Slashdot Mirror
After Columbine, Eric Holder Advocated Internet "Restrictions"
ErikTheRed writes "In an audio clip discovered by NewsBusters, then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder advocated federal censorship of the Internet. This was in the aftermath of the Columbine High School shootings. From the clip: 'The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is gonna be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at.'" Holder is reported to be Barack Obama's choice for Attorney General of the United States.
Once again, who deemed the internet to be appropriate for children?
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
I guess this is what they mean by "Change you can believe in."
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Obama, do not appoint this man!!
I can't think of any feasible government restrictions that would also be reasonable.
People will believe any promise pandered to them during a campaign. Daschle, Clinton, and now Holder? Change, indeed.
Right now, he's probably drafting a proposal to delete all archives of anything from the net too.
Truthiness be damned!
Even if this dude is appointed, he can't unilaterally make law that will censor anything. And even if he pushes for that, the SCOTUS has been heavily against any censorship of the internet for many years, so I would hope they would strike down any such efforts.
All your CHANGE is belong to us....
Welcome to the Obamanation.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Great buzzword.
Since the speaker defines first that restrictions are "reasonable" then, obviously, it's just a matter of how far those restrictions should go, right?
Wouldn't want to be "unreasonable".
A Human Right
The internet is just a way for people to talk to each other. If you censor "the internet", it is the same as censoring what you can speak to another person. We have this whole thing called the 1st amendment that protects that.
If a parent doesnt want their child on the internet, they shouldn't allow them on it. Case by case. It is the same reason why you don't bring your kid with you to a sex shop. The material should be allowed to be there, and the parents should choose whether it is appropriate for their child or not.
There is no such thing as "reasonable" censoring.
When he was a U.S. Attorney in D.C., he seemed to spend a lot of effort attempting to impose massive penalties for low-level marijuana possession. Because, you know, people possessing small quantities of marijuana are really a big problem, and overcrowded prisons aren't. I wonder if Holder thinks Obama, as an admitted drug user, ought to be a convicted felon instead of in the White House? Or is it only a crime if you get caught? Basically either Holder is wrong here, and possession of marijuana should not automatically ruin someone's life with felony charges, or Obama is unfit to be president. Either way, I don't see how the two can be reasonably paired.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yet another case proving that as soon as children enter the decision making process, rationality goes out the window.
Could someone clarify if this is even one of the roles/responsibilities of the Attorney General? Given the size and the scope of the "problem", wouldn't it be beyond him? And if it is beyond his control then, so what? (I have a pretty good answer in mind, but I'll wait to hear from what others might say).
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
Is it not possible that he was just reacting out of a still far too fresh sense of the horror of those events?
People say all sorts of things after distressing events that they wouldn't say normally, or believe in the long term.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
This was being held over heads for years as net hostile yahoos like Biden and Lieberman worked on the Communications Decency Act which got stuck down in the courts, then by the Supremes.
Early drafts of this act would make an ISP and all its employees go to prison if someone typed a swear word, and it went through their routers to another destination.
Later drafts would still make it a Federal felony to have anything "indecent" on the tubes.
This passed the House and Senate, Clinton signed it into law... and before it took effect, the courts stuck it down.
What Clinton did get passed was the DMCA.
Looks like Obama's administration will be just as net hostile if not worse. Expect "trusted" chips in all computers/devices and forcible positive identification everywhere.
The RIAA will score, repressive governments who love monitoring their citizens will score, game companies will score, even criminal organizations will score... the honest law abiding citizen gets nothing except increased criminal penalties, more in your face DRM, and no anonymity.
Holder is in favor of censorship, massive gun control, a drug war hawk... and you *ahem* hoped for change from Obama. How is this any different than Gonzalez, Ashcroft or Reno, except maybe a squeamishness about torture?
Go ahead, moderate me down, but you know I'm right. For anyone who believed that things would change, Holder's nomination is basically total effing treason to that.
Seriously, I will be surprised if we don't trade Gitmo and secret CIA prisons for a second round of Waco and Ruby Ridge if this is the start that Obama is off on with his DoJ appointments.
Censorship does not have a party affiliation.
change we can believe in
always mosh clockwise
And then the ACLU intervened, calling for calm, fearing backlash against innocent gun owners:'all gun owners aren't terrorists'.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Barry is so net savy he would never do something like this!
Big suprise. Lawyer wants more laws. I don't think this would happen under obama's watch who has clearly stated the preservation of an "open" internet and "net neutrality". Furthermore, he regularly seeks counsel from the EFF. See obama state his tech policy on this page. I understand that saying and doing are two complete different things. The article; however, is speculation and ignores the president's stated policy. I'm sure the EFF would have commented on this if they thought it was a concern. They havn't and I doubt they missed obama's speculated appointment.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Doubtless the point will be made that NewsBusters is a strongly partisan site, and this is true. Fortunately, though, they aren't asking anyone to take their word for it, instead posting a recording of Holder himself.
While the Bush administration has certainly been no friend of free speech, I am not sure why anyone thinks that Democratic politicians and administrations have been better. For example, when Janet Reno was AG under Clinton, she warned the TV networks to clean up their shows, or the government would do it for them. Influential voices on the left call (unsuccessfully for the most part, it must be recognized) for censorship of various things on various grounds.
The point here is not that one party is great and the other is terrible, but that neither major party is committed in principle to individual freedom, including freedom of expression. Believing otherwise is a dangerous but widespread error.
like many in the Clinton administration.
Here he is blatantly lying on the news. Despite the fact that it's Fox, Holder is still blatantly lying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIiIG5GqcZ8
Almost any thought is inappropriate in the context of something else. I agree that the burden of parenting falls to "the parent(s)." But I really feel like in "Man of the Year" Whoops! Hopefully the new Prez will realize the devastation of censorship.
