U.S. Lists Web Sites as Terrorist Organizations

mgcsinc writes "The United States for the first time has placed a web site on the list where it normally places terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, placing several conditions on Americans' interactions with the website. Certainly, few could challenge the latest addition, but how could this ability to effectively squelch internet speech be used by the government with less valid rationale in the future?"

Comments

Yeah

[Sir Haxalot]

Since when a website ever directly killed anyone?

Can anybody figure out what this means?

[mabu]

It seems to me the ability to designate any web site as a terrorist organization, would potentially give the Feds the authority to tap the entire Internet. That's the gist i get from the Patriot Act, not that you can easily figure out what this law actually does...

For example...

I'd love to get my hands on whatever obfusicator our politicans ran on the USA Patriot Act. What a mess:

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.

Trying to figure out the new powers granted the government in the USA Patriot Act involves a ridiculous array of search-and-replace scavenger hunting.

Re:What's Interesting About This Is.

[dougmc]

Yeah, but when you actually read the website you can kind of see why...

Not from that page I can't. I see a bunch of inflamatory, racist drivel -- but last I checked, even racist speech was protected by the First Amendment here in the US. At least in name, anyways.

Re:America died

[AVGVSTVS]

As an American, while I do not disagree with your assertion that what America used to be (land of the free, liberty, limited government) is no more, I would like to know which countries DO respect the rights Americans used to enjoy? Europe is hardly a libertarian dream-world, the mid east certainly is not, nor Asia, Africa, Latin America, pretty much all out. This is a global trend, its simply more noticable in the US because we've fallen so far. So to you I would say, yes, we need to wake up, and so does 94% of the world that hates us, maybe if they focused that energy on hating thier own oppressive puppet governments that hold hands with the "US Fascist Regieme" the world might be a better place to live.

2600??

[dciman]

Just wait....
How long do you think it will be until the MPAA, RIAA, or some other "Big Business" (friend of the Bush family) convinces the honorable John Asscroft that 2600 is a terrorist organization. After all, they talk about security exploits, fun with the phone systems, etc.

If this goes unchallenged, the possibility of abuse against people "not with the team" is almost a definite.

Re:If you read the article....

[practicalista]

Call it a "war on terror" if you like, I'll continue to consider it a "war on freedom".

Which is correct. One thing we have to understand is that with freedom of speech there comes a price.

In order to allow all points of view to be heard we have to accept that terrorists, peodophiles, facists and all the things we despise in society will also use these rights to further their own ends.

In the end if we try to limit the free speech of the most despicable people in society, we actually give government a method to limit everybody's free speech.

It is sad but true. To have our rights we have to accept the downside ...