Slashdot Mirror
Bill Could Restrict Freedom of the Press
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "The Washington Post is carrying an article about a disturbing Senate bill that could make it illegal to publicly disclose even the existence of US domestic spying programs (i.e. NSA wiretaps)." An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters, but the language is ambiguous at best. From the article: "Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified. 'The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,' said Martin, a civil liberties advocate."
So what is all this "Land of the free" I keep hearing about?
Welcome to the Soviet States of America! All your free speech are belong to us!
Your's kindly,
George W. Bush
While not perfect, the media is a crucial factor in the check and balances system. Once the media is supressed, branches of the government have free reign. -- Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/
An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters
And the patriot act wasn't aimed at drug enforcement, but that certainly didn't stop it for being used for exactly that purpose.
...that makes it illegal to make bills like this illegal one because they are trying to legalize the concealment of illegal activities.
Orwell, eat your heart out!
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Or they could arrest people, hold them in jail for a while, charge them, and then before the courts can make a decision, drop charges and let them go with stern warnings.
That way, the courts don't get a chance to shut them down since they have to have a real dispute, but the administration can use it to silence opponents.
Six or seven years ago, if I were able to read today's headlines, maybe I'd think that a Coup d'etat had occurred in the states.
I will confess my initial reaction was pure shock and horror, however the worst case scenarios pictured in both the article and slashdotters' heads don't seem likely. It's a clear violation of the first amendment right to free speech to abridge political speech, and NO supreme court, conservative or liberal, would interpret otherwise. I will say, I'm shocked at how Republicans in Congress are pandering to this administration's bizarre and invasive agenda.
MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
...think "Gates" when they read the title? :P
Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
Citizen: There is no need to exercise your 2nd amendment rights!
Just like with your 2nd amendment rights...you may now exercise your 1st amendment right to free speech after the requisite 3-day waiting period from the day you file your application to speak freely.
Don't forget to bring a valid national identification card. Your application for free speech will not be processed without valid ID.
We just want to make sure you have a reasonable cooling off period and won't say anything dangerous to society. We'd also like to make sure that you've had no prior convictions related to saying anything dangerous before granting you permission to speak freely.
We have preserved your rights. Now move along before I arrest you.
Even if Media is excluded from the language of the bill, it will still have negative consequences. Primarily, I wonder how it could not stiffle or discourage whistle blowing, if said whistleblower feared running afowl of this new law. Leaks are often bad, but they are often important---otherwise the public would have no knowledge of bad policy. I would doubt, with all the trouble the patriot act had passing, that this would pass as well. Unfortunately, though, the past 20 years we've relied more and more on the courts to protect our freedoms. I wish it didn't come to that, because sometimes they mess up too (imminent domain anyone?
But anybody who tells them about the illegal spy program is going to end up in jail -- and the reporter will end up in jail on contempt of court charges for not ratting out his/her informant.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
...It is a threat to America!
In Soviet America, Domestic Spying Programs expose YOU!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Most of them voted to renew the Patriot Act, and for a minute there I thought there was hope they'd make a big enough stink to get a few Republicans to disobey their leaders.
If George wants this one, it'll pass too, probably with half of the Democrats voting for it.
Doesn't the last 5 years seem almost surreal? WTF happened to our country?
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Or they could arrest people, hold them in jail for a while, charge them, and then before the courts can make a decision, drop charges and let them go with stern warnings. That way, the courts don't get a chance to shut them down since they have to have a real dispute, but the administration can use it to silence opponents.
Note to self: never vote for this guy.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
"i.e." stands for "id est" and means "that is [to say]".
"e.g." stands for "exempli gratia" and means "for example".
The article summary should have used e.g. instead of i.e. I see this mistake all the time and it irritates me.
What always shocks me about Americans is that they think that all their problems will be solved by voting for the other party next time. When are you people going to realize that both parties are playing for the same team?
For those who don't believe me, I want you to try something for me. Wait until the Democrats get into power and for the post-election BS to wear off. I'll bet you a soda that they'll be pushing the same sorts of laws for the same sorts of reasons.
All the rest are cowering sycophants who place politics far, far ahead of principles. They may twist in the wind for all that I care, and for all that they care about their constituent's liberties.
Feingold, however, is the Eliot Spitzer of the halls of Congress. The guy should run for Emperor, errr Potentate, errr... what's Bush's title today?
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters
And the Patriot Act is only used against terrorists.
First, this proposed law will get shot pretty much instantly by the courts should it pass the senate (which it wont). This proposed law pretty much pisses on the first amendment, something that should be clear to senate, and something that is certainly clear to the courts. I really am not the least bit worried.