The interwebs freedoms (freedom to speech, free viagra for 6 months, and free "entertainment") are the last freadoms we still have in the world. You will be shot if you try and stake a claim to new lands (unless your heading to antartica). You will be on the news (and in jail) if you open the throttle of just about any car out there. You just can't go out and tinker anymore: You can't make modifications to your house w/o an inspection, you can't build your own chemistry sets, you can't create your own fireworks, god forbid if you actually make the devices you use every day. You are labeled a terrorist if you do these once playtime activities.
For god sakes, let me at least use the internet to help me and my kids imagine w/ graphic images, surround sound, and the like, what a real gun looks like, or the difference between real and fake tatas, the chemistry behind gunpowder, why the largest slaughters of humans have been in the names of religious deities.
Curiosity is the mechanism by which we live, and the mechanism to which we grow. W/o curiosity we would not lose our innocence, discover new things, or taste new fruits. The internet gives us a medium to try before you buy. To see what really happens if you set yourself on fire. You can google you how to fix a sink, build nuclear weapons, refine uranium, put together a solar installation that won't pass inspection but will produce e-, start your own business, and more. The interenet is a great place to satisfy curiosity.
With all sources of information, discretion (the better part of valor) belongs to the user, and in the case of a minor, the user is the one who pays the cable bills (parents & taxpayers (for library filtering only)).
I say if there is any censorship (I'll vote no), that any act of censorship is forced also to remove anything that isn't true, real, or declared a work of fiction.
that's my .02 not that anyone asked.
Please moderate this guy Obama! Not into the ground, lest you lose your purpose in picking him, but not into the sky lest we lose one of the things we rely on, inaccurate wiki's! (and more.. that was just to illustrate that the net is not the source for all knowledge, just a means to access knowledge presented)
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Others have noticed, too:
There'll be challenges on all fronts. Climate changes from global warming will lead to shortages of food and water in dozens of countries. That, coupled with a projected population spike of 1.2 billion people worldwide could lead to wars over increasingly scarce resources.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/20/world/main4622166.shtml
And from a commentator:
There are other factors: aging baby boomers, changing demographics, weakened economy, massive debt and greater internal chaos.
http://penetrate.blogspot.com/2008/11/us-power-fading-by-2025.html
I'm sure I'll get called unpatriotic(tm) for this, but it's politics in that land disillusioned underachievers never see, called "reality."
Futurist Traditionalism
Libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh has posted a discussion of this in which he concludes that what Holder advocated was actually a very narrow restriction on helping people build bombs.
in a democracy, you don't get to choose the candidate who fits your beliefs exactly, because such a candidate would, by definition of appealing so tightly to you, therefore appeal to only a small subset of society, and therefore be unelectable
at BEST you get a candidate that appeals to you very weakly. because that candidate must cover as many commonalities of belief as possible in order to get elected
and this is a GOOD thing: a government should closely adhere to the center of society, not to its various fringe groups. so if you are severely disappointed in obama, you're a fool, for judging him against absurd standards that will never, ever be met in reality
in a democracy, you get a choice betwen the candidate who is slightly less evil than the other. that's all you EVER will get to choose from. and that is a sign of a HEALTHY society. meanwhile, when someone is elected who appeals to a small group of people ecstatically, something has failed, and society will suffer for that, for this candidate most certainly doesn't appeal to the majority of society he or see is supposed to lead. got that?:
large appeal to small group != small appeal to large group. large appeal to small group is BAD for society. small appeal to large group is GOOD for society
some of you need to focus on that, and let the implications of that sink in for how you value and judge your leaders
all you could ever hope to do is tug the administration in power SLIGHTLY in the direction of your beliefs. anyone who believed barack obama was going to be some messiah of radical change is frankly, an idiot
i will tell you right now with 100% certainty what you are going to get out of the obama administration: TINY incremental steps away from the bush administration bullshit. and YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT, because that is the best you could ever possibly get in reality, as opposed to the fantasies in your head, which some of you seem hellbent on judging your government against. absurd
because the alternative is a continuation of the bush years bullshit. that's worse, right? then pleasde remember that when you judge
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Obama has said time and time again he wants to bring in people he disagrees with to staff his cabinet. I would presume the purpose of doing that would not be to enact policies he disagrees with. Presumably, since Obama made reducing jail time for non-violent drug offenders an (admittedly minor) issue in the campaign, he will have spoken to Holder about that view and made sure that Holder isn't going to do anything monumentally stupid. I am not afraid that being caught with weed will be worse under the Obama administration than it was under Bush.
I can. Try this on for size. The language is a little dated, but I think it gets the point across pretty nicely:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That seems like a perfectly "reasonable restriction", upon which the Supreme Court not only ought to, but has, repeatedly "favorably looked at".
If, as Holder says in TFA, the court has "struck down every attempt" that he and his kind (whether they be religious zealots attempting to censor whatever their God deems "pornography", or nanny-statists attempting to censor portrayals of violence and whatever "hate speech" is this week) have made to get around it, then what would be so wrong with respecting the court's decision?
Holder, you're about to become the Attorney-General. If you really want to demonstrate "change" relative to the prior Administration, why not do things differently? You could start by respecting the Judiciary as a coequal branch of government, even when (and especially when) its rulings aren't to your personal liking.
As Lenny Bruce put it almost 50 years ago, "If you can't say 'Fuck', you can't say 'Fuck the government.'" As the Supreme Court ruled in 1971, Cohen v. California, can even say Fuck the Draft.
