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. ;-)
Where's the link?
;-) although it would be fun to /. a terrorist group's server.
just kidding
yeahyeah...troll -1
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.
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...
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
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
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."
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
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
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.
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
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
The part of this article that I will rememeber and that annoyed me the most at first glance, was the incorrect spelling of Colombia.
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
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.
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.
Freedom does not occurr in a vacuum. See: Freedom to kill other people and make them Unfree.
.. well .. free lives.
.. for instance, freedom of speech doesn't grant you the freedom to lie on your taxes.)
Any Freedom you enjoy will have ramifications on other people. For that reason, Freedom of Speech does not permit you to run hatemail campaigns. There are instances in which freedom invades the freedom of other people to live
As for Too Much Sex, they have a condition for that: nymphomania. People lose their friends, family, jobs over this stuff.
Every single thing can be overdone, because nothing occurrs in a vacuum. When you overdo one thing, it has implications on the other things you and we need to survive and progress.
So please, don't wrap yourself up in the flag and dream of ideals. I agree that we must work to protect each others freedoms, but the trick is in figuring out when granting people a certain freedom impedes others' freedom more than it benifits those you grant it to.
That being said, if the Patriot Act has these implications, thats crazy. I like the idea of the 1st amendment (so long as it doesn't excuses abusing it, a la hate campaigns or manipulation
"Old man yells at systemd"
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
Thoughtcrimes are double plus ungood.
Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.
Rocky J. Squirrel
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.
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.
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.
With all due respect, the point is that the Patriot Act *MUST* be challanged in court, at least the provisions DIRECTLY in violation fo the First Admendment. This is as good of a time and place as any.
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW....."
Well Congress *DID* , and that needs to get to the courts, the sooner the better.
Not that I would cry if the group of people this linked to in Columbia just disappeared in the night, or got a 5 kiloton enema, but NOTHING is more precious (to me at least) than the right of free speech.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
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.
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.
Too Much Sex != Nymphomania. Too Much is a relative term, nymphomania describes an addiction, not the condition of having too much sex. Oversexed does however, but that's not proof that such a thing exists
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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!?
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.
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 :)
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....
I don't defend any University's right to enforce the law as they interpret it, as law enforcement is clearly the responsibility of government executives, and not any business of University professors or administrators.
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
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.
When all the horrible Constitutional violations keep poping up I want to agree with you, and maybe convince myself that our freedoms will be back.
However, in this case, our freedoms are being taken away in the name of a war that cannot ever be won.
When will these freedoms be returned? When Bin Landen is found? When Sadam is out of power? Never?
I hope with all my heart its in my lifetime.
Scott.
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.
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.
"As for Too Much Sex, they have a condition for that: nymphomania. People lose their friends, family, jobs over this stuff."
The term nymphomania also only refers to women; the masculine term for the same addiction is satyriasis, but it's not used much anymore.
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!!!
That make s sense, mymphs and satyr's and all ;) Wasn't the point of the reply but it is certainly and interesting tangent :)
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
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.
"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?
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
>8th: Cruel and unusual punishment -- such as previous situation
We don't actually administer the cruel and unusual punishment. We just ship people off to places like Israel or Egypt where they can be interrogated (read: tortured) without that pesky constitution getting in the way.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Couldn't find the actual story but here is a letter to the editor of the Butler Eagle refering to the story. The guy who was arrested was named Bill Neel.
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.
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 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.
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.
We just ship people off to places like Israel or Egypt where they can be interrogated
or Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If the US and Castro are such archenemies, why does it have a military base in Cuba?
cpeterso
FARC'n iceholes.
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
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
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 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?
Not that I would cry if the group of people this linked to in Columbia just disappeared in the night, or got a 5 kiloton enema
So, defending the free speach rights of Yankees is more just than summarily executing Columbian Revolutionaries?
interesting perspective...
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.
uh oh. fudgefactor just made the Sea Org's shit list.
If you're talking about Hamas or Hezbollah, or any of the other Palestinian groups, he supports the secular ones, but not the Islamic fundy ones. If that's the case, then most every predominantly Muslim country in the region should also be invaded.
I realize that the mainstream media doesn't seem to make these distinctions, and the administration would prefer if you just took their word for it, but if you scratch the surface, things aren't as black and white as they seem.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
> 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
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.
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.
When I was in public school, I did so myself on numerous occasions, and no one tried to stop me.
As the saying goes, "So long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public schools."
I was right there with you, in a sense, not saying "under God" when that part came around during the Pledge of Allegiance. Nobody ever tried to make me say the words "under God." Though I am still disgusted that I was compelled to pledge my allegiance to a republic which considered me a legal infant unworthy of basic Constitutional protections such as freedom of speech (try distributing "objectionable" flyers on school grounds) and freedom from search (drug-sniffing dogs and random locker inspections.)
It was during my high school years that I decided this country isn't worth dying for. The pay is nice, but I'm not going to go shoot some brown kid for freaking McDonalds and Wal*Mart.
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
I see us traveling down the same dark path now. I know this Santayana quote is almost cliche now but it bears repeating: "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
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!
We don't live in a world where each of us is in a vacuum, therefore one's personal freedoms require balance with other's personal freedoms.
I agree. That's why I'm not (/.'s definition of) a Libertarian. But when talking about this, it is important to have ideas about what is and is not a "freedom" in the sense that one must consider when that action is being prohibited by the exercise of someone else's freedom.
