Slashdot Mirror
That Link Is Illegal
buzzdecafe writes with a snippet from a Declan McCullagh piece on news.com today: "The University of California at San Diego has ordered a student organization to delete hyperlinks to an alleged terrorist Web site, citing the recently enacted USA Patriot Act.
School administrators have told the group, called the Che Cafe Collective, that linking to a site supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) would not be permitted because it violated federal law."
here.
Gotta love that 1st Amendment. Now, where'd that thing go anyway?
What's the problem with this? Its a school computer, they get to say whats OK.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Let me be the first to congratulate Slashdot on their courageous stand against the Patriot Act. ;-)
Good to see that Che is still riling shit up, even if it's not him personally....
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, not just chemistry, reality!
Where's the link?
;-) although it would be fun to /. a terrorist group's server.
just kidding
yeahyeah...troll -1
Link
And here it is in English
And that's kinda sad. Unfortunately, someone's going to have to die on this hill (perhaps literally) before we get that shred of freedom back.
to quote Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
What's worse, is that now that someone making "subversive speech" can be labeled a terrorist, they can be treated as an enemy of the state, regardless of their citizenship or the rights therein guaranteed by the Constitution.
That is really scary that Academia is stifling a descenting voice.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
While I do not wish to start a 1st ammendment rant, This would seem like a blatant breach of one's first ammendment rights, as talking about, or linking something does not condone its action.
What if a website had a link to a anonymous website of links that has a link to a terrorist website? Wouldn't be fair to be guilty by association.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Lost: 1 Bill of Rights.
If found, please return to Washington, DC, USA.
Thank you.
ok, so a student posts a link to an alleged terrorist website and he gets the boot. Now news.com posts a url themselves. Isn't that contrary to the USA Patriot Act? aren't they an american based company?
Put your hands up and step away from the mouse... slowly...
.. is not a suicide pact.
If UCSD's attorneys determine that the university is at risk of liability or non-compliance with the law, the tax-paying citizens of California should be glad that they are attempting to stay within the lines. It is the place of private citizens using private money to fight unjust or unconstitutional laws. And anyone who says UCSD is overstepping reasonable interpretation better not have "IANAL" anywhere in their comment. :-P
This sort of thing shan't be allowed
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?
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
--Winston Churchill
Fuck you you white trash propagating redneck.
Personally, I don't see the big deal. It's not like the FARC are going to attack the US any time soon... They have more problems to worry about then us. Besides, removing a link doesn't block the site, it just makes people wonder what the big deal is and go read it.
;)
At any rate, I think the CoS (Church of Scientology) are terrorists as well, threatening people and all that, but I bet the students could link to them without problem because the CoS is in the US--and as we all know, Americans can't be terrorists, right?...
of our dog shit president and company
If I understand the story correctly, the Contraversal Website resides on a UC-owned computer, and uses a UC-owned domain. UC has the right to restrict content on it's own computers... for years, they've maintained the right to restrict content on student flyers on the campus. This is similar...
Solution? Get your own computer, and get your own domain name.
Or am I missing something...
Now, another question I have is: Why does UC San Diego allow student organizations use a subdomain under ucsd.edu ? It's asking for trouble...
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
You can screw up our votes, censor us, lie to us, and treat us like criminals, but you can't take away our liberty to be apathetic lazy morons. What is with all this rabble rousing these days, anyway? Isn't it easier to just shut up and go along with whatever the government says? That's the American way... [disengage bitter cynicism]
This is only going to make UCSD look terrible. Whatever happened to empowering young people to think critically?
If the school owns it, then they're within their right to do with it as they please. If the individual owns it, then the rules are different.
UCSD has done nothing wrong.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I'm not sure which I find worse. The fact that they translated the USA patriot act to suggest that even linking to a website that supports a terrorist organization is illegal or that they might be right in their interpretation. In either case i'm sure the supreme court would have a few choice words for them such as "unconstitutional".
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Are you joking me? /. is fucking MS here.
/. gets money from MS, MS wastes a ton of money on /. invetory where the readers are very unlikely to actually purchase or clickthru on the ad .. whats not to like? MS wastes its money, /. makes it, and we get nice pretty color schemes (which is MS products' only redeeming value.)
I don't know if it was a deliberate media placement buy, but think of MS's Return on Investment here. Low, I'm willing to wager. Real low.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Between bad laws, and bad applications of laws.
Granted, I'm not familiar with every provision of the Patriot Act, or even saying I like it, but it would seem that this is a case of the school misreading and overapplying what they think the law might say instead of taking the time to actually know what the law says. Ye Ole "Covering our ass is more important than letting you speak your mind" overreaction.
Once again, common sense and reason has taken a back seat to administrative hyper-reaction.
paintball
"If you'd like to know more about FARC, feel free to search for it on Google."
-Craw
Yeah the first amendment is stupid and should only apply to the subjects that the Bushies like.
Free speach means that people are going to say shit you don't like - tough. If you don't like what someone is saying, say something against. We, the US, need to protect everyone's freedom even the freedom of people we don't like.
I recently heard the results of a poll that suggested 50% of all Americans feel the first amendment provides too much freedom. How is that possible, "Too much freedom". That's like "Too much fun", "Too much sex", "Too much happiness", "Too much peace". How can you have Too Much Freedom? There is nothing more sacred then protecting every humanbeing freedom - at all costs.
LoRider
who said during the campaign "There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this [web] site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is." I mean the man clearly has always wanted to be in complete control and the whole 9/11 deal just gave him an excuse and convinced many other people to go along with him. Hopefully we will be able to get rid of him shotrly. But this is just going to be more and more common till then.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Haven't I seen this text before with another issue in place of "Illegal Links"? Is this a /bot?
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
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?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Is illegal
Doesn't the school have the right to restrict the content on their servers??? If you set up a web site that is against your company/college/school's policy or beliefs, I think they have the right to ask you to take down the objective material.
100% Insightful
Would student protests against the Vietnam war have been illegal? Would the school sue their own students for *daring* to change societal issues?
It's nice to see that the former hippies of the Baby boom are now more conservative, and have screwed up the world more than their predecessors have. They have *become* extactly what they were protesting against. There's an irony there that just makes me smile.
It's going to take a social revolution like the 60's to change the wacky way things are now. It'll probably take the death of 4 in Ohio over filesharing to spark that revolution however.
Oops, can I say the word revolution anymore? I think that's illegal...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It's the fact that by linking this site the organization is provided the terrorist's with a vehicle for communication...
This is preposterous. The company or organization hosting the "terrorist's" Web site is the one that's providing the vehicle for communication, not any Web pages that link to it. By your logic, we ought to shut down Google and all other Internet search engines since I can run a search on "FARC" and end up with a web page that links to this same Web site.
Incidentally, the irony here is that if the school had left this issue alone, then virtually nobody would have seen the offending Web site. Now that they've raised a big stink about it wrapped up in the PATRIOT act, you can expect the URL to appear in countless places (as it already has done several times in replies to this story.)
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
And if they can't get the criminal charges to stick, they will probably charge them with civil crimes for using hyperlinks.....
Crapdot
News from birds. Stuff that splatters.
The part of this article that I will rememeber and that annoyed me the most at first glance, was the incorrect spelling of Colombia.
When will Slashdot's editors finally realize that Declan is a sleazeball who invents attention-grabbing stories around loosely related events to draw attention to himself?
The rest of the world has known for years...
One man's terrorist organization is another man's freedom fighters.
Orwell was right. He just missed the date by 20 years or so.
-scsg
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.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
???
3) Sig!
MS doesn't buy Visual Studio ads on /. in order to sell Visual Studio. They do it to laugh in our faces.
It's their way of saying: "Ha ha, you dirty hippies. Who's the corporate shill now? At least we're not hypocrites."
this sounds similar to the DeCSS case with 2600, but as stupid as it sounds they were still allowed to have the url posted afterwards. I wonder if these guys be able to get away with that?
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
I find it ironic that commericals are running on US TV right now which celebrate freedom. In one, a few guys in a diner are talking and one starts complaining about how the gummint takes a lot of money in taxes. The other guys start getting nervous and tell him to keep quiet or else someone will come after him. Essentially they are propaganda to get people to support the government's war, yet the very instruments of that war are having the exact effect of limiting freedom shown in that commercial.
That's like saying we should be focusing on the garbage dump on the edge of town.
By your logic,...
I'm not claiming that it's my logic, but that it's the logic of the school. I defend their right to enforce the law as they interpret it, not necessarily their interpretation. I'll let the courts decide on interpretation.
"Herbivores eat well cause their food never, ever runs."
George H. W. Bush - Not Much
George W. Bush - Even Less
Be Patriotic: Smoke American Grown Marijuana
Okay, before we all predictably get up-in-arms about how this violates the 1st amendment and all that, let's take a moment to review what we actually know about the situation:
1) The article cites the portion of the PATRIOT act regarding "providing material support to terrorists." It's not clear to me from that snippet what "material support" means. So there might be something to fight on these grounds -- but I'd bet that 90% of us aren't familiar enough with the act or pertinent case law to answer the question.
2) They're not actually providing FARC info, just a link. So they're at least not "acting" as a terrorist group, they're just telling people where you can find 'em. Which might or might not constitute some kind of support -- if the link said "can you believe these jerks?", you might be able to argue that it's actually anti-FARC, but I doubt the context of the link was such as that.
3) We'd all like to think that there is some kind of due process available here. The group should be able to appeal to someone who can make a review of whether the information being linked to is truly covered by the act. Of course, this being on (to my understanding) institutionally-owned hardware, the school's own internet policies may trump that kind of review, even though it's a public institution.
and, MOST IMPORTANTLY,
4) We have not yet established that linking is protected. At least as far as I can recall, some people won in the "linking to DeCSS" case, and some people lost, in different districts, and it hasn't hit the Supreme Court. So, everyone who is so damned sure that this is an illegal restriction of free speech, well, you can't really say that, 'cause it hasn't been decided yet. (though I think that one of the pro-"linking-as-speech" decisions was in California, so they'd be bound by that decision). Morally, I'd agree that it should be protected, but legally, nobody can say for certain.