Sometimes offensive speech is political speech. In modern idiom, Holden doesn't have to post tits, but if he thinks he can stop you from posting tits, the Courts have made it clear that he's the one who should GTFO.
But... but it's O-ba-ma...
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/57241.html
Yup this guy is also a strong drug warrior.
You thought Obama would be nice on drugs? Think again.
I'm fucking pissed off by the morons who keep cheering at every election for a candidate or the other. Oh yea, sure politics is screwed and power corrupts... but but, *this* guy, he's for real, you'll see.
We need change, but not political change. In politics, change means, more shit than before. Political change is for the worth.
Wake up, it's not about the people in charge, the problems lie with the incentives and yes, democracy itself.
\u262D = \u5350
I don't recall, I don't remember being briefed on tht, I'm really not prepared to answer that question.
You can always go over to change.gov and tell him what you think of this guy.
But to be fair, it wouldn't hurt to see if this guy has changed his mind any time in the last decade or so. I mean, back in the 90s, they were clamoring to have encryption regulated as a munition and now you see them talking about requiring it...
I'm sorry, I don't know why this is a big deal. It's not like he said this yesterday. He said it 10 years ago in a panicked climate when a great number of tax-paying citizens were clamoring for the government to do something to keep the intarwebs from contaminating our children.
As far as I can tell, no legislation was ever introduced. Not that the AG writes legislation, which is another reason this is a non-issue.
If this makes headlines, I am sure we'll see a clarification of some kind from Holder.
But other than that, I mean is "Politician in 1999 was wrong about the internet" really a big story?
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Regardless of personal views, doesn't the AG advance the position of the administration? You say what your client wants you to say or you find another job. Isn't that the case for all attorneys? So the real question is what will Obama's policy be?
Yes I know that there are permits and racetracks available to do most of these things, but once upon a time, you were actually liable for what you did! not the state, or other government entity which now writes a new law of what we can not do (or requires special permission to do it) every time they get sued.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
But, as a practical matter, Obama would not have even been in the running for a major-party nomination if he had been convicted of a drug-related felony.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Change, REAL CHANGE, and eliminating the evils of Washington insiders and lobbyists were a centerpiece of Obama's campaign. Do you really think that message would have been as strong if he said he was going to appoint Holder, Emanuel, Daschle, and Hillary fucking Clinton as part of his cabinet? He would have been laughed at and then ripped to tiny pieces trying to pass that off as *real* change, and rightly so. Instead of a career politician, why not appoint someone that really knows something about healthcare instead of friggin' Tom Daschle, married to a one of Washington's top lobbyists?!!?? The hyprcrisy is downright insulting.
Oh yeah, quit telling me I'M GOING TO LIKE IT. You don't know a damn thing about me.
it's a hopelessly stupid idealist, learning for the first time that politics, more than anything else, is a game for realists
how does one get into power and stay in power? did you ever ask yourself that question? radical change is never the answer to that question, unless you are talking revolution, which is ALWAYS worse than peaceful democratic regime change. yes, i know some suburban skateboarding retards listening to rage against the machine think revolution is cool... go to a country where real revolution takes place. then come tell me how cool revolution is, with the degradation of all aspects of society that accompany that, you pampered coddled child
what are you going to get out of obama? CHANGE. EXACTLY AS PROMISED. moderate, incremental, slow change. and if you had the slightest bit of intelligence about how politics really works, you'd be absolutely ecstatic about that
instead, you are hellbent on judging him against the most spastic, cloistered, idealistic fanboy nonsense that exists only in your isolated head
we talk of people who are socially retarded. well we also have a very real quatity of political retards in this world, utterly incapable of understanding the most fundamental concepts of politics and reality, but all too happy to open their loud, ignorantly idealistic mouths
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Exactly. There's wasn't enough political will to ban flag burning (at the height of Republican power no less) so it's safe to say that the internet will not be censored.
MOD PARENT UP!!! The audio clip in the linked article is clearly an answer to a question, and the question has been edited out. The Volokh link gives you the context.
Well, I for one welcome our new progressive overlords.
Everyone's said stupid things once in a while, right? If he's willing to say that he was an idiot for advocating pervasive restrictions in the wake of such an event, I could let it slide.
It's important to make a big deal about things like this, but don't completely lose it over this.
You're right. It's likely that any legislation attempting to curtail free speech on the internet would be struck down as unconstitutional. At least I hope so.
However, your frustration with Holder is misplaced.
The AG's job is not to propose legislation, nor is it his job to determine what is and is not constitutional (that's the Supreme Court's job). It is the AG's job to advise lawmakers (like the President) on how to write the legislation they wish to write in a way to avoid having it stricken down by the courts.
Now it appears that Holder, perhaps mistakenly, believed that legislation to regulate harmful speech on the internet (e.g. speech similar to shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater) could be written in a way that would not violate the 1st amendment.
That does not make him a proponent of internet regulation.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
k5 requires no need to appeal to coherence, because there is none over there
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So what you're saying is that he's against the Second Amendment as well as the First?
Is it ok to start criticizing Obama and his judgment now?
Or is he still the Messiah?
nice link... that should be in the summary
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Funny you mention context...
The linked audio clip is very clearly Holder answering a question -- and the question has been edited out. The context is much narrower than it's been edited to make you believe. Holder is answering a question about distributing instructions for making a bomb. And he is probably referring specifically to a bill that was then under consideration -- a bill (now a law) that makes it illegal to teach someone how to make a bomb when you know they are going to use it for criminal purposes. Maybe still problematic in some eyes -- but much, much narrower than the "omg he's going to outlaw teh internets" interpretation it's been edited down to give.
