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 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.
Put your hands up and step away from the mouse... slowly...
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."
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
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
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.
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 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!
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.
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!!!
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
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.
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
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