Anyway, I just thought I'd point these things out up front, before everyone starts posting their own defiant links to FARC and complaining about the bill of rights being trampled and armchair lawyers trying to sound smart by summarizing the whole complex issue in four bullet points.
Oops. Too late.
Poor troll. Too obvious.
Also in news today the British Empire has arrested several Colonial presses because they printed material that references those who would "revolt" against the empire.
Now that we have the Revolutionary Eradication and Destruction Covert Operations and Threat (REDCOAT) ACT we can further supress these threats to colonial safety and stability
For immediate disperesment:
Federal Circuit Judge A. Lottabull declared the Internet to be "Unconstitutional". He was further quoted as saying "If the founding fathers were alive today, they would be completely offended at what the Internet allows into the homes of US citizens."
Judge A. Lottabull also said,"Yeah, it's almost as bad as mentioning God when pledging allegiance to the United States of America. The framers of the Constitution would have freaked at that."
When informed of the decision, most users of the Internet were quoted as saying (in the general direction of the Judge)"Bugger off you Shut-in Luddite SOB"
Judge A. Lottabull is one of the most overturned judges in the Union, and should not be taken seriously.
---Some News agency or other.
I'd say it's obvious that they already decided that the "Patriot" Act is right, and not Amendment 1. I'm glad I'm out of college...
Fine, just go ahead and start a political debate why don't ya? :)
It's real easy to tell that the FARC is a terrorist group. The US doesn't like them, thus they are a terrorist group. This seems to be about the only qualification to get labeled a terrorist by this government.
Genuinely I think you can say that the FARC is a terrorist organization because they have been responsible for military attacks on civilian targets. Having said that though, so's the columbian government and the militia groups that said government backs. And you might even imply, by extension, that the US government is a terrorist organization since they back the columbian government. But now I'm splitting hairs.
It all boils down to the fact that "terrorist" is the new version of "communist" which was itself a newer version of the term "witch". You apply it to anybody who interferes with the way you want the world to run and see how long you can get away with it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
What should we be doing instead?
Thoughtcrimes are double plus ungood.
Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.
Rocky J. Squirrel
How is a hyperlink interpreted as"communications equipment"?
Equipment implies something physical (radio, satellite phone etc). A hyperlink is not physical. That would be the same as saying AT&T should stop providing telephone service because they are providing "communications equipment" to "terrorists" the world over.
And since when does UCSD get to usurp the authority of the FBI?
Let's make sure that nobody knows where the next bomb is coming from. We'll all be happier that way. Reading foreign websites is bad for unity, and only hurts the NEP.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions, does anyone know what the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia's linking policy is? Maybe they don't allow deep links.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
MS doesnt buy ads on /., their agency does. And if you angencies spend their clients money for something as trivial as mocking a demographic or mocking slashdot, I urge you to join us in the real world. :)
Disclosure: I work in the online advertising industry, so I'm somewhat familiar with the industry culture, if that lends any credibility to my assertion.
"Old man yells at systemd"
... will never happen in schools and universities. These bastards won't tolerate it. Critical thinking is inimical to Christianity; it tends to expose the fact that the religion is 99.999% bullshit by volume
If the school owns it, then they're within their right to do with it as they please. If the individual owns it, then the rules are different.
I question whether or not what they did was legal at all. By citing federal law, they are providing a very clear Constitutional challenge to the PATRIOT Act. Censoring political speech based on content is a clear 1st Amendment violation. This kind of behavior will have a "chilling effect" on free speech among students. The idea that the government can list a group as a terrorist and ban all information on the groups views and supporting arguments for them is a defilement of what our nation was founded on. It discourages rational discussion and questioning of the motives of the government.
Futhermore, public universities are quasi-government entities in most states. It may be flatly illegal for them to censor content on their servers as their servers may be considered a public resource. Even so, perhaps legally they have done nothing wrong, but one should question whether or not what they've done is ethically reprehensible as a place of learning and as Americans.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
It's illegal in China to link to Falun Gong websites because FG is regarded as a "terrorist organization." I don't see this policy as very different. The question is: should we be happy that our laws are stomping out dissent in a manner similar to that of the Chinese? I'm sure it's still perfectly legal for UCSD students to link to organizations that advocate the violent overthrow (and commercial airplane bombing) of Cuba - there are members of such organizations in high places in the Bush administration. Otto Reich comes immediately to mind.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
FARC OFF!!!!
In other news books are now banned, Film at 11
The UC can remove whatever they like on their system. they don't even need a reason. Citing the Patriot Act or no, they didn't want it on their system so it's gone. They need not justify it in court in any way. Those students can get a geocities account and host it there if they like. Or get a domain from he.net or something. The school is within their rights regardless of anything some armchair lawyer says.
Just because i invite you in my house doesn't mean you can spray paint "FARC ROOLz" on my walls.
Why can't linking to goat.cx be made illegal?
Here's the email address of Gary Ratcliff, the person who handed down this draconian order: grratcliff@ucsd.edu
Be sure to let him know how you feel about UCSD's policies.
I mean really, you go to UC San Diego... how 'revolutionary' can you possibly be?
As far as I can tell, this is a veeeery broad interpretation of the most awfully-named act ever.
I have a more deserving focus though: anyone else notice how on the FARC page they give their email address as tematicosfarcep@hotmail.com ?
Now *that* is providing communications.
yes, we have no bananas
On the contrary, I would suggest that you get some priorities. The right to free speech is one of the fundamental foundations of American society which the attack last year was aimed at destroying. While it is definitely important to be aware of the many other ramifications of the attack, such as the threats of war you cited, it is vital to the continued survival of the USA as we know it that citizens remain aware of all threats to our fundamental freedoms.
While it is unquestionably tragic that so many people were murdered by terrorists last year, I believe that the proper way to respect that loss is to continue your life as you see fit (even if that means watching Cowboy Bebop reruns all day). The glory of American freedom is that you have the freedom to live your life (more or less) exactally as you want, and any encroachment on that right is, in my opinion, the worst possible consequence of the attacks.
As Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security"
-CC
The Unclaimed
The GraveDigger 5
Hair Theater
The Pandoras
Noise 292
The Answers
The Nephews - great Mod power-pop, when Oasis and Blur were in diapers
Manual Scan
Many more, all in ONE night!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I went to a hardcore music show there a year ago and the only drinks they had were vegan "cokes". I might as well been drinking brine water because my alleged cherry cola tasted like complete ass. I asked for a Red Bull and I swear the snack bar guy almost punch me in the face. He said they didn't serve drinks with bull semen, and he said through clenched teeth. What a bunch of fuckers.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Who's a terrorist seems to depend entirely upon your point of view.
If someone slams an airplane into a building to blow it up, yep, that's terrorism.
If someone drops bombs on your buildings without provocation, isn't that also terrorism?
Now the USA (or rather Duyba) wants to drop bombs on Iraq, without provocation.... Who's the terrorist now?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
An obvious troll, but I'll bite:
Illegal links are something nerds understand. Foreign policy and economic models are something we do not (or are amateurs at). The fact that people die in car accidents every year does not convince me to suddenly try to become a mechanic or safety inspector; nor, I suspect, does it you. We can do something about illegal links because we know what a link is and may be called upon for an opinion in our profession. We can do absolutely jack about anti-terrorism (short of protesting what we don't like) because we're not professionals and won't be asked. Just as I'd trust my own judgement on a computer-related question above any opinion of the President's, I would also rate his foreign policy decisions as better-informed than mine, even if I don't like them or think they're wrong.
Everyone dies sometime; there is no use in moaning about it. What the hell can you or I do about a India and Pakistan's pissing contest, or a financial crisis in Argentina? Stop wringing your hands and do what you can with the things you have!
*cough*McCarthyism*cough*
*cough*Salem*cough*
Holy Jumping Jesus, how is it even remotely possible that the average Slashdot reader cannot even spell this most elementary of words? I thought the readership was supposed to be "geeks!" The spelling and grammar on this site are absolutely atrocious. When the Constitution of the United States is changed, this process is called "amending." The result of this process is an "amendment." There is only one 'm' in this word.
Good god, turn up the sensitivity on your irony meter. I know that Bill Gates didn't wake up one morning and decide that he wanted an ad on /. I doubt that /. even deals with the ad agency directly. I just figured that you couldn't be serious when you started shooting your mouth off about return on investment. It's a goddamn banner ad. That's hardly a money sink.
But in the end, slashdot is still whoring for Visual Studio.
che cafe webpage
By this definition, every search engine that points to that web site in respose to a search for "FARC" would be guilty. It's also assuming that providing information is the same as providing material support. By that logic, every news organization that tried to explain the mindset of a terrorist (including NPR which read a terrorist's statement on the air last week) would be guilty as well.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
I thought that one of the things you were supposed to get out of a college education was a broader understanding, as opposed to an understanding of broads. Before this can happen, you have to have an open mind and you need to be receptive to the ideas of others. Unless I'm mistaken, censorship does not accomplish this goal. Granted, according to the article, there was nothing at the website that was fact which means, I assume, that it was all propoganda, but even propoganda allows you to come to some sort of understanding about the person that is spreading it. Censoring this information doesn't make these poeple go away, it just makes it so that nobody understands why they end up doing some of the things they do. So, in the end, whether this is a 1st Amendment issue or not, it seems to go against the entire idea of Universities broadening the minds of its students.
Just my 2c
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
Actually they've sacked a few more:
6th: the right to a speedy trial. Which US citizens who the administration decides are "unlawful combatants don't get anymore.
8th: Cruel and unusual punishment -- such as previous situation
I've seen those guys. They're the ones who lurk around the IS department in black T-shirts, usually with computer vendor logos on them. Every once in while, they attack a helpless user's desktop PC and install new releases on it, thereby breaking everything else on the system. Then they chortle and run down the hall to the Jolt Cola machine.
Yes, we must do something about these support terrorists!