No, and you'd know that if you read Volokh's post. The Second Amendment does not give unlimited freedom to make, possess, and use weapons.
Look, he's not even President yet. Don't start criticizing the guy's work before he actually starts the job.
And anyway, he's in favor of net neutrality, so I don't think he's about to start locking the net down.
I share your absolutist attitude toward the First Amendment. Hey, without free flow of information, not only would we be living in a dictatorship, but most Slashdotters would be unemployed! We do work in the "information economy" after all.
But let's dial back on the loaded, simplistic language. People who are concerned about campus violence aren't "nanny statists". They just want their kids to come home from school without a lot of exit wounds. The idea that they can do so by abridging our freedom of speech may seem shortsighted to you (and to me), but they do have legitimate concerns.
I've always been a little impatient with people who like to vilify people they disagree with. The last few years, with the Limbaughs and the Palins (and yes, the MoveOn.Orgs) using insult in place of logic have changed "a little" to "extremely". And yesterday I had this totally poisonous conversation which left me with no tolerance for this kind of BS at all.
It doesn't give, it gaurentees unlimited freedom to own weapons.
You should go to hell.
I will pray for such.
I don't think this would happen under obama's watch, [...]
Cool. In that case, I'll go back to my watching my regularly scheduled programming.. er, program.
It always starts out narrow, doesn't it? Something about boiling frogs...
were really just so other people would understand.
Liabilities are real. You screw up, and someone dies. true. My point is that SANE people are not going to take a car to 200 miles an hour near a school zone or a bus route. Insane people are not going to follow the rule anyway, so it doesn't do any good. This is true for all common sense rules.
The other point in here is who learned their states laws in school? Yet you are still responsible for breaking them? The commandment and golden laws need not apply to this conversation, but I'll throw out an example.
I can't say that lack of freedom would apply to me, I feel free. If you want to kill someone, you can use what ever method you want. 1/2 the methods will prove to be unsolvable. If you use a gun, you have to wait three days before you kill someone, but you still can.
You get caught though, and its 25-life, less you had Cochran.
I am not an anarchist, I want laws... and mostly I was just trying to be funny, but does the law really stop you from speeding? (it never has me, though I am far more careful about it now) Has the law stopped millions from downloading copywrited music? Has the law stopped any big CEO from embezlement? Where a law stops someone, that person was not really wanting to commit the crime anyway. It is just a means to control the masses, and we need that to some extent.
But back on topic,
If you supress a path for information, a new path will emerge if the information is valuable enough. The only time freedom will truly be supressed is when we are repressed from speaking. Unfortunately though, today, many people "speak" electronically, and that is why I am against censorship of the web.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Good to see that Obama is sticking with Presidential tradition:
Hey, it worked for Reno, Ashcroft, and Gonzales. The hits keep on coming...
or you people would be howling like damned souls. It's your guy so it's OK.
> What part did the internet play in the Columbine shootings?
I don't remember, either, but "scapegoat" sounds like a likely role.
Libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh has posted a discussion of this in which he concludes that what Holder advocated was actually a very narrow restriction on helping people build bombs.
The narrowness isn't terribly relevant - these people can never have enough after they get the first taste.
Do you have ESP?
The man doesn't respect it, so he shouldn't be a member of the bar, let alone living on the public payroll.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It only does so if you ignore the first clause, which we appear to have altered the English language to avoid having to contend with.
that I become the parent who wont let his kid fall.
I don't have kids, but I want them 2 of ours, and 6 adopted. My wife thinks I am joking, but I am totally willing (at least right now)
I just hope that I can maintain my distance so when my kid tries to fly, I don't stop him from actually doing it, yet be protective enough to make sure he starts his goals from the ground and works his way to the sky.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
A truly bad driver who takes their kia past 90 isn't going to have insurance or a care about the "law."
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Apparently you missed the part about Obama wanting to put the guy who is the subject of this story in charge.
Woosh!
wasn't it the same talk about home bomb building that has lead to poor chemistry sets today? give me a break.
lol wat the fuck
Your claim of extremes, taken to its logical conclusion, supposes that the only choices are anarchy and totalitarianism. I suggest that it's clear that intermediate states are both possible and maintainable.
It's all about drawing a line at a particular point. Truly reasonable measures should be allowed, and overextending them can be disallowed.
Incidentally, the analogy -- boiling frogs by slowly warming the water -- also doesn't work. I suppose by that token, it's actually a very good analogy.
And it says that the U.S. dollar will continue to weaken and fall from favor as a top world currency.
Thomas Fingar, Chairman of the National Intelligence Council predicts water shortages, disruptions to delicate agricultural patterns, continued unrest in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and the continued emergence of China as America's greatest economic rival.
And from the report summary itself:
The unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East now under way will continue for the foreseeable future.
http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html
What did I miss, again?
Futurist Traditionalism
They also say they are going to ease taxes while providing bailouts for every failing industry and providing every man, woman, and child in America with unlimited free health care, a bullet-proof retirement, unlimited free energy, and a magical flying puppy(okay, I'm exaggerating a little---they never actually promised the puppy would fly).
They never promised to lower taxes across the board, or that health care would be free or unlimited, retirement would be bulletproof, or energy would be free or unlimited either.
But hey, you wouldn't have gotten modded up if you'd just stuck to the facts, right?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
It was on its way out anyway in this election. There was hardly any real doubt about it! The majority of people were so fed up with the extremism and bullshit of the current administration that Mickey Mouse would have won if there were nobody else running against the "neocon Republican" ticket.
And make no mistake... that is my honest and strong opinion, even though I am NOT a Democrat.
No one has the same opinions about the internet now that they had then.
