Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Dot-Narc
GigsVT writes: "Wired has a story about how the DOJ wants to "[Target] five types of people [on the internet], including previous drug offenders, legalization advocates, anarchists and people promoting 'an expanded freedom of expression' that pushes the boundaries of the First Amendment.""
that John Ashcroft is harming our country more than any terrorists could dream of doing.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The only possible valid limitation I could see would be the "don't shout fire in a crowded room" one; any other is precisely what the ammendment was designed to protect.
The full "push the limits" quote can be found on this page.
Advocates of an expanded freedom of expression are purveyors of information with yet another agenda. These individuals and groups publish information on the Internet to push the boundaries of self-expression and the First Amendment. The information they provide may induce minors and young adults to break drug laws or to become a danger to themselves or to others by abusing illegal drugs.
I find this infuriating... that the our government considers people who "push the boundries" of the amendment that gives the freedom to do just that criminal, and that they feel that it is within thier purview to control the content of the Internet. *grumble*
_sig_ is away
Sometimes I wish I was an American so I could (pretend to) make my vote count, and get rid of this 2nd wave of Reefer Madness. (Don't get me started on the ridiculous amount of resources wasted on marijuana enforcement).
Now I guess I just wait until the FBI text scanner picks up the word marijuana in my post, eh?
Patience is a virtue, but I don't have the time - TH
Certainly this sounds like yet another worrisome development in the curtailment of freedom of speech on the Internet. However I think it's important we keep in mind this is only a recommendation at this point, not actual policy. In addition, I think it's important to consider the source of this article...Wired isn't exactly known for balanced reporting on free speech issues. (Better than /. maybe, but still ;-D)
that it's obvious no one in your family was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks.
the american government has been illiciting this kind of response knowningly from information their intelligence sources beginning decades ago this should of happened sooner than later. the people of this country are not what needs to be changed, the government needs to be changed, abruptly and permanently.
Few would remember when the government spoke for the people at all anymore. It has been decades since the people were protected as the corporations under these dehumanizing and dismal politics of souless neo-liberalism and age old conservitivism. Do not fall prey to the illusion of the democrats being anymore thoughtful on the nature of human rights. This system does not and will not stand for ethical progress on any scale, give up or take down that which impedes us!
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
The DOJ wants to target five types of people: drug offenders, legalization advocates, anarchists, and free-speech pushers. I only count four types of people there. Who are the mysterious fifth target group? Presumably terrorists, but that's hard to infer from the tone of this article. It seems that the DOJ thinks that ravers and First Amendment advocates are a bigger threat to America than Al-Qaida. Something's fucked up here.
"the DOJ wants to "[Target] five types of people [on the internet], including [...] people promoting 'an expanded freedom of expression' that pushes the boundaries of the First Amendment."
So, slashdot then.
...they're certainly not any good at targeting terrorists.
--
Spaz!
I cannot stress enough how much of a complete and total jerkwad this guy is. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand how destroying or damaging the ONE AND ONLY THING that this country was founded is, by definition, bad for this country.
If we cannot discuss the flaws of our current system of laws, then how can we ever hope to create new and better ones?
Here's a very simple way to understadn what is so incredibly wring with everything that is going on in that guy's head: Take every single argument he makes and place the replace the word "legalization" with "slavery".
Imagine if a hundred years ago people were hunted down by the government because they were against slavery laws?
The current stance our country takes on drugs was NOT handed down by God. It was written by men who had motives. Maybe the laws are good, maybe they are NOT. ANY attempt to squash the discussion and merits of changing the laws is tantamount to advocating totalitarianism.
A republic or a democracy where the "people" can not advocate new and better laws is not a free place. It is a banana republic.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
First of all, the DOJ (or for that matter, any government orginazation), has no right whatsoever to target (and presumably arrest) anarchists. As long as said anarchists have not committed a criminal offense, they are free to believe whatever they choose. This is the same as targeting Jews because they don't believe in Jesus. Only in America can basic civil rights be infringed upon with nary a peep from the public.
I'm a repairman in an imperfect world.
Also, I don't seem to read anything in the article stating that the DOJ is putting any more weight into their anti-drug investigations than into their anti-terrorism investigations. In fact, for the most part, the stuff I read in the story indicated that the DOJ was going to use publicly accessible message-boards in order to gather evidence about possible illegal drug usage.
Please spew your FUD elsewhere, preferably into the toilet, where you can flush it and frighten the rats and filth. Thank you.
I'm the tasty treat nobody can resist!
IM Me! AOL IM:Tasty Beef Jerky
How did caffeine get onto your list? I might understand the tobacco (causes lung cancer) and alcohol (causes traffic accidents), but why caffeine??? What happened? Did you spill coffee on your lap in a McDonald's drive up once???
What is "arguably responsible for more social grief than all the banned [controlled] substances combined" is the fact that medicines are controlled in the first place. IANAL or doctor, but I understand if you are a doctor, it is perfectly legal for you to possess and administer cocaine and heroin. However, if you're a terminal patient, you have to ask the FDA if you're allowed some new experimental medicine, which most likely they will say "no!" How is that protecting anyone?