Its a universitys job to mold and shape ideas, not allow students to go rambling on in the wrong directions. Hence no classes in Satanism to compliment Buddhist/Christian and Muslim studies.
You sign on to a university because you agree with it's ideals and want to learn what they have to teach you. Not because you want to smack government in the face for the sake of smacking government in the face. If you do not agree with your Uni's principles you are free to go elsewhere.
Now all Microsoft has to do is get /. labeled a terrorist network and no one will be allowed to read any open source news.
It's that easy. The link for FARC is somewhere on here, many of us support the che cafe - if not the FARC.
The FBI could label /. terrorist if MS helped by greasing the wheels of "justice" with some cash and BAM
no more wasting time reading news for nerds. I'll have to settle for news for sheep.
Your second ammendment is there to protect your first ammendment.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
that the Cnet article itself has links to FARC and PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) websites?
This clearly shows CNET position on the issue, even though they don't express it explicitly in the article.
In other news, in a broad sweep that stunned the nation, Congress banned news. More, at news at 11... oh, damn.
Did you read their response to the University administrator - basically, 'bite me?' Those vegan anarchists are feisty, aren't they?
Having a link to a web site is not providing "material" support. It's not providing anything except a link to information.
Following that logic, libraries should eliminate all books which discuss al Qaeda, even if they are just historical. Magazines and newspapers discussing any terrorist organization should be banned. Any articles discussing where to find more information on terrorist organizations would be banned.
The university is being ridiculous.
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
CENSORSHIP?!? CENSORSHIP?!?! DID I READ IT RIGHT?!?
I don't care for what lawyers say. AFAIK this is sensorship. Somebody will say that this is about national security, others will say that this is war. IT DOESN'T MATTER!.
Take a look! You have a website and linked it to another site argueing that you agree with some points that are defendend in that site (this is exactly what happened). Then comes somebody else and tells you that you must remove the link, and stop saying that you agree with them, or else you'll be arrested by breaking a federal law!
Just for your information almost every dictatorships bases it powers in repressive laws, and most of the appeals to the so called "national security" to do the most horrible violences against the people. Think, where are the USA going to?
I don't know about you, I don't care about laywers, but IMHO this censorship, and shows everybody where the stupidity of some polititians can lead us.
You can do nothing and you can protest. I propouse that we all add a link to FARC in our homepages, in protest to this stupid law! I'll do it (although this is not a crime around here).
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
> 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.
Thus the snip by way of warning from our German friend.
How about the CIA's site, The School Of The Americas, the USAF (creating deliberate firestorms in Dresden during WWII) and anything covering exploding cigars in cuba?
Oh, yeah, it's only terrorism when it doesn't suit the US. As Churchill said, the victors get to write the history books.
Note: I am not anti-American. I'm hugely for what America is supposed to stand for. It's just a shame its leaders aren't.
The 5th is long gone-- it protects against seizure of property, which can be taken at will if it's part of the War On Drugs.
...that this came out of California??
"Herbivores eat well cause their food never, ever runs."
Further down the article:
//cutoff//
Last week, (UCSD University Centers Director Gary) Ratcliff sent the Groundwork Books collective a letter saying that its members must write an essay saying they understand they broke the law and would not do it again.
The First Amendment is only a theory.
The First Amendment is only a theory.
The First Amendment is only a theory.
The First Amendment is only a theory.
The First Amendment is
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
I hope Fiji, France, and Finland don't form any Armed Revolutionary Forces :)
I know I'm being overly pedantic here, but the name USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym, and should be capatilized appropriately. It stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"
Anyone else think congress is getting carried away with all these acronyms?
Seriously though, the school most likely didn't even need to name the Patriot Act as their justification for bringing down the site/hyperlinks. All they really had to say is, "It's our servers, our rules. If you don't like it, go somewhere else."
I know this situation all too well. When I was in college a couple years ago, I had a website on the school's webserver that was deemed "inappropriate" and "offensive" by the administration. All the website contained was writings and journals of mine, voicing my opinions and feelings about school, life, administration, and my ex girlfriend (although I never printed her name). No kiddie porn, no terrorist links, no warez.
Out of nowhere, my site was taken offline and my www folder was frozen. It turned out that my ex had stumbled across the site, gotten pissed and told her mom who basically threatened to sue the college (gotta love suburban soccer moms). I got a really ambigious letter in my P.O. box afterwords, pointing to a clause in their TOS saying that since it was the school's webservers they had the right to basically sensor any material they saw fit.
I sympathize with these students, especially since their site has more merit than one complaining about shitty parking services and bad caf food. However, it's UCSD's court, so unfortunately they have toplay by their rules. If the students are adament about voicing their opinions and providing terrorist links, run a web site and host it somewhere else. Just make sure to mention how UCSD censored you, and post a shitload of links back to the admins at UCSD and hopefully /. them into oblivion.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
1. It's not illegal for the university to do this
and
2. It's the university's computer, so what's the big deal?
are missing the point.
The University is committed to the pursuit of knowledge, so they say, and the principle of academic freedom has been articulated by countless a professor and administrator. This principle is meant to protect scholars who often ask uncomfortable questions and also have wildly divergent political opinions from each other.
Anyone with familiarity with UC policy and practice today should be aware that administrators, mostly former private industry researchers and corporate execs in the twilight of their careers, are in charge. Bureaucrats run the public institutions of learning in California, with the aid of federal, military, and corporate funds.
Now before some of you consign the sharing of knowledge to the realm of private space, where only those who own their own server can provide a link to a relevant topic or issue, ask yourself the consequences of your casual dismissal of the principle of academic freedom.
BTW, this was merely a link, akin to having a book in the UC library except, of course, a mere byte or two was used rather than fifty or more dollars that hardcovers go for today.
Secondly, I don't buy the "it's the university's computers" thing. If they want to ban the material, that's ok. Say "linking to sites that supports terrorism is not permitted on UCSD servers", that's fine.
But I'm not into what they're doing, which is saying "look at how the big bad government is restricting your free speech rights! We're just the messengers!" This really seems like a political play by UCSD, which also happens to let them remove some undesirables from their network.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
What did any of you dumbfucks who voted for Bush think was going to happen?? He said during the campaign that there should be limits to free speech. Did you think that fascist fuck wasn't serious? Do you think it will stop here? He wants the President to have unchecked powers to fight the 'War on Terrorism' do you think that is a good idea? He's already linking drugs and terrorism, how long until the war on drugs and the war on terror are one and the same? Then how long will it be until medical marijuana growers are considered 'enemy combatants' and can be held without being charged or given access to an attorney for an unlimited duration? Buying a $10 bag could be considered 'providing material support to terrorists' do we really want that?
Do you like that thought?
If not WAKE-UP AND DO SOMETHING FUCKNUT!!
(if you don't like what I have to say, or don't know what I mean by DO SOMETHING, read my other posts)
The following is just a SIG, but truer than ever today...
If you voted for Nader, THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!!
Oh wait....
They tossed out due process, too.
Let me go buy a gun. At least the 2nd amendment has some legs.
-xbytor
They cited a section of the USA PATRIOT Act that prohibits giving "material support" to known terrorist groups, the definition of which includes "communications equipment".
However, providing a hyperlink to their web site (the same sort of hyperlink which can be found on any search engine) should not, and probably will not, qualify as either communications equipment or any other form of material support.
This is simply another case of California public schools imposing their own political views and their own ideological censorship upon their students. This occurs regularly in that state's public university system. Normally it happens to conservatives, but this time a liberal group has been targeted (and look at how much more press it's getting).
It isn't like the this is a new thing. I've seen an editorial cartoon from WW2 that had FDR calling Stalin on the phone with the words, "Hey Joe, I can't find our Constitution. Mind if we use yours?" It's been a steady decline. If you think the trend will ever reverse iself then you are deluded. The American people enjoy government intervening in their lives. It's really funny to see anyone quibble over the next 1% of government encroachment yet still defend the past 60%. We need the fed "helping" to fund education right? We need this. We need that. But wait, not this. Right....
The problem is that when we read this, we want to say, "Well, duh, the USA Patriot Act was talking about providing material support or means of communication to terrorists; i.e., communication to help them communicate with one another, not about giving them a way to speak to the public". That's the initial reaction.
But the law is so unclear that such an interpretation cannot be supported; nor can an interpretation which says the opposite. The problem with this law is that it is so vague that it can be construed to mean anything by the government.
Thus, this law -- or at least the parts so vague -- should be struck down on principle. Void for vagueness. Laws need to be exactingly clear, so much so that any literate person within a standard deviant of the average IQ could understand what they mean. This law, and quite a few other laws (like the DMCA) are not so clear. Rather, they were intentionally written with this vagueness, so that those writing it would not face criticism for silencing free speech, but yet could later construe the law to mean that we can't link to terrorist sites.
Laws should be constitutionally required to be:
1. Clear to any literate person within a standard deviant of the average IQ.
2. As short as possible. No law should be longer than two 11x8.5 pages of 12pt courrier ith 1-inch margins. People shouldn't have to read through hundreds of pages to find out what a law does.
3. Simply written. No complex or archane language or words should be used in laws; for example, "carnal knowledge". Sentences should be as simple as possible, avoiding all complexity. In short, laws should be written in the equivalent of "street language". They should be written in the same way that we all talk to eachother, with language appropriate to these times; no thous, thees, thys, thine, henceforths, shall, or any other of that Shakespearian British bullshit.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Obviously you are very brave to post something like this...considering you are anonymous. I won't bite on your obvious flame.
If you threw anything in the Harbor today you'd probably go to jail. Doesn't even matter if it's your tea that you throw in.
There are people dying of cancer every day, can you go cure it for us?
No?
Well, please spend every waking minute working on that cure instead, after all, it's a high priority.
But, instead, they gave a bullshit excuse, claiming that the link is against the law. They're trying to dodge responsibility, by claiming that it's something that government is forcing them to do, rather than something they are choosing to do. To me, that gives them the appearance of unethical cowards.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Oh, and it would also have to expel any hypothetical students that silkscreened the website onto a t-shirt as well right?
