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?
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.
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.
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.
He already appointed Ms. Clinton.
Now he only needs Joseph Lieberman and Jack Thompson, and it's complete.
Anyhow, you didn't really think there would be much change, when the choice was between an ultra-conservative corporation-owned reactionary and a republican?
Why those who voted in the primaries didn't say "enough is enough" and voted in someone a bit further to the left (i.e. approaching the European center right) is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is that they thought that Obama was from the left. After 8 years of someone so far to the right that it makes brownshirts appear leftist, it's conceivable that people have lost all perspectives, and think Obama is actually moderate.
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.
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...
Hey retard, the brownshirts were leftist. NAZI -> National Socialist
And North Korea is a democracy, says so right in their name.
More lies brought to you by people who label anything they don't like as "leftist".
Considering the age and context of this quote, we have to take this statement with at least a little skepticism. Columbine threw the entire US off kilter, making them say and do things they wouldn't currently do.
I believe that's specifically not an excuse for overreaction from an official. Sadly, I expect the general public to overreact, but those in positions of authority should have level heads (at least on any reasonable planet, not this one) - that's a big part of why they're there. If he's susceptible to knee-jerk responses (and I don't know if he truly is), then he doesn't belong in the position of US Attorney General.
I do wonder how Holder would respond to questions regarding his stance on internet restrictions today.
Based only on the Holder quote from the summary, 'The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography...', it is apparent that he has favored restricting internet communications for reasons unrelated to the Columbine incident. Unless someone provides evidence that he has modified his opinion in these matters, it is reasonable to assume they remain the same. And his own assertion of such a change in position would not be sufficient by itself.
/. this is ridiculous: "Slow Down Cowboy!...It's been 1 hour, 28 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment". I know ACs are responsible for too much noise here, but this amounts to an unnecessary restriction of anonymous speech. Why not just go all the way and require an account if that's the kind of site you want to be?</rant>
- T
Come on
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.
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.