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.""

Comments

Let me be the first to say

[PD]

that John Ashcroft is harming our country more than any terrorists could dream of doing.

What limitations?

[TheReverand]

Why are there limitations on the first ammendment at all?

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.

Re:What limitations?

[oni]

Why are there limitations on the first ammendment at all?

Well, let's see what the first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law [snip] abridging the freedom of speech [...]

abridging is a big word, lets see what that means:
To cut short; curtail.

So if laws meant anything, Congress would be forbidden from limiting the freedom of speech in any way.

Unfortunately
a. The legislative branch doesn't actually believe that (famous quote: "the constitution is a living document" - Al Gore) other quotes available on request.

b. the judicial branch doesn't actually believe that. Witness the limitation on shouting 'fire' in a theatre. In a truly free society no one would suggest that you were not free to shout 'fire' only that you would be held responsible for doing so.

c. The executive branch obviously doesn't belive this. As evidenced by Ashcroft. To be honest though, I am far less worried about Ashcroft than I was of Janet Reno. Sure Ashcroft has said some scarry things, but Reno actually did scary things.

The libertarian party is looking better and better all the time.

The full quote

[Eagle7]

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*

Re:The full quote

[Deagol]

So, in the spirit of the quoted drug context, would the hyperreal "chemistry" archives be pushing these limits? Or does this only apply to sites that say things like "here's why the gov'ment shouldn't ban drugs..."?

Quite frankly, if I knew a kid who wanted to do drugs (parental/adult advice be damned), I would send them to a site like the above for at least some decent high-level info about some drugs. I'd rather someone make an informed choice about drugs than an ignorant one, regardless of the law.

Drug laws are pretty amusing, anyway. I can go to prison for possessing weed, but not nutmeg? :) Anyone with half a brain and a local library card can read up on things legally attainable in the produce department, the spice rack, or a local plant nursery that are just as potent and fun and the banned substances.

Besides... this entire "agenda" thing is bunk. Show me a Pepsi ad (pushing caffeine), a Marlboro ad (pushing nicotine), or a Budwiser ad (pushing alcohol) which doesn't have an agenda! Granted these are legal substances, but they are arguably responsible for more social grief than all the banned substances combined (plus they make a few companies a lot of money).

Disclaimer: IANAP (I am not a pharmacist)

When is enough, enough?

[linzeal]

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!

A S S H O L E !

[gnovos]

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.

Re:A S S H O L E !

[Tasty Beef Jerky]

"I will happily bitch about both"

Yes, and you will also apathetically do nothing other than bitch about it. That's sure to bring about the change.

"the only people who need to fear are those who are morally wrong but legally right"

How is it morally wrong for me to have an interest in preventing my children from having access to drugs? How is it morally wrong for me to vote a politician into office who will pass laws helping me protect my children when I am unable to be around?

How is it morally wrong to target known offenders for heightened survelience? How is it morally wrong for law-enforcement to monitor publically accessable web-based communities for drug activity? How is this different than using paid informants to monitor drug activity?