What about anyone who tells someone else about the site?
On another note, is the "terrorist" site under attack (via the Patriot Act)? If it isn't, then it's rediculous that one could get in trouble for linking to it.
sHi
Fuck the 80's.
Yeah, no shit. If you look at the ad rates on OSDN, they are fairly cheap. Most of the ads are $1000-$2000. MS spends more a day on toilet paper.
With the current group in charge, you can bet that every ammendment in the Bill of Rights, save for the 2nd, is in danger. Might I remind people that such things as the "know your customer" program at banks [and I am certain it is in force now, an unusual deposit takes over 2.5 weeks to go through] was introduced under CLINTON? My uncle, a Naderite, and I, a libertarian, agree on one thing: Gore, Clinton, and Dubiya are carbon copies of each other. Anyhow, the difference between an American liberal and a libertarian is that for an American liberal, it does make a difference who is in control of the abusive government. And before people go off on "yez right-wingers", I will point out that this is also the definition of the difference between a conservative and a libertarian.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I feel it important to counter the flood of posts talking about how the first amendment is irrelevant. First, it's quite obvious that the links are NOT against the Patriot Act. The school probably knows this. The administration is probably doing this to try to make the Act look unconstitutional.
Not being a lawyer, or being extremely familiar with the Patriot Act, I can't state if any parts of it are unconstitutional. The part they quote in the article does not seem to be. It is not in your First Amendment right to plot to overthrow the government or kill people. It's also not your right to materially help people to do so. Obviously, a link is not doing that and I don't think any judge is going to see it that waySo let's keep the topic on hand: Does linking violate the Patriot Act? Is that section of the Patriot Act unconstutitional?
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Let's see if we can reconstruct the chain of events, shall we? The US uses the CIA to overthrow the lawful government of Iran, and installs the Shah. Years later, the Shah is ousted in a coup d'etat and replaced with a regime unfriendly to the US (surprise). The US then uses the CIA to overthrow the lawful government of Iraq and installs the butcher Sodamn Insane. This was done to counter the influence of Iran (that fell because of interventionist policy). Next, the US uses the CIA to train Osama bin Laden and his ilk to fight the commies in Afghanistan. Then Klinton bombs him to wag the dog to avert attention from a certain stained blue dress.
Now, we complain that the enemies that we trained are out to kill the masters who trained them. Pity.
Today's issue with the USA PATRIOT (sic) Act is the fact that it is an implementation of executive authority pursuant to law martial rule of necessity in the face of a Clear and Present Danger. It does not matter that it is decades of American Hegemony and interventionist foreign policy that created the situation (or is it?)
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.
Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
Looked on google and nothing from last month came up. If you know of one please post it.
it was wandering around W's desk and he vetoed it! it was mistaken for your average bill rather than THE bill of right, wright, rights or whatever. history is not W's strong point!
We can't even carry a pair of nail clippers onto an airplane without being called a terrorist. Buying a gun will soon be grounds for a public trial for endangering the public.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
fark seems to have everything about six hours earlier.
The UC system, of which UCSD is a part (UCSD is part of the research triumverate, with Berkeley and UCLA) is a state school. It is also the most highly rated state school in the country, and one of the top universities in the world.
Must be a NorthAmerican revolutionary group. Revolutionary armed forces of Columbia(?)
:)
The FARC (as farc as I know) are from Colombia, the land of Shakira and the Coffee.
The issue of linking is as directly related to the issue of free speach as the freedom of press. Providing a vehicle of communication is the same as freedom of speach, as freedom of speach also includes those who are organised in groupd labeled as terrorists, as you may know, freedom of organising is also one of the fundemental democratic rights. And if you combine the freedom o organise with the principle of equality before the law you can easily see that even members of FARC (as well as the organisation itself is covered by the freedom of speach. And if you go even further and invoke the freedom of press, you will notice that it is perfectly legal to quote anything even if a link is considered to be the same as publishing their materials - that is legal to! What use is there in being allowed to speak if you're not allowed to do it in public? That sort of reminds me about the Chinese freedom of press that allows you to publish anything that the authorities approwe of.
maybe google can have a disclaimer page, where they say the this web search engine is complete except for these following exceptions...
1. xenu.net
2. bill of rights
3. terrorists and revolutionaries, except for ours!...
maybe england will decide to post-empt our revolution. please, work it out peacefully.
BEGIN RANT::
Is it just Me or does this sound like a dark mixture of mindless jingoism and high-school wrist-slapping. It seems to me that the university is saying that any group who even mentions the name of "bad people" (as defined by the State Department). Is guilty of helping those [bad] people do their [bad] things. The only way, under their interpretation of the Patriot act, that one can reference any organization opposed by the State Department is to wrap all references in disclaimers such as: "These people are evil and must die according to the U.S. Government..." And, even then they are not sure that links would be permissible.
This seems to be based upon three (stupid) notions. Firstly that providing a link to someone's website or a reference to them is the same as supplying them with guns. Secondly, that it is the university's job to purge all links to "improper" views from their website and all references to "improper" views from their students' speech. And thirdly, that we are all better off not knowing anything about "bad people" rather than hearing their views and potentially learning what they are all about.
IMHO the first is foolish because providing a link is not the same as sending material resources. True it helps FARC get their word out, but so does saying their name FARC, FARC FARC FARC FARC FARC... any time that I say it someone may go to look up their site and will find their name in the TLD. Do we purge the word from Google too?
IMHO the second runs contrary to the purpose of a university, to educate and advance human knowledge. As the U.S. Government concluded in their study on children and the Internet, simply cutting people off from "bad" things doesn't help them any. All that it does is narrow their view and make them unable to deal with the "bad" things when the time comes to face them. Moreover it encourages people to take an authoritarian viewpoint of "just accepts what you are told" that is incompatible with a democracy where it is our duty to question the government. I bet the university has no problem with them linking to the free-Tibet groups that China considers terrorists. After all, they're ok.
I'm not sure what bothers me more, all that or the fact that they forced the book group to write a public letter apologizing for their views thus opening them up for public abuse. Sounds just like something a High-school principal would do.
RANT OFF
Look up FARC. That is generally the effect of censorship: it makes the object more interesting. If the FARC thought is so powerful that it might corrupt me or cause me to set aside all my critical faculties, I would like to hear all about it.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
So next they will tell the students that Google is in violation of the Jingoism Act if they provide information on how to link to this website? How is this materially different from what the Red Chinese are doing? How is this different from them telling the school library they can't lend books about the FARC because it provides communications to the FARC? And this is an educational institution, an institution with a stake not only in free speech but in the very availability of information.
That the school administration can even conceive of a hyperlink as communications support under the Jingoism Act says something rather profound about the mentality of that administration. It says that they have so little disregard for their own function in society that they would throw away the rights of their students in an attempt to protect themselves from an imagined threat that any court outside of East Asia would toss out in an instant.
A hyperlink is like an index card in a library. It makes the retrieval of information easier. You could just as easily go to the stacks and find the section on South American revolutionary movements. Or ask the librarian where to find it. Do these actions also constitute an attempt to aide the communications of terrorists?
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
...and anyone else that pays taxes.
Why stop here? I mean, why not disable google on every public terminal in every library in the US?
NOTE: I refuse to get into the exact subjects, because that is not the point of my post, nor do I want to start a flame war.
"The more your tighten your grip, the more systems (or states) will slip through your fingers."
Just too bad that there's no Luke Skywalker to return balance to our force of Government.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
This is what is bound to happen when government faces a system of communication created for the purpose of being acessable anywhere, anytime, to anyone, with no chance of ever being stopped. They'll try shutting this and that down, but in the end, unless they outlaw the computer, the internet will never be able to be completely censored.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
It's a student owned and operated computer on the ucsd domain.
Map of Columbia
a ta =Eb5S%2fmvZ6ZzBXOQTc88phZYcnZ4mgi324ElDGK%2bfgBT9F uvwMVUg%2b2vGAycoIIFTfBoTwS7IWTyFa%2bqrn3fvCuzxuzI 8cFIH%2b7LotTXShj62lDwXAwbbLJyfJ8gppe9YyCwgLCO15Aw LaIT7usnb0xLogM7MXk4%2fO3yxAYOdkHfrDJ76eiBSf8vcZKR XRTcthhLU1kTIwcJoZixdY9%2bk51Hiw3x2z7K1yP%2b4vr8IL hFi2lHfaByDzHaQ9%2bsIlrTB%2fVXZjseU5Uh5h8woAJasW7i Jh9g%2fFQLYbD4JnIWj9CY%3d
c tbook/geos/ co.html
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?pan=n&mapd
Map of Colombia (from CIA webpages)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa
It seems the Patriot Act is starting to hit home. Here's how to fix it (unless the freedom to petition the government has been repealed too).
All the need to do is have a different article every day on /. about a different terrorist organization. All us /. faithful will read, link to, and distribute their URL to everyone on earth with a computer, PDA, WAP phone or IP enabled toaster...
CLICK THIS LINK AND WIN A MILLION DOLLARS!
I bet you 9 out of every 10 AOL-heads will click it too...
I'm a former student of UCSD, and a former occasional patron of the Che Cafe.
The primary service provided by the Che Cafe is not sproutburgers or macrobiotic bean chili. No, the primary service provided by the Che Cafe is to be a living example of the effects of bad parenting.
You see, current and future parents, when you do not instill a minimum level of moral values in your child, then send them off to UCSD, they will fall prey to the Che Cafe. Empty heads are their fertile soil, for only in empty heads can the contradictory values of the Che Cafe thrive. They claim to be anarchists, yet named their cafe after Che Guevara, a confirmed totalitarian statist. They claim to be anarchists yet are in favor of participatory democracy and progressive taxation. They are what you get when you cross whiny brats with Bakunin.
Should UCSD force the Che Cafe to remove that particular link? Heck no! They're so much more hilarious when their antics are unfettered.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
..links to FARC are bad... because FARC and other rebels in Columbia are the
only evil people there...
