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."
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
They aren't saying "UCSD will not allow this." They are citing Federal law. They interpret the Patriot Act as making that link illegal. That's a direct first amendment issue.
Yes, but I think they are interpreting it wrong. The article says the following about the Patriot Act:
The law in question is one section of the USA Patriot Act, signed by President George W. Bush last October, which outlaws providing "material support or resources" to foreign terrorists who have been placed on a State Department list. Material support is defined as money, lodging, training or "communications equipment."
Since they simply link to the website, and aren't (that I'm aware of) providing any kind of support or resources to that group, they should be fine to keep the link up.
Although I gather through the article that UCSD really just doesn't want to even have the CHANCE of violating the Patriot Act, since they would largely be responsible for dealing with the legal repercussions from it. I understand that, but I still don't think they have the right to remove the link from the student group's website.
Mark
I believe that you are missing the point. The fact is that the Patriot Act is in direct violation of the First Amendment. The college is being forced to stifle free speeach in order to comply with the law. So yes, whether or not you agree with the Patriot Act IS relevent, and the issue IS free speech. So, while you "cannot question the University's right to attempt to stay compliant with existing laws", you can question whether the law should exist in the first place.
In SF where a woman was killed in the hallway exiting her apartment, BY A DOG that was on a leash, there is now (today) a proposal to make ALL parks in SF off leash areas for owners of dogs. These are parks where almost all have signs now that say that they are NOT off leash areas. People do not obey the signs now, and kids have been bitten by dogs off leash. The law would be if you can control your dog by voice. How vague is that? What about health codes. Dogs urinating and defecating on the fields where children play. Hmm I'd have to wonder if that would spread some new diseases, like discentary.
In CA, gov GD is or has signed a bill that would make stem cell research leagal in CA from ANY source even though this is against the fed gov. Hmm how does that one work?
In CA there are places where it is legal to grow pot, even though it is against fed law. So the state says its okay, but the feds will come in and arrest you. So much for state laws.
So they pick linking to a web site the time to obey fed law.
Does any one else see a problem with the way the CA is acting in all these cases?
Personally I am worried about the US being so scared about loosing our freedoms that we let our federal and state goverments take them away from us one by one.
Only 'flamers' flame!
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!!!
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