Caffeine is a drug just like all the others. It is a drug that is used by many people, but a still a drug. People who use caffeine to wake up in the morning or to be more alert at work are no different than people who take drugs at parties to be more social.
Caffeine has some level of addiction, it could definitely cause illness, and it can cause death in sufficiently high doses (a lot lower doses than the LD50 of many illegal drugs, BTW)
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Yeah if you take enough caffeine, you can cause death. Same thing with vitamins and window cleaner. However I dont see how any of these three items cause "social grief."
To place it in its rightful rank along with other addictive substances. Tobacco and alcohol are not supposed to be directly marketed to kids. Caffeine can and is, which makes it even more of a problem. Britney singing, "For those who think young." That overly-cute little Pepsi girl. The teen targets of the Mountain Dew and Surge ads. Hell, there's a bloody Coke/Pepsi machine in damned near every public school, now.
Why do you think caffeine became an additive (in addition to the natural caffeine in Kola nut) after its original addictive ingredient (coca -- natural cocaine) was outlawed? Gotta keep 'em hooked!
Like most drugs, it isn't inherently bad. It's just that it is consumed far in excess (by most people, at least) of what is healthy. If you drank alcoholic beverages of any proof as frequently as most consume caffeinated drinks, your liver would revolt. The chronic presence of any toxin in your blood will trash your liver, which in turn causes all kinds of grief.
Method of processing duck feet
I can never read arguments against even permitting discussion of liberalizing drug laws without making a simple substitution:
Replace "drug laws" with "slavery."
We can't discuss ending slavery. We can't discuss the social costs of the misguided attempts to enforce slavery (e.g., the "recovery" laws that allowed abuse of free citizens of free states.) We can't even discuss the really braindead proposals, like the time Maryland (IIRC) proposed a law making all black freemen (and there many) slaves at the stroke of a pen.
No, we gotta keep our head in the sand until the legitimate grievances blow up into a civil war. I don't want to do drugs, but I am terrified of "law enforcement agencies" who want to see kids FUCKING DIE from bad Ecstacy rather than be flexible enough to realize that DanceSafe saves lives... and is a far more effective anti-drug message than the official efforts.
<B>NOTHING CANNOT BE DISCUSSED.</B>. I don't give a flying fuck about the morons who still think that we should be worker's paradise. Where I draw the line, and the only place I will accept this line being drawn, is at discussion of the violent overthrow of the legitimate government of the United States. The government that was duly elected by the majority of the voters, or at least the plurality.
Like President Bus... Oh shit!
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I don't see how certain drugs cause much "social grief" either. Th number of deaths attributed to LSD, ecstasy, GHB, and these club drugs that justify this stupid new effort, combined, are less than the number of deaths caused by intentional overdose on alcohol, bug spray, or any other number of things you can buy at Wal-Mart.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The issue is NOT whether your (presumably) minor children should have access to drugs. I am not aware of any serious drug law liberalization proponent who would not continue to make pushing drugs to minors a serious crime.
:-), the *only* connection was that this idiot gave his work address instead of his home address for the other person to mail the cash.
The issue is whether your old college roommate should have access to marijuana so he'll survive his chemotherapy. Maybe the pot will help him, maybe the pot won't, but that's a matter for him and his doctor to decide, not some bureaucrat who can't see past the kids. The kids that we all agree need to be protected.
The issue is whether you can have your car legally stolen from you because some cop thinks you looked "suspicious." Nobody disputes the need for drug kingpins to have their profit motive removed, but the fact that "drug" seizure proceeds are shared with the seizing agency has resulted in the predictable results in some jurisdictions. Tell me again how it protects your kids when a popular restaurant just off the college campus is closed, and threatened with seizure until the public made its displeasure known, because an employee accepted payment for some 'shrooms at work. Without his employers or the owner's knowledge or consent. N.B., no drugs were ever on the premises (at least in this incident
The issue is whether any of us will be needlessly exposed to future terrorist attacks because the INS staff (which tend to be dedicated but overworked, unlike their totally incompetent management) has been told to focus on drug traffic instead of terrorists. You might think this would never happen... unless you've been reading the news during the past 6 month.
People with good intentions can raise the questions. Note well that I am not suggesting that liberalization need apply to hard drugs, or major smugglers, or even necessarily anyone other than the "medical marijuana users" that the VOTERS of many states have approved referendums that liberalized local laws.
But according to Ashcroft, since I;m willing to let people fighting for their lives to use some pot if they think it will help them keep a bit more food down - possibly requiring a doctor's prescription to obtain joints from their local pharmacists - then I'm an equally valid target for surveillence as the guy who just got out of the state pen for the third time.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
DOJ targeting legalization advocates, that is,
just another group of people lobbying to change
their country's laws peacefully. I see, Comrade
Ashcroft...
Considered harmful.
From the article:
You must have JavaScript enabled in order to use the Wired News Multimedia Player.We apologize for any inconvenience. That has set off alarm bells at the American Civil Liberties Union.
God damn. Is there nothing the ACLU won't complain about?
Caffeine kills about 2000 people per year according to the CDC, which is about 2000 more than marijuana kills.
Sorry for your loss and sorry these assholes are not showing respect.
sulli
RTFJ.