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
is all about?
I mean if a newspaper reports what a terrorist says, are they not "providing a vehicle"?
Seems to me that this is exactly about the First A, which was specifically designed to protect views that the Govt. wants to suppress!
However, the student web site may not be able to fight on legal grounds as they are using the U's webserver, thus dragging the U into a potential fight it doesn't want.
While it would be nice to see the UCSD set a better example of supporting unpopular speech, perhaps it would be better for students to get an offsite web page to put their links on.
And it's mighty fine paper, let me tell you. Mmmm, soft and silky.
And now we have to have a panel of(judges?) that must determine the neutrality of an article before it is legal? In effect, and affect..This is saying that advocacy is illegal. That is Bullshit.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
The word is SPEECH!
It is a very nice post
Hey, if linking is illegal, then providing a domain name (farc-ep.org) is surely also illegal! If they didn't have a domain name, then everyone would have to type their IP address. That's a lot of hassle, so providing the domain name is supportive of that group.
.org domain to the registrar.
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.
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.
I initially misread the title as "That Think is Illegal".
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
American Agenda for FARC: (via the School of the Americas
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...
credo quia absurdum
I find it easy to tell the difference, If they follow the Geneva Convention, then they are to be classified as a military unit. Freedom fighters would not blow up a school, terrorists would, which is in Geneva Convention on human rights. Taking of hostages is outlined in the convention, hostages no, detainees as spies yes. Guess you could bend the rules, but the basic is no murder or torture.
-
Diversity training 101 - all white men are oppressors.
First of all, we let the pig-facedmotherfuckinusedcarandinsurance salesmen enter unto the internet so that they may attempt to dictate their piggish rules to freedom lovers while selling their wares! Then the motherfuckingpoliticianpig-faced mothers followed. What do you expect? This post is NOT a flame!!!! It is an epression of outrage! What do you expect when SUITS take control??????? They should all tighten their ties until they turn as blue as their pig noses!!
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
If anyone would like a good explanation of the implications of the Patriot act, you might want to check out this.
"Me mule wouldn't work in the mud. So I had to put seventeen bullets in 'er!" - Willy
The world's 6th largest (5th is a lie) economy and the most diverse culture base in the US (Perhaps most of the world) is what California is.
This sounds completely hokey and stupid but a lot of my friends jokingly say we should leave the union all the time. The funny thing is if you start up this conversation in public, say a bar, you will be surprised at how many random strangers pipe in and agree. The simple fact is Californians (even transplants) believe that we live in a very seperate place. The mentality that applies in the East Coast isn't even remotely valid out here. We believe in the things we want and we vote that way. We are more outspoken than many other states and we have the resources in both people and financial capital to make them stick. I fully expect there to be some sort of strong public revolt (no violence involved) against many federal laws here in the next 5-10 years. We are quite tired of our voting one way to have our votes thrown away by an out of touch congress and president who seem determined to cling on to the past.
Then again maybe it is just a state full of loud mouthed hippies who do nothing. We shall see.
--- I do not moderate.
If not, could we at least persuade moderators to use "-1 Redundant" on all these things? It's obviously all been done...
If not, could all you "profit!!!" fiends please start combining other old tired jokes? For example:
If not, please find a dirigible covered in aluminum nitrate, OK? If not for you, then for me....
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
A little tidbit of information for those that don't know much about the collective is that the university has been harassing them for years, often illegally. The administration has tried to shut down the Cafe by fabricating evidence for them selling alcohol to minors. They have started building structures in the collective's gardens, etc., not to mention the criminal acts committed against their bretheren at the Groundworks Bookstore (eg. campus police breaking in to steal money, etc.).
Ban this capitalist mothefuckers
USA-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Amen! 90's Eurodance scene is the only way to go.
STCM
A bunch of people seem to be under the impression that UCSD actually owns the machine that burn is hosted on. As far as I know, this is not correct; burn is on a student-hosted machine, but uses the university network for internet access.
Regardless of it being illegal or not, right or wrong..
Its their stuff, so they can turn a student off for any reason they see fit..
Now if this was an OUTSIDE server then there might be an issue..
I agree its scary, and the law violates the 1st amendment.. but that's not the real issue to this story..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
clearly states:
Providing material support to terrorists
(a) Offense. -
Whoever, within the United States, provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or (i), 930(c), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332c, [1] or 2340A of this title or section 46502 of title 49, or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment or an escape from the commission of any such violation, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Definition. -
In this section, the term ''material support or resources'' means currency or other financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.
It seems that UCSD is interpreting "communications equipment" to include web links. UCSD's logic is that someone who visits the Che site will undoubtedly click on the link, thus visiting the "terrorist" site.
This is where UCSD loses its argument: the Che group is not in any way, shape, or form providing any type of "material support or resources" as defined in the federal law.
In short, UCSD is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment and stands to lose a great deal if they pursue this matter.
If I were a member of the Che collective I file a lawsuit in the 9th Circuit. I'm sure the 9th Circuit is chomping at the bit to "clarify" the Patriot Act.
The terrorist site in question contains banner ads and by clicking on the link you are providing material support to this terrost group. I am writing my Congressman in hopes of getting all "Banner Ads" deemed illegal via the Patriot Act. Why all banner ads? Well like handguns, automatic weapons, and switch blade knives, banner ads have been proven to be a weapon terrorists can wield against innocent citizens.
Hey, I can dream can't I?
Bammkkkk
www.sguil.net
The Analyst Console for NSM
Would you care to provide a single shred of evidence to back that up? You're making this stuff up. Public Universities themselves compete with private non-profit and for-profit schools. Student fund-raisers compete with private businesses. Public libraries compete with private libraries, book stores, and publishers. Public roads compete with private toll roads (and have driven virtually all private toll roads out of business). Public transportation competes with private cab companies and auto dealers. Legal Aid competes with private law firms. SE Linux competes with private Linux distros.
Since Universities are not allowed to compete with ISPs, they make things easier to monitor by only allowing their domain name to be pointed at their servers. Hence, no outside domain names are supposed to be pointed at their servers. This prevents cheap grad students from starting a business in their office or cheap undergrads in dorms from starting a server farm.
The public university I attended is a partial owner of a local broadband provider. They have thousands of customers. Before that ISP existed, the school used to function as an ISP itself. Furthermore, the school can not stop someone from registering a .com domain and pointing at the school's servers. I could register pricegougers.com and point it at 160.94.23.13. Such an action would not instantly make the University of Minnesota a law-breaker.
FARC'n iceholes.
Yes -- this is just what we need: aggression against aggression. Because aggression+aggression=peace
Right?
(I'm getting sick of wars on things. Our [failed] "war" on drugs, our "war" on terrorism...your war on aggression...Well, I guess that you are getting closer to a war on wars.)
The Koala is kind of a raunchy publication, and I believe that the administration wants to "silence" the Koala so that the campus looks "cleaner." No matter the reason it is wrong.
A few years ago there was an office mishap between a publication, The Voz Fronterizia, and the student chapter of the ACM (of which I was a member). The ACM was pretty much an innocent bystander in what happened. We filled out an application for office space, and were given the office that the Voz occupied during the previous school year. APPARENTLY, the Voz failed to turn in their paperwork for the office, and thus lost it.
The Voz, on the other hand, claimed that they had turned in their forms by the deadline and that the Administration was trying to get rid of them by denying them an office.
At the time, we (ACM) believed what the administration was telling us. However, recent action by UCSD's administration makes me begin to believe the Voz's side of the story.
The Voz is a fairly out-there publication, with some extreme views. One of its views even seems to be that California is unrightfully "occupied" by the United States, and that the border between the US and Mexico should be demolished. I completely disagree with the publication... but I also completely disagree that there is a need to silence them.
After the office dispute, the University allegedly tried to cut their funding because they published in Spanish. The University has also been trying to get rid of the CheCafe for some time now.
UCSD is trying to maintain a very conservative environment on campus. So it is only natural that they want to "clean up" the campus by getting rid of leftist and anarchist publications.
The administration also often tries to schmooze with big software, technology, and medical companies on a regular basis. Qualcomm, and recently Microsoft, have a pretty big presence on campus.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
But again, we aren't at war. Accordingly, while this post may be a bit redundant, and also keeping in mind all due disclaimers (IANAL), I don't forsee the patriot act being upheld by the supreme court. What I predict will happen is that the US Supreme Court will strike it down, all the proponents of the act will pull a McCarthy on the Supreme Court, and we will go from there.
This sig no verb.
Web site suspected of having terrorist links.
The 6th is definately gone.
There have been hundreds of people around the U.S. who have been detained with no charges and/or prosecuted in private courts. Locally (to University of Michigan) there is one man, Rabih Haddad, who was treated in such a manner. The governement was trying thier hardest to hold a private trial. Luckily, since Ann Arbor, MI is a pretty politically active place there has been quite an uproar about it.
You can find more information on Google.
Not necessarily. Whilst the comments here are generally anti-MS, I'd imagine the vast majority of users just come for the tech news, not the anti-MS invective - just as most users don't come to comment.
/. visitors.
They probably get a pretty fair CTR from
The US is a right-wing (yes, it is!) government or even right-of-center at best. They don't like people too far on either side of them. We are fighting the so-called "Muslim fundamentalists" because they are seen as _too_ right wing but also the US doesn't like anyone who is too far left either.
This isn't about the right to link to a "terrorist" website, there are plenty of nut-job X-tian and "White" (e.g. KKK, Aryan Nations, WCOTC, etc.) websites which are openly hosted in the U.S.
The reason why the government can hate on the Muslims and not the Christians and Jews is because the government is run by Christians (where do all our Presidents come from? It wouldn't be the _Bible Belt_, would it?) who support Israel and the Jews and hate the Musims (yes, even if they are saying they don't mean "mainstream" Muslims).
I'm not supporting the Muslims, the Christians, the Jews, the KKK, or any other right-wing nutjobs (liberal/left religious people are of course excluded from chastizement). But are we fighting the Left or the Right?