You mean a conservative blog on a website that lets you "get free daily emails to your inbox about the latest liberal bias" might not be the best source of information? No way!
Changed the English language, eh?
Hardly.
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Look at the clauses:
Clause 1: A well-regulated Militia
Clause 2: being necessary to the security of a free State
Clause 3: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
Clause 4: shall not be infringed.
Clause 1 is used as noun, clause 2 as an adjective modifying section 1.
Clause 3 is being used as a noun, and acts as the subject.
Clause 4 is the predicate to section 3.
The first two clauses together are referred to as the justifying clause.
Keep in mind the use of well-regulated at the time, which meant "well functioning" not "Holy crap, add moar red tape!"
Also, keep in mind that the Bill of Rights, as written, lists entirely individual rights, which would make sense, seeing as the Bill of Rights was written to calm down the anti-Federalists who would be pretty upset at how powerful the current Federal government is compared to the states.
So, in shorthand using section #s for brevity:
(1 modded by 2) justifying 3 and 4.
There's really no way you could possibly try to misconstrue it to any different and maintain any level of intellectual honesty... I mean, seriously, without any editing, do you think ((1-2)-3), 4 makes any sense at all?
To pound the point a little further, simple word substitution makes it pretty obvious:
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the self-governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Can you look at that and with honestly tell me that substitution doesn't mean that people should be able to own any book they wish?
Or rather, would you try to tell me that surely there should be reasonable restrictions to that as well?
Perhaps we should restrict people's access to books with unnessisarily large amounts of words in them like anti-2nd amendment types want to factory capacity magazines? Factory cap mags? Yes, factory cap mags. They only become high-capacity magazines when you compare them to the anemic 3/5/7/10 shot magazines less gunfriendly states impose on their people.
Or perhaps, ban the ones with pointy edges because someone might get hurt, like bayonet lugs were on the ban list in 94. Bayonet lugs. Seriously. Has anyone ever heard of a drive-by bayonetting? If the whole idea was crime prevention, when was the last time you heard of someone getting bayonetted in the news?
Or maybe just the ones with really big multisyllabic words like some people want to ban firearms over a certain size? Like somehow someone could reliably shoot down aircraft with a .50cal rifle. My favorite was seeing an interview with some anti-gun type from the Brady campaign insisting that people could knock down a 747 with a single shot from a .50cal. I'm pretty certain they were the kind of person who believes Kennedy was killed with a single bullet too.
Maybe we should ban book series, like they banned automatic weapons? But only the one written after 1986. Every other one, you can own if you write a $200 check to the Dept. of Alchohol, Tobacco, and Books... which enables you to own shorter books (short barrel shotguns/rifles), some books with objectionable content and/or really big words (destructive devices), soft book covers to keep the book from banging around (silencers) and things that just might not be a book at all but it kinda looks like one ("Any other weapon).
Or clearly, we should ban only the books that get straight to the point with little fuss (real assault-type weapons), but unfortunately in the process of doing so, only ban the ones with scary covers that remind us of those mentioned previously (what the '94 AWB did instead)?
I think perha
Lets hope that events like this can be prevented.
My web domain.
(p) DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.--
(1) DEFINITIONS.--In this subsection--
(A) the term 'destructive device' has the same meaning as in section 921(a)(4);
(B) the term 'explosive' has the same meaning as in section 844(j); and
(C) the term 'weapon of mass destruction' has the same meaning as in section 2332a(c)(2).
(2) PROHIBITION.--It shall be unlawful for any person--
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.
Not that I really agree with the sentiment but what he was talking about was a bill to outlaw hosting bomb-making tutorials after Colombine. It passed like a decade ago. Does someone feel like re-litigating that, or is this a bunch of crazed, paranoid noise?
put hillary for secretary of state. despite what hillary says, noone outside america takes her seriously. and that 'no way no how' kind rhetoric doesnt work in international politics.
he is thinking of neocon national security chief in place. unbelievable.
and now this. an idiot who tried to fool courts into preventing free speech on the internet, is for attorney general.
what's next step ? mugabe for human rights czar ?
dont get me wrong, i support obama. but this going is not good.
Read radical news here
The problem is how you define the word "intends". Remember, there are two types of intent, specific intent and intent that follows because of the logical consequences of your actions. For example, if you post instructions on the internet you should know that someone could use them, therefore the very act of putting them up demonstrates the second definition of intent. So are you willing to bet your life that a judge will require specific intent rather than the more general kind?
Individuals form associations to achieve goals that cannot be accomplished in any other way.
One such goal, of course, is to set limits to risks that would otherwise be impossible for any one to bear.
There is a price, there is always a price.
But the only alternative to the power of the private association is to cede all attempts at collective effort and security to the coercive power of the church and state.
Voting for a party with a history of exercising control over social behaviors gives you exactly this result. Be delighted, not shocked. You are getting just what you asked for.
Libertarians seemed to have especially forgotten that this time round.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Same as the old boss.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
For real? You think that if a house is wired in such a way that is safe, but not to code, it'll still catch fire? interesting. There is a cliff over there, follow # 42 Mr. 43.
I BELIEVE in the law and all, I just think there are parts that are excessive. Please read the rest of my posts. The car analogy was a joke, because it is a /. Meme not intended to be close to serious.
Insurance is a great idea. If a house isn't up to code, the insurer won't insure it(check your policy). This doesn't impact the insurer, and therefore they have no reason to impact your premiums anyway. But I digress, I am not offended and I chose to belief that your just blind to irony, and other peoples opinions and feelings.
Perfect comment "Please don't procreate" as that would be on topic given that this all started w/ Censorship & regulation.
