Slashdot Mirror
Bill Would Bar US Companies From Net Censorship
Meredith writes "A bill that would penalize companies for assisting repressive regimes in censoring the Internet may finally be headed to a vote. The Global Online Freedom Act 'would not only prevent companies like Yahoo from giving up the goods to totalitarian regimes, but would also prohibit US-based Internet companies from blocking online content from US government or government-financed web sites in other countries.' Unfortunately, there's also a giant loophole: the president would be allowed to waive the provisions of the Act for national security purposes."
"Our pot is so black none of the kettles should be expected to listen."
This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on slashdot. I guess I forgot about America's recent government mandated bread-lines. Our inability to cross state-lines without proper documentation. Our inability to leave our country to go abroad. The undercover agents that follow foreign nationals within our country all day, everyday. Our mandatory weekly propaganda indoctrination. Our ultrapatriotic school systems which allow reading only of books written by American authors, on patriotic and government sanctioned topics. Our inability to practice religion freely because of government closure of churches. The mass killing of intellectuals that disagree with our current and eternal glorious regime. Our government's suspension of our right to vote, electoral year after electoral year. Our presidents that are in office for 30 years at a time. The fact that not a single newspaper exists that is not wholly government controlled. The fact that we have only one channel which plays only government approved television. Our single radio station which produces an endless stream of mind-numbing propaganda. I could go on but I think the thought-police internet division is about to rape my family after burning my house down.
You're right, our kettle is the BLACKEST. Too bad our country is so oppressive you aren't allowed to leave, maybe you'll find a way to smuggle yourself out, you spoiled perspective-less ignorant jackass.
There is of course the "except for" provision (as was mentioned in the article). If you want to stop censorship you should first start in your own (Westernized) country(s). I'm thinking about book bannings, 'hate' laws, and 'pornography' laws which seem to be common place, amongst others. Of course if there is an "except for" provision it only means that you want freedom of thought for everything "except for" those things that you disagree with. This is where the hypocrisy comes in. It's a worthless and toothless law (just because of the "except for" provision). If law makers would be honest they would say that they whole heartedly support censorship except for their own moral, personal and political beliefs. It's much the same as the US stating that they would except international war crimes tribunals only if they were exempt from such tribunals (ref [et al]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/12/warcrimes.iantraynor). The US and its hypocrisy is the laughing stock of the world. Unless they can 'talk the talk, and walk the walk' then they should shut the fuck up.
The hate and pornography aspect covers just about everything (I remember Kodak saying they destroyed a lot of film sent to their labs by soldiers during the Vietnam war because they considered killing to be 'pornography'). So while US politicians often get elected for the tough stance on 'crime', they think other countries who get tough on 'crime' is bad. Stupid is as stupid does someone once said.
From the article: the Act would require companies to disclose to the newly-created Office of Global Internet Freedom the terms that they do filter, and for the Office to continually monitor these filtered terms. If this was an anti-censorship law then any countries or companies providing filters should be punished. This does not seem to be the case. Filters are OK as long as the US agrees with what is being filtered. More specifically, the US wants Chinese pro-democracy (one could assume pro-US policy) information to be freely available, and more specifically they want anti-'pro-US policy' filters made illegal. Good luck
From the article: "legitimate law enforcement" is extremely vague, and is left up to the US Department of Justice to decided on a case-by-case basis. So in other words, if you are Arabic or there-abouts (I'm using cynical language here) the US would not mind for 'legitimate law enforcement' to do its thing with people the US doesn't like.
Oh, and I just finished reading the end-game of the article: Secondly, you guessed it--the bill has a convenient exit plan for anyone who tries to apply its rules to the United States. Yep, I'm typing as I read and learning NOTHING knew. Same old same old. Pathetic.