So, is the FARC a terrorist organization? Truthfully, I don't know -- I don't live in Columbia. But I know that the U.S. government is a terrorist organization but we can just say "Oops! we thought that civilian building was a [insert AxisOfEvilTM here] building". We can get away with threatening the civilians of other countries.
Only the Communists and Anarchists are working to help the people! Don't trust the government when they say that "we know this is bad for you, don't do this".
So I close this massively too long post with a message from the FARC website [http://www.farc-ep.org/pagina_ingles/; stupid public-access computer, can't get the exact address from the frame, sorry.]
"Although the we are immersed in a process that should lead to democratic peace in Colombia, the state, using the budget, continues strengthening its legal and illegal armed apparatus for spreading terror among the population"
Same to the U.S.!
Peace, Love, Revolution!
Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
By The Associated Press
September 5, 2002
Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:
http://truthout.com/docs_02/09.09C.ap.rights.htm
Cool! So how long until it is illegal to link to the PETA website? After all they fund eco-terrorist groups like SHAC, ALF and ELF. Heck how long until the SHAC, ELF and ALF websites themselves are taken down?
I was at UCSD about 20 years ago, and the Che Cafe was pretty much a joke then. It was full of communist/marxist revolutionary wannabe's who seemed more interested in the revolution part of the "people's struggle" than actually what the people were struggling against.
The Cafe had a mediocre reputation for food back then, though I don't believe it was vegan yet.
I see with the collapse of Communism everywhere (except Cuba, and N. Korea), the Che has moved on to anarchy, terrorists, and worse food. Hard to believe they could slide further downhill, but apparently they did. I am amazed they are still around.
Or how about the fact that the 1st admendment had been getting nerfed even during the Clinton administration. (ie., try seperation of church and state, where a teacher can be fired for praying during a lunch break, or a student suspended for doing the same)
Or how about the fact that a US citizen can only purchase a firearm of comparable power to the government IF he or she waives their 4th admendment rights. That makes the 2nd admendment impotent, and the 4th admendment at risk in one stroke. That happened long before Bush came into office as well.
No, I am not a right-wing conservative, and no, I don't have a thing for Bush. However, I'm getting sick of left-wing FUD slingers placing all blame upon only one political party, when neither Republicans NOR Democrats are spotless when it comes to revoking our rights as citizens.
... that the school can institute whatever policy it wants on free speech and what not so long as the medium for this speech is provided and maintained by school resources?
now, if i am running my own server and my isp says, "do whatever you want" in the contract but then try to say, "no links for you!" i would say that is a violation of free speech. however, i think the school may have some hidden rights in this case.
"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?"
Easy: the Bush administration's ruling (which is *not* a law) prevents the disbursement of federal funds for research using any but approved stem cell lines. California didn't legalize something that was already legal; it provided new funds and support for research that isn't eligible for federal funding.
And the US government is a group that hopes to overthrow the existing government in Iraq. What exactly is the difference that makes them terrorist and us patriots?
The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia is no worse than the KKK's website, or any other radical group.
I mean, when they are working their Wall Street or Investment Banking jobs in NYC in 1-4 years, they'll have a clean hair cut, wear a suit, etc. If the pictures surface, you won't be able to recognize them!
:)
The real joke will be if the picture comes out at a dinner party where they're gathered with their friends critizes the Democrats for blocking an initiative to put down those rebels because they have a mutual fund in their 401K that needs to exploit labor there...
Don't get me wrong, I'm a conservative Republican, I just enjoy laughing at the others that were tree-hugging lefties 3 years ago...
You have to be careful to read the section exactly as it says, so as not to overextend the idea of what it does. The section quoted says that the FBI can demand production of any or all media necessary for an investigation, and the owner of the media isn't allowed to tell any unnecessary parties about the request. In real life, this means that if you had a video of bin Laden, the FBI could demand it, and you can't tell anybody that they demanded it. This section would not, however, prevent you from copying the tape, nor would it prevent you from airing it on TV (if you were a reporter). You can't announce that the FBI has a copy of the tape, but you can announce that you have it, and you can show it. It's the request and knowledge of the investigation that the law is designed to supress, not the evidence itself.
Virg
So it's unpatriotic to exercise ones rights to link wherever you like?
>So they pick linking to a web site the time to obey fed law.
What does this mean? This isn't even a sentence!
Also, as others have pointed out you have a remarkably limited grasp of the stem cell related laws.
Please - take a deep breath, and perhaps a dictionary.
We had a bunch of miscreants at Cornell that were very similar, except they were the college Republicans. Cornell Review was one of the worst papers published on a regular basis at the university, and an embarassment considering the quality of the school.
Nothing like a bunch of kids in college - who lived very comfortably on their parents' money at a state subsidized school - whining about taxes.
Has it occured to anyone that the University administrators might have cracked down on this website just to challenge the Patriot Act?
So what is it? You don't think FARC is a terrorist group or is it that you don't know don't care and simply fall back your impression of Free Speech?
To be proud to be an American. It's just hard to feel good about a country that is so great because it has protected freedoms when those freedoms are slowly being taken away.
When we reach a point where freedom of speach is only limited to something the government agrees with, we have lost what is sacred to us and have become no better then the countries and orginizations we demonize.
The Internet is generally stupid
And the US backed Stalin during WWII, probably worse than all the above mentioned combined.
Q.
moderation is not a way for push your own little agendas.
Privacy
All
To be
Removed
In
Order to be
Tyranical
Not to be confused with patriot, or patriotic.
Please use [ informative / summarizing ] SUBJECT LINES
Flame me here
A problem? Not at all, not with passing laws that contradict federal mandates. After all, that's how federal laws are changed, right? ;) (other states, NV, for instance are also considering the "War on Drugs is a scam, let's legalize pot" -- what happens when all the states in the union give the dumb federal laws the finger? We change the feredal laws!)
Without dissenters, there would be no progress.
I agree that it's disappointing that UCSD didn't go out of its way, as a place of learning and knowledge, to *protect* it's stundents agains bogus and ridiculous federal mandates.
For what it's worth, even what seem consevative institutions, like MIT, has and protects in its staff a vocal anarchist and critic of the US government (Noam Chomsky), who hasn't paid his taxes since sometime in the mid 70s. Then there's also UC Berkeley (who simply had to put up with The Naked Guy, since there were no school rules regarding clothing.) The city itself wasn't happy, but the unversity still protected him.
The UCSD event is disappointing, but at least it's not indicative of universities in general (public or not), nor of their willingless to give up all ideals for fear of not falling in line with Washington DC.
It has only come up seriously in trial once, in a 1982 case. It was ruled that it had been violated, but since the law had not come up in any case in the centuries of its existence, a reasonable person would not know of it, and so by an administrative procedural exemption a bureaucrat cannot be faulted for not taking it into account. Given that only a bureaucrat could choose to violate it, this makes it essentially null and void.
This precedent has only been set for New York State though.
> And if you combine the freedom o organise with the principle of equality before the law you can easily see that even members of FARC (as well as the organisation itself is covered by the freedom of speach.
Why would members of a Colombian group (who are presumably Colombian citizens) be protected by the U.S. Constitution, exactly?
Virg
No, there are no two sides. ...)
Remember fuckhead, US government is not obligated to work in the interest of humanity but in the interest of US.
Simple as that..
Sometimes, supporting one dictator is in our interest, sometimes it is not and we have to take him and his regime out.
Anyway, as far as this sort of politics goes , US is a fucking angel compared to what other , similarly strong countries used to do in the past ( GB, Soviet Union etc
Yeah, sure, It should have opposed Stalin and have him and Hitler form an alliance against US,just to make live more interesting ( since defeating Germans alone was such an easy task.) ...
Some people are so fucking naive it is just scary
Small Faces, Velvet Underground, Sly Stone, The Yardbirds, James Brown, 13th Floor Elevators, Otis Redding, Them, Love and The Byrds. These were threads and currents in the minds, music and presentation of this one-time underground. In 1980, NOT a popular or mainstream trend. The shit couldn't be bought in stores.
Che folks were really cool and helpful with their venue. Let us do all kinds of stuff in the space, for almost no money - even though you can't say that we were really in tune with the particulars of their politics or raison.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Hey, I'm by no means a Gore cheerleader, nor am I denying that the Clinton administration allowed some really crappy things to happen.
However, I do believe that Gore's repeated demands for recounts were justified based on the available evidence I have seen. I also don't see how anyone can deny that the current administration is and has been involved in legal shennanigans and abuse of the constitution on an unprecedented level.
I'm not suggesting that Gore wouldn't have done some of the same things, just that it wouldn't have been as blatant or as extreme. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but it's also less evil, and that's important when it's effectively the only choice you have. (And yes, I would happily vote for a 3rd party candidate if I ever saw one I thought was fit for the job. Since that hasn't happened yet, I vote for the major party candidate I feel will do the least harm.)
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
"And now to our Washington D.C. correspondant, Arnie Pie no longer in the sky. Arnie..."
"Thanks Kent. It is being reported that the CIA has contacted every local, long distance, and international telephone company to request removal of the Columbian international code from the telephone dialing system. Analysts suggest that the ability to call Columbia is now in violation of the USA PATRIOT Act. The USA PATRIOT Act, enacted after the Sept. 11th bombings, forbids supplying any type of material support to terrorist groups, including communications. CIA insiders allege that the terrorist organization FARC resides in Columbia, and that one can easily call Columbia and communicate with FARC. Because of this, communication of any type with Columbia is is now illegal. Back to you Kent."
Article date: August 23, 1998; I find this excerp interesting:
The United States persuaded Sudan to expel bin Laden in 1995. The minister called that move a mistake.
"We gave (U.S. officials) a piece of advice that they never followed. We told them: 'Don't send him out of Sudan because you will lose control over him.' Now, the United States has ended up with war with an invisible enemy," Salah el-Din said.
"It's a public school. And a world-class research institute, at that. A school that gets lots of federal money. That increases their free-speech mandate."