That said, I think that this law inspires me to want a law of my own. Let's call my new law the "three strikes, now stop fucking with the constitution" law. Any congressman that votes for three laws that are later over turned on the grounds of it being unconstitutional should have their seat revoked for their absolute and utter incompetence in upholding the constitution of the United States.
These worthless fuckers have sworn an oath to the constitution, and it really fucking pisses me off when they promptly turn around and drop one of these shit for laws. Not only does it piss me off that they are so incompetent as to not see the clear violation of the constitution that they are proposing, but it also pisses me off that my tax money has to be pissed away overturning these steaming piles of shit.
Would a "three strikes, now STFU and stop messing with the constitution law" be great? Sure. It won't happen, so let's do the next best thing. STOP VOTING FOR THESE DUMB FUCKER. I am not sure who to be more pissed off at, the spineless incompetent politicians that seem to think that upholding the constitution is optional, or the worthless and lazy voters that blindly support their parties candidate and vote for these dumb fucker.
Bah. This crap will be shot down. Thankfully, the court system still mostly works and takes its responsibility to the constitution seriously. It still pisses me off though that it even needs to go that far.
I'm sure I'm butchering this, but the response goes something like:
... BUT, when the pen is taken away, the sword is our only hope of getting it back.
the pen is mightier than the sword
I'm not a gun nut, but this makes some sense to me. OTOH, I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc. I guess if you'd really rather be dead than have your freedom taken away, though, go for it.
No, the bar against ex post facto laws is in Article I, Section 9. The 9th Amendment is the one that says that the enumeration of rights shall not be construed to mean that unenumerated rights don't exist.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The president shouldn't have anything to worry about if he's innocent, so there's no need for this law.
So either the "innocent people have nothing to fear" argument is flawed for the surveillance program, or the US president is far from innocent...
The reason why you let the citizens of a nation arm themselves isn't so that you can shoot politicians when they piss you off (no matter how appealing that might sound at times). The reason why you let citizens arm themselves is two fold.
First, bad guys will arm themselves like it not. Making arms illegal hampers their ability to arm, but they will always find their ways. Honest citizens who do not break the law on the other hand, and so when firearms are made illegal it leaves the criminals armed and the honest citizens unarmed. This is hardly an ideal state of affairs.
Second, allowing your citizenry to arm prevents the police from holding a monopoly on force. A citizen should not have to wait for the police to show up to save them if a criminal is breaking into their house or threatening to harm them. A citizen should have the means to defend themselves, and the truth is that a firearm is pretty much it when it comes to self defense. Only a gun is going to allow a 100 pound woman be able to fight off a 200 pound man. Certainly not all citizens will choose to arm themselves, and this is of course fine, but if someone feels that their life is in danger and they do not trust the police protect them, they should have the option of defending themselves. Banning firearms is in affect telling your citizens that they can not defend themselves against criminals in any other manner then waiting for the police to show up.
As far as revolution and the like, an armed citizenry is a populace that can inspire a little fear in politicians. In this day and age that means almost nothing because, as much as we like to bitch, our government is pretty evenhanded and fair. Most people have the things that they need to survive (and then some) and the thought of 'revolution' in the violent sense of the word is about as far from anyone's mind as you can imagine. We still have plenty of political options sitting around that we have yet to use to change things if we really want to. When the constitution was being framed this really was not true. The threat of an outside force conquering the country or even an internal force mucking things up was real. It certainly could be a real threat again in the not-so-foreseeable future.
I consider the need for revolution remote and really don't weight it much in the gun issue. The simple right to self defense is a far more important issue to me then the need for the tools of an unlikely revolution. But, as the grand parent poster pointed out in his own lovable red neck NRA fan way, it isn't a bad thing to keep a few guns around... just in case.
Are you sure? Just a minute, I gotta check this...
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Come to think of it, outsourcing a government to India is not such a bad idea.
Signature has left the building.
You see, not only is this the "land of the free", much to the surprise and horror of tyrants everywhere, it is also "land of the lawyers and civil societies" who love nothing more then a good old fashion 1st amendment smack down.
This law will not make it out of committee.
This law will not make it through the House.
This law will make it to the president's desk.
Should this law actually somehow become law, it absolutely will contested and struck down by the courts.
It is convenient for people to have you think that the press is free, because it is convenient for you to be suitably mislead.
The press is being lead around by the nose. Remember folks that these days the press (and other reporting media) are not primary there to bring you the truth. They are there to provide infotainment to piull in the advertising revenue etc. Need nice snappy "news" to compete against all those other things trying to get a slice of your time. So what happens? Reporters that don't play the game soon get blacklisted. Nothing openly stated. Just a few extra minutes delay in returning your call (so your story gets scooped) or instead of being embedded with frontline troops giving scenic footage of night rocket attacks you get embedded in the crew washing trucks down at the transport park (makes for real high viewer rating footage!).
