Slashdot Mirror
Senator Wants 'Terrorist' Label On Blogs
itwbennett writes "Terrorist suspect Jose Pimentel had a blog on Google-owned Blogger. And so it follows that Senator Joe Lieberman sent a letter to Google CEO Larry Page taking him to task because 'Blogger's Content Policy does not expressly ban terrorist content.' Lieberman also pointed out that YouTube does ban terrorist content and added that 'Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.'"
I've heard that the Content Policy of the United States Constitution also fails to expressly ban terrorist content...
Those 'founding fathers' must have been a bunch of rag-heads or something.
Dear Honorable Senator Lieberman:
May I interest you in an important Historical Document that, I might add, you were supposed to have read and understood when you were sworn into the Senate?
Reading comprehension is important for everyone.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Illegal content isn't allowed on Blogger.com at present.
Terrorism is illegal at present.
Therefore nothing new to see here, just move along and stop wasting our time.
Maybe Senators could focus on something important, like the economy and trillions in debt instead.
Who is trying to terrify us here? Why, Joe Lieberman and his ilk, of course. What is the biggest terrorist organization in the US? The Department of Homeland Security, who wastes no opportunity to further terrify the populace (terror alert! new scanners! we are at risk! etc.)
Suddenly we should ban certain content? How is google supposed to know what is protected speech and what is illegal? Why should they ban anything other than outright illegal content which they don't need policy to remove?
Or is this yet another case of "one law for us, another for anyone who doesn't agree with us or fit our agenda-du-jour"?
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
That's a bit much, don't you think? Perhaps instead we should just make them wear some sort of symbol on their clothes. A nice yellow star, or a pink square, perhaps?
A nice big red cross on the door.
I'm starting to think that we need to make our elected representatives take the same test we force immigrants to take to become US citizens.
It's like watching "Brazil", as reimagined through "The Simpsons".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.Albert Einstein
This is actually not correct, as there is one thing that is worse and much more dangerous: Passing laws that have no support in the general population. You can NOT uphold laws against the will of your subjects. A law that has no support will be ignored at best. Subverted at worst.
It's also not so much the bad law that's dangerous. What makes it so dangerous is that people start to question upholding the rest of the legal code as well. If I ignore this law, why not that one, too?
Once you made someone a criminal, he's prone to ignore other laws because, hey, why bother whether I go to jail? For reference, see the 1930s and prohibition.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Lieberman has never amounted to anything more than a "flag politician" - one that flaps uselessly in whatever political winds are blowing for the day. The problem is that the unconstitutional committee seniority system in the Senate combined with the bacon he brings back to his campaign financiers (note, I didn't say voting constituents) means he'll never get replaced - you have to wait until he retires. The same is true of Pelosi, Frank, Boehner, and McConnell. They're all useless career politicians who care nothing about you, me, or anything other than their next election campaign. DOWN WITH THE CAREER POLITICIAN. SUPPORT CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
Quite the opposite, for the average person personal moral standards and conscience are the primary reasons to uphold or to break a law.
Do you kill someone for fun or profit? I guess not. Why not? Because it's in the law that killing is wrong? If so, I question your morals, to be blunt. I don't kill people because I consider it wrong. That it's in the law is a coincidence, and I'm quite happy about it since it fits my moral codex, but that's not the primary reason why I don't go over to my neighbor, bash in his head and take his stereo (since, well, when he's dead it's not like he needs it anymore).
Would you turn in someone who you know kills for fun or profit? Even a friend? Maybe so. Even if he's a friend, but killing someone is simply wrong. And I wouldn't consider someone my friend who goes about and kills people 'cause he doesn't like their looks.
How about copying a movie or a song? Is it wrong? It's also in the law that it's not allowed, but how high is your inhibition to do it compared to murder? Same level? And if not, just because the punishment is lower? Ok, then how about nicking your old granny's purse? Same punishment (in my country) as for downloading a bunch of songs and movies. Same inhibition? Same level of "wrong"? It's the same punishment, and given that gramma is nearly blind, the chance of getting caught is also pretty much the same.
Laws and morality have nothing to do with each other? Do you really think so?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Since career politicians are bought and sold should we refer to them for what they truly are: Political Products.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Personally, I find the fact that some people like to hate on George Soros particularly telling. As you already pointed out, he is one of the most successful capitalists in the world, and spends a lot of his wealth on various causes, chief among them promoting self-determination, less government influence, and more independent media. Makes you wonder what people opposing him are in favor of ...
Looking at the American political landscape, I would think that Republicans would be cheering for Soros. Weren't they for small government and self-determination, too? It appears to me that some of the more vocal Republicans actually support the opposite now: more government (to protect us against the terrorists), and more government meddling in your personal affairs (enforce Christian restrictions).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.