We have account agreements at our public school that limit what types of activities and materials can be viewed on the computers. You can choose to agree or disagree, but those who disagree don't get an account.
The exact wording of one clause of this informal agreement is as follows:
"We also try to be sensitive to the need to maintain a threat free environment in this public place. This means that if you are surfing in an area of the net that has pornographic or offensive images or text and it is visible to other patrons, you will be asked to cease your activity. If you are likely to fall into this type of thing please arrange for home Internet services from a commercial Internet services provider(ISP) and not a public tax supported institution."
May I remind you that this is in an institution of learning, a state college, where those who use the lab are registered students.
It leaves little interpretation for much, but the offensive images or text part could be manipulated to include whatever the lab monitor doesn't agree with (neo-nazi, terrorism, abortion, cloning)
It's a stretch, but possible. How do we get away with it? By making the student agree to it when they set up their account. They've agreed to not access that information.
Personally, I think it's a load of garbage and we all know it. Welcome to issues of the government.
That was a good angle. Thanks! hotmail is a communication vehicle for terrorists. Banned by Patriot Act. HAHAHAH
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
I remember cringing when I heard that on KSL...
A solution to the problem with music today
"I also don't see how anyone can deny that the current administration is and has been involved in legal shennanigans and abuse of the constitution on an unprecedented level.
.. and that would be ? ..
:b in/ texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=kelly25&date=200 20925&query=gore
"
Hmm
Please, I am reasonably smart human being yet I completely fail to see any "abuse" beyond the usual abuse of taxpayers money which will be needed to finance this new huge federal agency
As far as Gore, frankly, you must be living in a different world for I clearly remember one of the most abusive and blatant attempts at subverting established electoral process perpetrated by Gore and his cronies.
As far as Gore being a lesser evil ?
I have a link for you
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-
I can understand the anti-terrorism, pro-patriotism vibe, but I never would have thought that collecting links to offbeat news stories would have been considered terrorism! Maybe it's the amount of time people spend on FARK at work that's caused this reaction...
*whisperwhisperFARCwhisperFARKwhisper*
Er, nevermind.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
the more that is required to be controlled.
That road leads to choas.
Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
I found it! It's right here!
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
So if this stereotype is true why should we listen to unedcuated conservatives?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Any links to PETA (being that they are known contributers to the ELF- Earth Liberation Front) are also illegal, as the ELF is a known terrorist organization?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Why is it that every american I know that tries to spell Colombia ALWAYS spells it with a 'u' ?? Couldn't you at least spent those extra 10 seconds to look it up and know how to spell it correctly?
you can not allow access for students to read a web site of a group that is illegal to be a member of even if it is for educational purposes?
:-p.
that would be like making it illegal to read _mine komf_ (sp?) in Germany.....oh wait
True capitalism = lots of similar companies = jobs for everyone who wants one.
The law is an ass.
It is important to remember the obscene embrace between New York Stock Exchange President Richard Grasso and the FARC chieftains in 1999, the better to understand that the FARC has, as their main allies in their campaign of terror, the international banks, the United Nations, and their mouthpieces. Non-governmental organizations, Newsweek, the Colombian daily El Tiempo, and the UN all sharply criticized Uribe throughout his campaign, for his proposals to return security to Colombia's citizens, including a doubling of the armed forces. Newsweek urged that Uribe be stopped at all costs, issuing a not very subtle threat that the only way to do so would be by an assassin's bullet.
"So they pick linking to a web site the time to obey fed law."
I respect your viewpoint, but I don't think it is fair to attribute this action to "CA." This action was taken by University Centers Director Gary Ratcliff. He may have consulted the opinion of lawers or other University administrators, or not. But ultimately, one guy wrote this letter.
This applies directly to agument made by several other posters here that the computers belong to the university and therefore the university gets to make the rules. The computers don't belong to Gary Ratcliff. Applying any rules or laws inequitabley is a violation of human rights, and a violation of equal protection.
I don't knot FARC from Adam, and IANAL, but "These were sites that were trying to generate sympathy" is not the same as "currency or other financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials."
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
That's why we are lucky that one of our
biggest media conglomerate CanWest Global has
specifically to their employees and all Canadians
what they will and will not carry.
Izzy Asper says that his papers and TV stations will not run any negative stories about Israel
and it will not run any negative personal stories about his good friend, Prime Minister Cretin.
We dont need OUR government to tell us what to think or preview anything; we have our medias to do it for us.
Hell, ALL the medias in this country voluntarily
hushed up a story about a decade ago when our forces fought in the Balkans, their biggest militarily battle since Korea.
Our soldiers fought and killed 30-40 Croatians army regulars after they were caught butchering a village and were honoured later by other countries while we werent told about it because it would have been to explain who the 'good guys' were. (The fact that the Croatian president wrote in a book that the Holocaust was greatly exxagerated and that Jews ran some camp in Croatia during WW2 was also conveniently overlooked by media and Jewish groups.)
No need for governments to do what the media do so well alraedy.
gene
Is not very nice to read things from people who dont have any idea at all about FARC. Let me explain...
:
I'm from Colombia. I came from a middle class family. We have around 44 Millon citizens, under siege by a small group of armed people called themselves "Guerrilla".
They "say": we are fighting for justice (income, wealth...) leftist speech.
Colombia is a democratic country (with problems like any other country), several goverments have tried to reach a state of peace with them. Our economic grow depends on the stability and security to global and local investors.
But... the truth (as we saw it) is
They are atacking poor rural areas.
They are displacing people (by force) to take their farms to grow coca / marihuana / amapola.
They are protecting / making / export coca or heroin.
With the profits, are buying weapons.
With the profits, are buying people (corruption).
They are killing innocent people with terrorist attacks.
They are kidnaping nationals and foreing bussines and middle class people.
We cant go to rural areas... we are afraid...
If they really have any social interests, their procedures or strategic movements would be different...
THEY ARE DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY, OUR BUSSINES, OUR FAMILIES AND LIFES...
I suppose the Gulf War was "inconvenient" for the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians massacred, but what does that have to do with the poster's otherwise insightful comments?
Actually, for Ashcroft & Co., protecting gun rights is more important than fighting terrorists; Ashcroft wouldn't even allow law enforcement to check whether the 9-11 hijackers had purchased weapons; check it out.
Do you have a cite? I don't get the reasoning; part of the Bill of Rights is null and void because it hasn't come up before? So what? A f*cking bureaucrat only has to know those amendments that have "come up" recently? They say ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it, and that is true no matter how obscure the law, yet they can ignore the third f*cking amendment to the Constitution because they might not have heard of it???!!! Arrrgh!!!
Sorry, I'm a little crabby today....
You know how happy I would be if our government adhered to the standard you suggest? :)
If we did look at the motives and methods of various organizations in a balanced way, that terrorist label wouldn't get thrown around as easily as it does. If you look at the FARC, for example, they are arguably no worse than the colombian government and the related milita groups. So, if we are going to label one terrorists, why are we labeling the other.
The big problem with throwing around these labels though is that, though they make excellent sound bites, they serve to over-simplify situations. By concealing the inherent complexity of a situation we risk making bad choices. So yes, I agree, let's look at motives (and I would add methods) of those that we would label "terrorists" and try to come up with some standard by which we can judge them.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Look, I support gun ownership too, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've read today (and that's saying a lot; I've spent way too much time on slashdot today). What are you suggesting, that we march up to Ashcroft and wave a .45 in his face and demand our rights back? An armed citizenry is a good thing if it's also an informed citizenry. But, frankly, we have neither, and the informed citizenry is far outgunned by the powers that be. Yes we have to fight for our rights, but until we see tanks rolling down the streets, the right way to fight for our rights is through the legal and political process, as corrupt as it might be. We can challenge the corruption in our political system through legitimate means, not by storming the white house. Our democracy is suffering, to be sure, but it ain't dead yet, and shooting at politicians isn't going to help us in the short term or the long term.
First, it's 'speech'. Not 'speach', not 'spaech', not 'speeach'.
:p
Second, if the college owns the box, the student is owned. Plain and simple. Terms of service! Acceptable use policies!
Third, the Patriot Act. Does it violate the first ammendment? Possibly, but any government that fails to make an attempt at stopping a revolutionary line of thinking is doomed to fall. My only surprise is that the Patriot Act did not come far earlier in the United States.
SMEG (Single Middle Eastern Gunman) seeks same for quiet walks under the moonlight, late night study of Q'uran, and the frantic slaughter of infidels. Share passion and laughter with me as we spend our days butchering Zionists and Crusaders, and our evenings drinking in merriment at our prospective martyrdom. We will get wasted together at the Taliban Tavern where we will drink 19 kamikazes and a flaming Manhattan, washing it all down with a refreshing pitcher of Osama bin Lager.
Caroline Kennedy and Ellen Alderidge have an excellent book on the Bill of Rights explaining how it has played out in the court. That is where I got that case from.
But going out looking on findlaw I come up with this fairly quickly. That gives the name of the case. From that you can do another search that gives many other references, including partial text of the judgement.
grratcliff@ucsd.edu
Is it the fact that this is a link to a site rather than just its URL that makes this allegedly a violation of the Act? I can't seriously see how posting a URL could not be allowed under the 1st Amendment and a link is just and automated copy/paste/go script...
I don't get it. Are these people insane?
I thought the USA was democracy. Explain me what is happening!
does this jackass not realise that UCSD and FARC will be appearing side by side on hundreds of websites, newspapers, et al for days and available in archives forever.
nice move: give more exposure to the terrorist by making the assinine ban in the first place and top it off with associating your university's name and reputation with the very terrorist organization you don't want the club to advertise...
what a twit
= ; ^ ) >
Well, I know what I think about the FARC. They kidnapped my Uncle and held him for ransom, in 1994. Our first ransom offer to get him released was for $40,000. For that, they said, they wouldn't even tell us where they left his body. It's true -- the FARC sells back the corpses of its kidnap victims to families who fail to come up with enough ransom money to get them back alive. You can read about my Uncle by doing a web search on his name, 'Thomas Hargrove'. The best article about him was titled 'Adventures in the Ransom Trade', written by William Prochnau in Vanity Fair. His kidnapping was the (loose) inspiration for the movie 'Proof of Life'. Meg Ryan played my Aunt! Ken McKinney
So its ok for the CIA to fund FARC but it's not ok for a group of students to link to them?
