
• Kevin liked to explore things, albeit illegally.
• Kevin like to 'borrow' those thing to figure them out, or to save a few bucks.
• Kevin got caught.
• The FBI/NSA decided to make an example out of Kevin, and locked him up.
• Kevin was stripped of his rights of due process, and left to rot.

There is a huge glaring omission in what you said (and also in the site FreeKevin). Kevin Mitnick was already caught for miscellaneous repeated computer crimes, had a trial, was convicted, sentenced, spent one year in jail ; and promised that when he will be out, he wouldn't crack again. What you wrote is typical Kevin-Mitnick proganda which very looks like, say, Microsoft propaganda used for marketing its products.

This is truly terrifying, as that basically means if they want to execute you for being a cracker or script kiddy, they could do it, and get away with it.

This is truly terrifying, as that basically means if they want to execute you for being a cracker or script kiddy, they could do it, and get away with it.

The USA already routinely condemn innocents to death penalty ( Since 1900, in this country, there have been on the average more than four cases each year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder. Scores of these individuals were sentenced to death. In many cases, a reprieve or commutation arrived just hours, or even minutes, before the scheduled execution. These erroneous convictions have occurred in virtually every jurisdiction from one end of the nation to the other. Nor have they declined in recent years, despite the new death penalty statutes approved by the Supreme Court. for instance at aclu.org). Why don't you care about them ?

> They will take power away from big government and gladly allow big business to take up the slack.

WRONG. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. The only way they can do that is to sell something that people like. A very democratic process. Without government intervention, the free market MUST provide consumers with the best possible products. This gets perverted when government incentives exist (subsidies, special protections). (side note: I believe there is a case for anti-trust law, but otherwise I am against governmental interference in the operation of a market.)

Corporations DO NOT wield the same power as govnement. They cannot force people to buy their products (M$ excepted - see above note on antitrust), and they cannot put people in jail because they don't like their personal choices.

The point I'm trying to make here is that governmental power is coercive power. Taking that power away simply leaves we the citizens with less coercion, and more choice. This is a Good Thing. Coercive power cannot be "snatched up" by corporations, or anyone - coercive power exists solely within the government.

> The purpose of government is to do whatever the people want it to do.

WRONG. Madison's essays on the politics of faction make some clear warnings about a minority of people (read: corporations, christian right, etc) forcing their world-view upon everyone. The purpose of government is to allow people to do as they wish while allowing others the to same , and resolving disputes arising from the above (civil courts).

Example: Let's pretend that the South won the Civil War, and slavery were still legal there. Even if the majority of people think it's OK, its the government's sole function to protect the individual liberty of its citizens. Consensus does not equal justice.

Once again, pardon my rantings if you disagree... just give me a good retort. That's what America's all about (to me): open discussions and wildly different points of view.

OK: The libertarian party home page is at http://www.lp.org/. Other sites I enjoy are the ACLU, the Internation Society for Individual Liberty, and NORML.


- jonathan.

CyberPatrol is bad. Not only because it is fascist-ware, but also because it is not done right. They could block just a certain part of a web site, but they don't want to. It is easier for them to just block a whole domain, and that way, it's more likely that they'll be able to manipulate ISPs and such into kicking off users who express their rights.

Secondly, CyberPatrol is funded by (a) Christian group(s).

Want to know how fucking effective it is? On a CyberPatrol-ed computer, I could go to go to godhatesfags.com, but not safersex.org. Hmm... (Oh wait, it is effective, if you're a white Christian male American conservative...)

I understand that this isn't really directly related or shtuff to the guys posting... Check out censorware.org, which is a little outdated/sparse, but still useful. And the EFF, of course. The ACLU has a thing on censorware in public libraries and stuff, too.

"Censorship causes blindness: READ"

CyberPatrol is bad. Not only because it is fascist-ware, but also because it is not done right. They could block just a certain part of a web site, but they don't want to. It is easier for them to just block a whole domain, and that way, it's more likely that they'll be able to manipulate ISPs and such into kicking off users who express their rights.

Secondly, CyberPatrol is funded by (a) Christian group(s).

Want to know how fucking effective it is? On a CyberPatrol-ed computer, I could go to go to godhatesfags.com, but not safersex.org. Hmm... (Oh wait, it is effective, if you're a white Christian male American conservative...)

I understand that this isn't really directly related or shtuff to the guys posting... Check out censorware.org, which is a little outdated/sparse, but still useful. And the EFF, of course. The ACLU has a thing on censorware in public libraries and stuff, too.

"Censorship causes blindness: READ"

Romen

ps - the nazi tatoos were on the arm, not the wrist

The one woman I thought that might have enough integrity to be President. I would think a Republican would not be into censorship and anti-freedom of speech since they are so anti-government. I guess that only applies to the fat cats and taxes and not freedom of speech.

I think you have the Libertarian and Republican parties confused. Libertarians are VERY anti-government, essentially saying all government should be is a police and military force to prevent people from hurting one another. This applies to both social and economic policies.

Republicans tend to have a similar view for economic policies, but are very socially conservative. They are typically anti-abortion, pro-drug laws, pro-gun rights, pro-death penalty, and anti-porn. I think a majority are also unsupportive of homosexual rights and extremely free speech (supporting measures such as banning flag burning, etc). Many are extremely religious and try to force it on others.

Democrats are usually socially liberal (see www.aclu.org for items "Democrats" are typically supportive of), but also very supportive of measures such as Social Security, Welfare, affirmitive action, etc.

I think the statement "Republicans want to control what goes on in your bedroom, Democrats want to control what goes on in your boardroom" is very true.