Anybody care to give me a rational, informed thought as to why this should be the way it is (I mean this seriously)?
Fundamentally, it is because you don't have the "right" to make money. You have the right to attempt to make money; i.e. the government is not supposed to deprive you of your livelyhood. But the particular success or failure thereof is immaterial, in so far as your failure is not a result of the violation of -other- rights (meaning those rights that aren't the non-right to make money, if that makes sense). In the equations of one right versus other rights, "making money" doesn't enter into it.
In the case of protesters who impact a store's profits: The protestors are exercising their right to peaceably assemble and to free speech. I must presume here that the protesters were in fact peaceable, and not, for example, physically preventing customers from entering. Customers who choose not to enter the store because of the presence of protestors is not the same. In this case, no rights of the business have been violated. They might see it as unfortunate that protestors have reduced their business, but no one has the right to not experience misfortune.
And lest this seem to be merely the perspective of some anti-corporate or anti-capitalistic type (though I'm the former yet not the latter), there are very pragmatic reasons for this. It is in fact the idea for these people to have the ability, through exercising their first ammendment rights, to impact the business. Protesting, organizing boycotts, publicizing negative speech about a company can all impact a company's finances -- and this is good. It is one of the few ways in which people can impact the behavior of a business. This is one of the checks that we have built into our capitalistic system. The very hope is that the business, seeing its revenue decrease, will attempt to address the protestor's concerns. Similarly, an employee strike hurts a business, but is legal because the hope is that the threat of a strike causes businesses to try to keep their employees happy.
If this was not the case, and "making money" was given equal consideration as "free speech", then how many forms of speech would not be in danger? A bad review of a product may decrease sales if people read it -- is that violating your "right"? Revealing that you employ massive amounts of 3rd world child labor may cause a boycott... Does either action constitute a violation of your "rights"?
Note there are still compromises -- libel and slander laws are there to protect one from being unfairly affected by someone else's speech (if that speech is untrue).
I think overally, it's a very pragmatic system.
The enemies of Democracy are
"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.
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.
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.
America, the land of content censoring.
It seems the terrorists are actually winning every day... still.
-sigh-
Female Prison Rape in NY
I agree that you don't have the right to actually make money. But, and I think you expressed this in your text as well, I do belive one has the right to attempt to make money. Would you agree that this is a right? If so, do you belive that it is less of a right, more of a right, or equal to the right to free speach?
Well, that depends on how you define it. "The right to attempt to profit" is not, per se, what I'm talking about. But if you take the right to own and control private property, and to enter into contracts, and to speak freely, then you have what it takes to attempt to make money. Personally, those rights don't mean as much to me as free speech, but without them free speech is difficult to maintain. Therefore, for the purposes of our discussion, I'll treat them as equal.
Now that I know more about the situation, I can address your concerns better, but hopefully without having to get so specific that the logic wouldn't apply elsewhere.
So we have a situation where the protestors, upset with the government, asked entertainers to not come to the city. I'm presuming they were successfull in convincing the entertainers not to come. I'm presuming they didn't threaten the entertainers (I figure you would have mentioned such a salient point), but presented their complaints and asked them not to come -- in effect, joining their protest.
At this point, I honestly can't see what right of the local business was being violated. An entertainer heard some speech and decided not to come to the city of their own free will. Yes, the arts group lost the business of that entertainer, but the arts group didn't have the "right" to have that business. They had the right to try to aquire the business of the entertainer, but similarly the entertainer has the right to decline. The business's freedom to control their property wasn't violated (the protestors didn't physically prevent the entertainer from using the businesses facilities), nor was their right to enter into contracts (the entertainer simply exercised their right to not enter contracts).
In general, people have the right to speak. People who hear that speech may take an action as a result, and some of those actions may mean less money for some businesses. There is no right being violated here, because those businesses didn't have a "right" to any of that money they didn't get. People who work for that company may lose their job, which sucks, but they didn't have a "right" to have that particular job.
In this specific example, the business certainly can impact their government in ways that a common citizen can't. Local governments care about small, local businesses (at least in as much as appearing to do so is good for their re-elections, but I digress). "Your policies are hurting our business" is a form of free speech that local representatives will at least listen to. Also, could they not have spoke to the entertainers and tried to convince them to come despite the protests? I'll assume they did (they would be fools not to), and failed.
Oh well.
One may not have any sympathy for the businesses themselves, but those businesses employ people who have the right to try and earn a living, and, to me that right is being directly impacted.
How was their attempt to make money impacted? Was their phoneline cut so they could not contact any entertainers? Were their doors blocked so they couldn't hold concerts? Were the entertainers threatened so that they feared to perform in the city? The only thing I see being impacted was their success at making money, something which is not a right.
Yes, I feel sympathy for small businesses and people who lose their jobs. But my sympathy for their plight has no effect on whether I perceive their rights to be violated, and thus on whether I think the protestors should have had their rights reduced.
Perhaps that's what your feeling? That the business losing out in a situation largely out of control seems unfair? I'll agree that it appears somewhat unfair to me. But the entertainers didn't think it was unfair; they chose not to go to that city. Since it was their action that actually deprived the arts group of money, I'll defer to their judgement. That's their right. You can't restrict free speech because of fairness on the supposition that reducing the speech will eliminate the unfair actions.
This is an interesting discussion.
The enemies of Democracy are
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
> 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