Luckily, no one tracks my every move. I'll do as I please, with whom I please, whenever I please, because I am free.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
That's an utterly terribly twisting. "well educated electorate" is not remotely the same as "well regulated militia". There isn't anything at all "well regulated" about every random person having a gun. In fact, it's the exact opposite, even if you'd like to argue for regulated meaning functioning. It's not functioning any more than it's regulated. A militia is not simply a vast number of unrelated gun owners. An educated electorate actually can be a bunch of unrelated people - it doesn't require the organization necessary of a well [regulated|functioning} militia. I'm sorry you've so horribly construed an argument to the point that you think that somehow that sentence is comparable, but it simply isn't and any further argument on the basis of it is null and void. You're welcome to try again if you'd like.
So far his choices for cabinet positions have justified my vote against him and I still feel he is a clear and present danger to the United States of America.
He can pretty much sit on his hands for the
next 4 years while the economy recovers.
He almost can't avoid having improvement.
This gets him an automatic win next term,
and most likely Hillary or Biden next time.
Change? Hmm....sounds like "same as the old boss" to me.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As you alluded to, "well-regulated" at the time meant something that functioned well; however, something you seem to have forgotten is how militias function.
In a professional standing military, you can afford to take in any Tom, Dick, and Harry that can't shoot, and you can afford to throw ammo at them until they don't suck. In a militia, you don't have that luxury. You get what you get, and there isn't much funding for training, much less actual equipment, as most militia are banded together for an emergency post-haste with equipment on-hand.
Position 1) The right is necessary in light of training requirements.
If the people can't shoot, how much use are they in a militia? You can only have so many cooks and back to carry a load. Clearly then, without a citizenry capable of practicing skill at arms on their own time and dime, the likelyhood of raising a functioning militia on short notice is dismally slim. Lastly, if you were to pull together a militia of people who grew up scared that their uncle's .45 was going to jump up and start shooting children, nuns, and their puppy at any moment, I'm fairly certain that such a force would break upon first contact due to lack of nerve and inflict minimal casualties anyone other than themselves due to lack of training. This is one of the reasons for the 'well-regulated' clause.
Position 2) The right is necessary in light of logistical requirements.
In short, the logistics of maintaining an effective short-notice militia are a nightmare. As stated previously, militias were usually called up in rediculously quick order with whatever they had on hand. In the vast majority of areas, there were no armories were everything was stored, short of a place for their cannon, if they had one, which was usually privately owned as well. (gasp) Instead, everyone brought what they had at home. Hard to muster an effective militia if you have no weapons.
Also, I'd take issue with your idea of what a militia is or is not. Technically, if one were to attribute gun-ownership to everyone in the military, by definition then, it would be a vast number of unrelated gun-owners, though I do believe you meant related more like organizationally related as opposed to genetically related.
In that case, your case still fails:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1 > Chapter 13 Â 311 Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areâ"
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
According to current US law, the unorganized militia consists of everyone who is a citizen from 18 to 45, gun-owner or not. Somehow I don't think you were aware of this, much less the fact that you are technically obligated as a militia member the moment you reach the age of majority. Kinda puts a different spin on the draft, eh?
Unfortunately, a lot of the anti-gun variety like to throw out the National Guard as being the militia, seeing as the Federal Government aborbed state militias into the National Guard in the 1800s; however, if one paid close attention to the founding documents, the militia at the time were all run by the states. The National Guard is run like the bastard stepchildren of the US Army, a Federal organization. Seeing as the militia at the time were state-bas
Some really bad things are going on behind the scenes people.
Alot of people are convinced that we are now seeing the final pieces fall into place for completion of a one world totaliarian government. Hundreds of years in the making.
Censoring the internet which is the last bastion of freedom we the people have, is the utmost importance for these people.
Impossible ? Its all ready happening ! The great Firewall of China, The Australian Governments implication of a manditory filtering without the peoples consent or knowledge. We need help.
Wake up America ! Obama is already paid for. He has a membership on the Council for Foreign realations. Things arent gonna change, this is simply doubletalk and im certain internet censorship will be forced upon you people too
Wake up America !
Error #1: as understood at the time, the "militia"
meant every able-bodied male. (age 14 to 60 IIRC)
It certainly doen't mean "army".
Error #2: you're not paying attention to how the
various parts of that sentence depend on each other.
The bit at the beginning is merely justification.
They could have left it out, and there wouldn't be
any real difference in the meaning of the sentence.
Like this...
"Since we think it would be cool, people have
the right to own guns." (coolness NOT made a
requirement for gun ownership)
Smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday.
Meet the new Boss - same as the old Boss.
I was not trying to insult Barack Obama, although I do hope that he is not as much of a lying bastard as his campaign was.
What I stated was not an insult to the winner, it was a judgment of the loser. There is a big difference. The winner has a very long way to go, to gain my respect. Especially in light of the campaign.
... in the names of religious deities ???
Er, uhm, no.
Check the names of certain Hitler, Stalin, Mao and their perverse accomplishments.
We also have other monsters like the King Leopold of Belgium, but he "only" killed one million people I think, but his zeal wan not religious neither.
I am atheist and left leaning politically btw....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And since we are not going to agree about this it becomes a moral issue.
In a democracy moral issues should not be legislated, people should b allowed to reach their own conclusions and they should be allowed to act on those conclussion on their personal sphere.
Murder is not a moral issue, it is an universal social value and we all more less agree what it is, reason for which it is possible to legislate about it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Since when change has been carried out by outsiders?
Perhaps never since the French Revolution.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It is perfectly reasonable to use experienced people from your own party to carry out your own policies.