What exactly are we shielding our children from anyway? Sex? Why do we give kids such a complex about it and make them think it is bad?

Exactly. Sex is a perfectly natural act, as nudity is a perfectly natural state. I find it highly confusing that people attack the porn industry so readily, yet balk at the idea of attacking violent movies and TV shows. In my mind, showing violence is a lot worse than showing people having sex.

besides thomas, there is a resource available from the ACLU for some votes. it may be wise to form your own opinions, though it is nice to see what the ACLU has to say.

http://scorecard.aclu.org

they haven't updated it for the 106th congress last time i checked. but it's there.

That bill will (almost certainly) be passed by the House within the week. It then gets shot back to the Senate, which has already passed a similar form; they too will have to vote on the modified bill.

There are numerous other amendments that make this bill a bad idea. Children as young as 13 will be tried as adults. Judeo-Christianity's Ten Commandments will be posted in public schools (though apparently Buddhism's Four Noble Truths are still unwelcome).

But the worst part of it will be the censorship of every federally-funded school and library across the nation. To be precise, we will be turning over responsibility for that censorship to unaccountable third-party software companies who use computers to scan for naughty keywords. (Information on this shoddy and biased software is available at censorware.org.) Third-party censorship is the worst threat that the net will face in coming years, because everyone thinks computers can magically determine what's porn.

Don't get complacent and think it will be overturned. This bill may well be Constitutional because it is tied to federal funds. Find your representatives, find out how they've voted, and call them at (202) 225-3121.

More info on the bill is at the ACLU.

Jamie McCarthy

That bill will (almost certainly) be passed by the House within the week. It then gets shot back to the Senate, which has already passed a similar form; they too will have to vote on the modified bill.

There are numerous other amendments that make this bill a bad idea. Children as young as 13 will be tried as adults. Judeo-Christianity's Ten Commandments will be posted in public schools (though apparently Buddhism's Four Noble Truths are still unwelcome).

But the worst part of it will be the censorship of every federally-funded school and library across the nation. To be precise, we will be turning over responsibility for that censorship to unaccountable third-party software companies who use computers to scan for naughty keywords. (Information on this shoddy and biased software is available at censorware.org.) Third-party censorship is the worst threat that the net will face in coming years, because everyone thinks computers can magically determine what's porn.

Don't get complacent and think it will be overturned. This bill may well be Constitutional because it is tied to federal funds. Find your representatives, find out how they've voted, and call them at (202) 225-3121.

More info on the bill is at the ACLU.

Jamie McCarthy

>>>>Rep. Peter J. Goss (R-Fla.) said the ability of the intelligence community to deny access to documents on intelligence programs could "seriously hobble the legislative oversight process" provided for by the Constitution and would "result in the envelopment of the executive branch in a cloak of secrecy."

I think legislative oversight broke a long time ago... They have been operating outside their authorized parameters for a very long time, and every American (especially those that have ever done anything questionable over a telephone line) should not allow this issue to die in Congress now that it has finally come to the surface.

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/



ap

These violations should not go unnoticed. Some of the e-mails that Katz provided are clear infrangements on our rights. Please, this should not be tolerated! Not only is discrimination from our peers harmful, but coming from our higher authorities is worse!

American Civil Liberties Union

After this excellent article, I may have to change my .sig
--Ivan, weenie NT4 user, Jon Katz hater: bite me!

American Civil Liberties Union After this excellent article, I may have to change my .sig
--Ivan, weenie NT4 user, Jon Katz hater: bite me!

Cassius wrote:

Whenever someone is in court using Freedom of Speech as a defense, invariably its a test to see how young a girl they can stick in their magazines.

Very little Freedom of Speech litigation has to do with "young girls" or magazines. Check out these suits, just from a quick check on the ACLU website:

http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012299b. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012899a. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n021299a. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n030599a. html
http://www.aclu.org/action/flag106.html

Whether you agree with the ACLU's stand or not, this isn't about defending child pornography, it's about protecting our right to speak out. Check out http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html for more information.

Cassius wrote:

Whenever someone is in court using Freedom of Speech as a defense, invariably its a test to see how young a girl they can stick in their magazines.

Very little Freedom of Speech litigation has to do with "young girls" or magazines. Check out these suits, just from a quick check on the ACLU website:

http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012299b. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012899a. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n021299a. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n030599a. html
http://www.aclu.org/action/flag106.html

Whether you agree with the ACLU's stand or not, this isn't about defending child pornography, it's about protecting our right to speak out. Check out http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html for more information.

Cassius wrote:

Whenever someone is in court using Freedom of Speech as a defense, invariably its a test to see how young a girl they can stick in their magazines.

Very little Freedom of Speech litigation has to do with "young girls" or magazines. Check out these suits, just from a quick check on the ACLU website:

http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012299b. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012899a. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n021299a. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n030599a. html
http://www.aclu.org/action/flag106.html

Whether you agree with the ACLU's stand or not, this isn't about defending child pornography, it's about protecting our right to speak out. Check out http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html for more information.

Cassius wrote:

Whenever someone is in court using Freedom of Speech as a defense, invariably its a test to see how young a girl they can stick in their magazines.

Very little Freedom of Speech litigation has to do with "young girls" or magazines. Check out these suits, just from a quick check on the ACLU website:

http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012299b. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n012899a. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n021299a. html
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n030599a. html
http://www.aclu.org/action/flag106.html

Whether you agree with the ACLU's stand or not, this isn't about defending child pornography, it's about protecting our right to speak out. Check out http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html for more information.