The mind boggles.
I'm a student at UCSD, and I have two things to say:
1) I'm glad this happened.
2) I'm not surprised.
The first is because, as some others have pointed out, The Che Cafe is a filthy hole. They serve crappy food, have horrible people working there, and their building is a massive eyesore. Anything to bring attention to the fact that they exist and are doing such stuff should be brought to the forefront. Now, I don't think that blocking their hyperlinks are within the letter of the law, and I don't think that should stand. I'm sure it won't. At least, however, it will shed some light to the student body as to what exactly goes on in that mysterious wacky shack on campus loop. Most people ignore it and don't care, and those who stop by don't go back again.
The second is because the UC Regents and staff are really notorious for such things. UC San Diego is not UC Berkeley (aka hippy central) or UC Santa Barbara (party school) and they like to remind people of that *constantly*. Especially since we're now ranked like 7th in the nation by US News and World Report, I only expect more of this "bad image suppression" coming into play.
One of my roommates used to be on the committee that met with the Regents, and one of them is quoted as saying: "We need to start getting more athletes in here. We don't want people to think this is a school full of nerds."
Too late, man. Too late.
Let's look at that language again:
." does it. I say "no person" means "no person" and if a reporter discloses an investigation he's subject to this clause and has to rely on the First Amendment to over-ride it.
"No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."
It doesn't say "No person subject to an order under this section shall disclose . .
It's not over-interpretation that's the problem.
It's over-broad legislation.
Dude, it's so awesomely underground it's not available in any store! Order now!
We'll always be free to say anything we want.
There will also be plenty of free time to do so after getting expelled, fired, blacklisted, and sued into poverty.
I've noticed that news stations have been bandying about the question "Is torture an acceptable form of interrogation if the person under questioning is a terrorist and lives may be at stake?"
At some point shortly after Bush leaves office, it is likely that it will be revealed that Bush not only had knowledge of, but authorized the use of torture on many of the Afghani POWs. That's why the detainment camp is off-shore.
The U.S. is going down the toilet, and that smirking chimp and his baboons (Bush and his followers) just keep flushing.
It's spelt correctly on the site you pulled it off.
Homer's Advice: Never swallow anything bigger than your fist!
Be sure to post with your handle so the agents know who to watch/develop dossiers on.
I'm sure the neo-leftist trolls would also defend and free convicted terrorist Berenson.
Hey, now there's a cause!
Left or right sentiment aside, if or not the FARC is a terrorist organization is of little interest to me. My mother was kidnapped by this friendly group of crooks in the mid 1990s. The rescue cost our family enough to bancrupt the company my father at build up over 30 years, leaving 500 employees without work. Yes, the money probably was spent on the right things by the FARC, like better schools or drinking water for the poor, an not on more landmines and weapons (this is sarcasm if it has not been clear). I don't like Colombian (with an o instead of u) politics, I don't like right wing paramilitaries, actually I don't like anyone telling me what I _have_ to think or do (I think /.ers are like me). The FARC is leading a more than 30 year battle agains a country of pretty good people (I count myself in) who lead one of the oldes Democracies in the World. As part of this I'd like to say, leave the links alive. Let everyone see, and understand what the FARC wants to do, and then compare it with what they realy do. Everyone should have the chance of drawing their onw conclusions. I have drawn mine: I can't live in Colombia anymore.
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges
:,-(
And....
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot...(hey....to the Tory/Loyalists, we American colonists were terrorists back in the 18th century)
Just imagine what would happen if it was a site on Berkeley's server that the school wanted to take off.
Either way, since its conception I saw the Patriot Act as the most unpatriotic act ever (even more than Communism in some extent) mainly because it throws the Constitution that many patriotic Americans fought for, including my dad in the dumps. And as far as I'm concerned, as long as this continues, the terrorists pretty much won if their intent was to make us change our values.
America, the land of content censoring.
It seems the terrorists are actually winning every day... still.
-sigh-
Where has gone the famous american "freedom of speech" ??? ... please, US, keep it home !
Is that the US version of Democracy ???
If Bush is (as HE says) the Democracy Defender
Just remember, you need a rifle with FMJ or AP ammo to make clean penetration thorough most personnel armours. Forget pistols, revolvers and shotguns, those won't do.
I think 600,000 dead Iraqi children might argue against that point...
We have all done evil shit. The problem is that the US is doing it right now. You can't change the past, but you can influence the future.
Female Prison Rape in NY
You: Well, one day the Feds show up at my door and have a warrant to search the place. I didn't have any problem with this, and they found what they were looking for. They left immediately afterward thanking me for my cooperation.
Inmate: So how did you end up here?
You: I told someone about it.
Inmate: That's it? What'd you say?
You: Exactly what I just told you.
Inmate: Geeze, if you don't want to say what you did, just say so...
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
> t doesn't say "No person subject to an order under this section shall disclose . . ." does it. I say "no person" means "no person" and if a reporter discloses an investigation he's subject to this clause and has to rely on the First Amendment to over-ride it.
You're right, but your statement is irrelevant to the point. We're not discussing the investigation, we're discussing the thing. For example, I have a tape of bin Laden's latest speech. The FBI demands that I produce it. I run a copy and give it to them. Now, the PATRIOT Act states that I'm forbidden to tell anybody that they asked for the tape, or that they have it. The Act says nothing about what I do with the tape. I can say, "look, I have a tape of bin Laden, and here it is for your viewing pleasure" and as long as I don't tell anyone that the FBI asked for or has it, the Act does not forbid my broadcasting it.
So, yes, overinterpretation is the problem, at least for you.
Virg
If you wish to get technical, then you'll have to argue the other side of the issue. The Constitution is expressly restrictive in nature about non-declared issues. That is, the Constitution does not need to allow for something, it needs to forbid something before that something is considered unconstitutional. Restricting the speech of non-Americans is not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, so it's allowed until a law or Amendment forbids it. Your approach in this case would have to be that the U.S. government is interfering with the rights of U.S. citizens to receive this information, if you wanted to fight on Constitutional grounds.
Virg
I got a chuckle from this, but there's one nit to pick. I would have had to tell that someone what the warrant was for to get into hot water. Saying that the Feds showed up (without commenting on the object of the search) is not by itself sufficient to get nailed.
Virg
After reading this board I have come to the conclusion that you are all terrorists and should be included under the terms of the act.
> The Constitution grants powers to the government, and it's both assumed throughout and stated explicitly in the Tenth Amendment that the federal government doesn't have any power that hasn't been granted in the Constitution. If it's not permitted to the government, it's denied.
I have to argue that my original point is not wrong in the context addressed. The Tenth Amendment doesn't really apply here, since that Amendment is designed to ensure that the federal government doesn't usurp the rights of any state government or citizen, but it doesn't apply outside the sovereignty of the U.S. as a whole, since none of the Constitution applies to non-citizens living outside of U.S. territory (only treaties with the countries where the people discussed live or claim citizenship can do that). Your comment uses "government" and "federal government" interchangeably, but that's invalid here. Therefore, statements by FARC members who are Colombian citizens living in Colombia are not affected for better or worse by the U.S. Constitution in any way, and it's not a violation of any Constitutional right (in a legal sense, at least) if the U.S. government restricts it, since the U.S. Constitution cannot grant rights to Colombian citizens.
> In addition, the wording of the First Amendment says nothing whatsoever about citizenship.
Again, that doesn't matter. You must remember that laws passed by congress do not hold any sway outside the U.S. and in reverse, congress can indeed pass laws that restrict speech outside the U.S. with the caveat that it cannot restrict the speech (in a "both directions" sense) of U.S. citizens. The distinction of citizenship is defined by the sovereignty of the U.S., not by the Constitution.
The thing you keep failing to address is simple. U.S. laws and the Constitution apply only to U.S. citizens/nationals and those residing on U.S. soil. Colombians living in Colombia do not have to abide by the Constitution, but they are also not afforded any legal protection by it.
Virg
> > You must remember that laws passed by congress do not hold any sway outside the U.S. and in reverse, congress can indeed pass laws that restrict speech outside the U.S
> Huh? Because they don't have the power to pass laws that affect other citizens of countries, they have the power to pass laws that affect citizens of other countries?
Confusing interpretation. What my statement says is that the U.S. Constitution protects the rights only of U.S. citizens/nationals, and therefore non-citizens cannot apply to it to protect their rights, except when they're within the jurisdiction of the U.S. itself.
> The federal government has only the powers granted by the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant rights to citizens. We have those rights anyway as humans, and ALL humans have those rights.
What a nice thought, but there's one important part of this left out. Without the force of law, the concept of human rights has no meaning. If you think it does, you should have a chat with someone living in China, or perhaps better in Tibet. Or try talking to a Kurd, or a Chechnyan, or someone who used to live in the U.S.S.R. for more insight. The Constitution does indeed grant rights to the citizenry of the U.S., by adding the force of law to the protection of those rights. It does not add that force of law to the protection of the rights of non-nationals outside the U.S..
> The Supreme Court has ruled that there are cases where an exemption to this exists (incitement to riot, for example), but these exemptions are very limited and, quite simply, don't apply just because Ashcroft wants to claim that someone is a terrorist.
I think the word you want here is "shouldn't", because according to the way certain laws now read, the exemptions do apply to someone that Ashcroft says is a terrorist, and I'm in 100% agreement with you that that's a really, REALLY, REALLY bad thing. Still, in this case, at this time, the law does indeed apply, which sends me back to the statement I made earlier that the only legal approach to this case would be to attack the Constitutionality of preventing U.S. citizens access to the information, as opposed to trying to apply Constitutional protection to FARC members themselves.
Virg