Damn the man if he does not deliver on his campaign promises, not on his choice of enablers.
I understood change as a political change, not as a change of faces necessarily.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Change is not just an alternative team.
McCain also was claiming change, but we all know that he would have followed many of Bush's policies.
Thus the US people spoke.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The way democracy works you are given choices that are too broad.
Ideally people should be voting for each secretary of state independently, thus selecting carefully each set of policies with base of the wishes of the people.
Given the system we have, people select based on general overall topics (which each candidate made very clear) but it is impossible for the people to micromanage the process.
If McCain would have been elected then we would be seeing all kind of appointments that would be counter intuitive against the main pledges of his campaign.
This is how politics in a democracy works, to be all surprised and gleeful about this is childish frankly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
John "Sick Heart" McCain & Sarah "Sure Shoot" Palin?
There was only one rational choice, that 46% of people in the US did not realize that is the worrisome thing, not the selection of Obama's team.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"They never promised to lower taxes across the board"
He promised a tax cut to 95 percent of the population, even though close to 40 percent don't actually even pay federal income taxes.
"or that health care would be free or unlimited"
He promised universal coverage, and free coverage below a certain income level.
"retirement would be bulletproof"
He promised not to touch Social Security, regardless of the looming financial train wreck it's becoming.
"or energy would be free or unlimited either."
Free energy is precisely what he promised with his pledge to spend billions of tax dollars on "free" energy sources, wind and solar. He also made the highly dubious promise to get us completely off of foreign oil within a decade.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I voted for Nader.
I think Obama is another stuffed shirt. A corporate liar on the corporate payroll. His blackness does not mean he's not a sold out douche bag. Look at his nominations. This prick, and also Hillary? We needed a Ron Paul or a Kucinich, not this same old same old.
Let me be first to tell the hopers "I told you so".
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Ahh...The One has not even taken office yet and already his followers are getting miffed.
Eight years of Bush, several of which the Republicans held all three branches and nary a word about restricting the Internet.
Now comes the Messiah and he's putting together Clinton Term III and talking all kinds of personal freedom restrictions in the name of Change.
If not for the fact that I KNOW that 2012 will be the biggest smack down ever, even bigger than Jimma, Cater's, I would be scared.
Instead, I will delight in the cries of anguish and outrage emitted by the faithful as Obama pursues his change agenda. America is still the freest place on earth. Change can only mean less freedom.
This is why our government is composed of three branches which have external regulation. Just because the Executive office wants something, doesn't mean Congress will fund it or pass corresponding laws. Even if they do, the Court system can find it unconstitutional and have it thrown out. Finally, the regulation can kick in when things go wrong. It's a government by the people, for the people. If the people are unhappy with the way the government is working, they can express that by voting in a new Executive and a new Congress. Sometimes this takes a LONG time to happen, but it does work.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Luckily, the attorney general isn't a dictator. What he said he wanted was struck down time and again because the average person considers it unreasonable. Also luckily, this kind of internet censorship is basically impossible, both technically and politically.
Ha!
Suckers!
Told ya so.
The Dem party pulls the wool over your eyes for a vote,tosses its dupes aside like a used condom,then continues with its socialigenda.
Now we have to put up with another 4 years of eroding freedom because you couldn't be bothered to think for yourselves realistically.(don't feel too bad tho,Republicans are nearly as bad and no better a choice)
This is amazing.I'm nearly dumbfounded. We have a vast majority of population trying to get different results doing the same thing over and over every 4 years.Mass madness! Vote for your favorite Republi/crat who will change things for the better. Bullsh*t! A nation of pinheads.
It's really time to check out other party agendas. Reform,Green,Libertarian,etc. if change is what you really want. If not just keep voting for the same parties that have been gaping your sphincter for the last century or so.
Grumble..grmbl..at least they haven't screwed up coffee yet.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
That you interpreted it as such doesn't mean that's what it meant.
Indeed, I don't see how you could reasonably have believed it meant that. How can a federal senator and a many-term federal senator possibly base their campaign on the idea that they're "outsiders" to the federal government?
"Change" doesn't mean "outsider", no matter how often McCain tried to say otherwise.
He'd look pretty ridiculous if he believed that change could only come from the outside.
You're confusing the communication technology (internet, ink-on-paper) with the communication technique (email vs. webpage, letter vs. newspaper).
Censoring private communication is arguably quite different from censoring publication, a fact which is already reflected in law. Whispering "fire" in a friend's ear while at the theatre will have very different effects - and almost certainly has very different legal ramifications - than shouting "Fire!!" at the top of your lungs. Private and public communication serves different purposes, so it is not unreasonable to consider whether it should have different rules.
You do realize that zoning laws are the sex shop equivalent of censorship, don't you?
In most places, there are restrictions on where certain types of businesses (sex shops, liquor stores, brothels, etc.) can be located, in part so people can choose to avoid being exposed to those stores. It would substantially interfere with the right of people to choose what was appropriate for themselves and their children if every toy store in the city had a sex toy store - with a big window display - open up right beside it.
As it is, zoning laws create neighbourhoods where certain types of businesses (such as sex shops) cannot be found, so children for whom those businesses are not appropriate can move around without a constant (and unreasonable) level of supervision. At the same time, those businesses are still permitted to exist, so people for whom those businesses are desirable can still access them. The tradeoff between the two groups (sometimes longer travel to a sex shop but some appropriate neighbourhoods for children) is (hopefully carefully) carefully judged and set according to local needs.
The idea is to apply that reasonable tradeoff to the web, and that's not innately a bad idea.