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The US is just a mirror image of the middle east. Opposite sides of the world, both heavily driven by a religion, both despise each other.
There are a few differences in capabilities. The US has high-tech weapons, whereas the middle-east has oil.
Then... 2004. Having been lumbered with that idiot for a president, with his cabal of fascist hangers-on pulling the strings, and having seen the horrors they perpetrated together on America, and on America's global standing, and on the world in general, what did the American people do?
They voted him in. For real this time. No question about it, Bush won that election. They looked at the record of Bush's first term and said 'Yes. This is what we want from our Presidents. We like Bush and approve of what he has done, and want four more years of the same.'
At which point you can't blame a corrupt fascist takeover. The fascists sneaked into office via a very dodgy election, but you had the chance to get them out. But you endorsed them and voted them in again with an authentic mandate.
It's your own stupid fault now. And the world knows it. What America does now, the ordinary American people can be directly and personally blamed for.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Wait a minute...
We're being invaded? If so, where are the front lines? I'll be going there right after I go to the gun store to arm myself. Surely there are volunteer units being formed, and they may not have enough extra guns/ammo for everyone.
What's that you say? The front lines are in another country? And it doesn't border us, nor does it have the capability to project an invasion force (or, indeed, any military force at all) to this side of the world? And we already destroyed its military anyway? So, all these threats to our nation are of a criminal rather than a military nature?
Huh. When you said that the President has special powers in time of invasion, I thought you mean when we're being invaded, or at least when an enemy of ours is doing some kind of invading. I had no idea that this applies when our side is the only one invading other countries. How strange.
OTOH, I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc.
You forget that the military personnel have all taken an oath to defend the US Constitution. If ordered to fire on American civilians, many of them will refuse.
I guess you don't remember the ruckus that was raised when the Clinton administration gave a survey to Marines asking if they'd be willing to fire upon American civilians in order to enforce gun control laws. Long story short, 75% of them said no. It's kind of alarming that 25% said yes.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc
Take a look at Iraq. It seems that, if they really want it, the handful of civilians have a reasonable chance.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
civilian = not in army. includes terrorists.
if the US were invaded, the civilians fighting against the occupiers would be terrorists. they would organise and form networks, if that's your distinguishing point.
causing pain is always wrong.
And in the Middle East they have plenty of people who are willing - and indeed eager - to die for what they believe in. In the US they have people who are willing - and indeed eager - to give up everything they believe in to avoid the risk of dying.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
"1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are mani
>Most of the people causing the trouble down there are trained terrorists,
Actually most of the people causing trouble are ex-military, disenfranchised civilians and those who have lost out on the regime change to the point where it is better to fight. TBH actual terrorists like AQ would make a small percentage of that.
>The civilians are the ones getting stuffed by a war they didn't want
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
Its a good read. Would like to see an update on it though.
You have obviously never been to a "free speech zone" in the US then or tried to protest outside of this zone, or just walk in the general area of said zone and not have any ID on you but be profiled as a trouble maker.
"military personnel have all taken an oath to defend the US Constitution"
So did the President.
Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
They'll use the ol' copyright trick. Keep extending the deadline each time it's about to expire. But it always has a limit yes? See, temporary. See also the PATRIOT act.
You cannot restrict public financing to three or any other number of "qualified" candidates - that is how they keep a lid on the candidates in Iran. Everyone that comes forward must be funded equally, or it is discriminatory. Can you imagine how it would be if three white candidates were funded and a black candidate got nothing or even just less?
A requirement that they show up with some evidence that they stand some chance of getting elected can also be discriminatory - look at what happened to the petition signing for Nader. He was kept off ballots because of petitions that were disqualified, thus again restricting the pool of candidates.
The candidate is going to give up at least a year of any sort of employment to run for election. Lately, in the US it has become almost a two-year commitment. To prevent this from being a "you gotta be rich" sort of thing, the funding for candidates have to include a healty stipend for their support and for their families.
So, why can we not have 1,000 candidates for mayor for a city, each receiving a fully-funded free ride for a couple of years? How long will it take before every citizen in the US understands all they need to do is run for every office possible (think 25,000,000 candidates for president) so as to be fully supported by the Federal Election Commission?
Come on, is that where you really want to go? Or is it that you think it would be better if the candidates were narrowed to just a few "qualified" candidates selected by the incumbents?
Guerilla warfare. It's for that exact situation: Your enemy has superior firepower, but he can't distinguish between you and random civilians, so sooner or later he will start sending out death squads, which will drive more people towards you, making life even harder for him. Things like keeping the enemy troops under constant attack and boobytrapping dead enemy soldiers work to your advantage, as well. Sooner or later the enemy soldiers desert or develop stress disorders.
It is possible to defeat an army with only a handful of people. It's extremely messy but possible.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)