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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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!
The AG's office also creates legislation to be presented to the congress, that's where the patriot act and many other bills came from, they check over the president's purposed legislation for legalities like constitutionality and they give validation to policies.
The AG isn't some office drone who does only what he is told to do. He is like the head of the legal department at a large company and plays a large role in steering their actions.
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?
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.
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.
Wow . . . one post and you've already resorted to name-calling. No need to get so defensive.
Thing is . . . I don't recall any talk of moderate, incremental, slow change during the campaign, at all. That message wouldn't go over so well in front of 200,000 rabid Berliners or a stadium full of college kids -- it's just not sexy enough. If anything, the exact opposite was promised -- a quick, decisive end to the evil and corruption of Washington and the power of lobbyists. If anything, I'm judging him by the standards set by his own supporters. Oh yeah, what happened to the promise of troops out of Iraq in 16 months? Change.
Indeed, this administration will be made up of the Same Old Washington. If this is what counts as change, we really are fucked.
Is it ok to start criticizing Obama and his judgment now?
Or is he still the Messiah?
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.
And once upon that same time, being liable for what you did left a lot of innocent people in the lurch. That's why the state stepped in in the first place.
Consider your "open the throttle" example -- if YOU and solely you are responsible for what you do, and you open the throttle and crash into a busload of kids/seniors/tourists/commuters... who pays?
You? Of course not, you don't have that much money.
Your insurance company? Maybe, if your coverage actually will cover you at 200+ mph? (it probably wouldn't) and all that assumes you actually bothered to get insurance - which you might not have done, since there aren't any laws forcing you to.
So all these innocent people get FUCKED because you fucked up, and the fact that you can be "held liable" doesn't actually mean anything. It doesn't do the people you hurt any good.
Well, watching our neighbors get completely fucked and left in the lurch like this doesn't sit well with normal people, so we decided that collectively, if this happens we'll deal with it...however we don't want to deal with uncessary/preventable problems so we made it a requirement that you have insurance so when accidents that you can't pay for happen, there is money. And we set speed limits to to help minimize the amount of damage that actually happens etc, etc.
Now, granted, a lot of this inevitably becomes corrupted and abused... and we end up with cops hiding behind trees with speed traps at the bottom of a hill in the middle of nowhere generating local revenue. And these sorts of issues need to be addressed.
But there's no going back to the so-called 'good old days' when you had '100% personal liability' because that wasn't really working terribly well either.
So if the state has to step in everytime someone fucks up for more than they can afford, the state gets to set rules to try and minimize the number of fuckups.
You know what though?
I'm not going to give up my right to (XYZ) just because (ABC) extreme case happened someday sometime. This has been a huge problem with the US.
Take rights away from corporations. Take them all away till corporations are hardly anything. But don't take away personal freedoms from individuals.
In other words, we now force the good drivers to subsidize the mistakes of the bad drivers.
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...
The problem is the law doesn't stop crime from happening, it simply gives it a name, and gives people an easy guilt-free device to lay blame on others. The only difference between law and religion is that lawyers are rarely child molesters - they prefer hookers.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
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."
In other words, we now force the good drivers to subsidize the mistakes of the bad drivers. But the point is to understand why that is a better solution than letting bad drivers pay for their own mistakes. Namely: because they can't.
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.
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
Positive rights aren't. Which is to say, you have no right TO anything. Rights exist to keep the GOVERNMENT from doing things. Laws exist to keep PEOPLE from doing things. Rights trump laws. Must in order to keep a free society.