The problem, as usual, is implementation details. With no real equivalent to physical neighbourhoods on the web, how can it be made difficult for children to access inappropriate content without making it unreasonably hard for adults to access that content? Making the entire web a "child-safe zone" is unreasonable, but is it reasonable to make the entire web a "red-light district"? Is it a good idea to make the web a resource which children cannot use without constant, over-the-shoulder supervision?
Neither one of those seem like reasonable extremes, meaning that people will keep looking for some kind of middle ground.
If no such middle ground exists, then you're probably right that "no restrictions for anyone" is better than "harsh restrictions for everyone". Don't fault people for trying to find that reasonable middle ground, though, and keep in mind that while it's selfish for parents to want a no-sex-shop area around their elementary school, it's even more selfish to complain that that would mean you'd have to drive 20 minutes to find a sex shop instead of only 15. Living in communities means making fair and reasonable compromises.
The two most liberal justices (Stevens and Ginsburg) are the ones most likely to leave the court during his term, so the balance of the court should stay pretty much where it is.
The most likely change to the make-up of the court's ideology would have been if McCain had won, then one or two conservatives would have changed it from 5-4 to 6-3 or 7-2.
Re-read the second amendment, it says the MILITIA is to be regulated. The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED.
Once the keeping of arms is regulated then it becomes difficult or impossible to create a militia. That was the tactic used in colonial times and brought our second amendment into being. By regulating arms the government can regulate the ability of a state, county, or individual from defending themselves from others. The government can also regulate militias into oblivion.
You also need to educate yourself on the federal definition of a militia. There is the "organized militia" which includes the National Guard and the various state defense forces, the "unorganized militia" which includes every able bodied male from age 17 to 45 years, and the "reserve militia" which includes just about everyone else. So, yes, the militia does include a random person with a gun.
Think about it for a bit, how do you propose a state raise a militia against an oppressive federal government if the federal government has forbade the keeping of arms unless you are employed by said federal government? Even if you think an oppressive federal government is impossible given free elections and so on how about foreign invaders? I've heard the Mexican Army likes to hop over our border on occasion and hassle locals but the federal government has banned possession of weapons effective against the armor they tend to carry.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Well, other than being in the Illinois state and then the US Senate, and along the way sponsoring many bills, etc... you know, doing that stuff that legislators do. And since the US Senate is, well, not anything, and McCain has worked there for almost 30 years, that means McCain doesn't have any experience doing, well, anything. He was in the military, but since we don't cede much to Murtha, Cleland, Kerry, or Gore over military service, I don't see why we should get misty-eyed over McCain's service.
I too doubt that Obama is going to turn America into a paradise of milk and honey. But then again, I never expected him to. Few did. The ecstatic happiness you see concerning Obama is not because people consider him so great, but because people consider the status quo so bad. If he ends waterboarding and reinstates full habeas corpus, observation of the Geneva Conventions, closes the black site secret prisons, etc, I'll have gotten all I really wanted. And you might want to stop pissing all over hope and optimism. In the long term hope and optimism are usually unwarranted, but it motivates people to try, to get involved, to care. If everyone concluded that none of the candidates would or could do anything good, no one would vote. I don't consider that a good thing.
This is how freedom dies...with thunderous applause.
Notice I said "A" party, not "THE" party.
Barr would of course be the best choice. Or Ron Paul. Both at least would have made a serious effort to curb spending.
However, even McCain and Palin would have been better choices. Palin is a Libertarian in that she holds beliefs I do not agree with but she also believes in a community right to choice as to standards (as she has said in interviews). McCain at least would have also been more likely to try and curb spending based on past behavior (for you see, election promises are empty like the wind and not indicative as to future performance the way past voting history is)
It's also rather telling that you treat someone's ability to shoot as derogatory... you may not know this, but you inadvertently complemented Palin as once upon a time a "Straight Shooter" was someone you looked up to as being honest. I guess that's not the kind of politician you prefer, but to me it seems like a character trait I'd like to see.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Comment removed based on user account deletion
#1: a two party system forces the parties to pander to the middle. this is a good thing. multiparty systems cause the parties to pander to their various fringe groups. in other words, a two party syste is superior for retaining conformity between the beliefs of the population and the beliefs of thos ein control
#2: ask a german how wonderful a multipary system is: greens getting in bed with ultranationalists in order to retain party in coalition governments, completely abandoning all ideological consistency, just for a craven grasp at power. this is superior? really?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Please explain that to me NOW!!!
you're an idiot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
NO, I was fed up with the bullshit being fed to the American people by the greedy, cronyist neocons! I am not so naive as to get all my news from the regular mass media, nor yet naive enough to believe all I do see. I do my own research, thank you very much.
And this last Presidential administration downright disgusted me. In my opinion, the major players in this administration all belong in prison: Cheney and Rove in particular, but there are many more I would put on the list.
I am not a Democrat, and I don't believe their rhetoric any more than I swallowed the garbage from the neocons. I am a "show me" person, and what the current Presidential administration has primarily showed me has been the extremes to which a bunch of grabby, greedy, traitorous bastards will go for cash and more control.
Don't try to tell me what I saw or read and what I believe from it. I make those decisions myself.
In the same vein, in my opinion the Democrats haven't been much better over the same period of time, and they have a very long way to go to earn my respect again.
I mean, my God! He named Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State! What a huge mistake!
One of the reasons he won in the first place is because people were voting AGAINST Hillary Clinton! And if he doesn't even understand that, then we are likely in for a very rough ride.
Tyrant-in-training? Not possible under our current government architecture. However, the last administration did see the passing of The Patriot Act. This means you can be arrested without charge and held without trial. How's that for tyranny?
What's wrong with waiting until the first 100 days are up and he's actually done something as president?