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.'"

Comments

Hey, guess what!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Hey, guess what!

[truthsearch]

American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.

Re:Hey, guess what!

[the eric conspiracy]

The official content policy of the US of A starts with "Congress shall make no law".

It doesn't say "Corporations shall may no policy..."

Re:Hey, guess what!

[Jibekn]

Why do you think they want to privatize everything? Its not about money.

Re:Hey, guess what!

[joshuac]

blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military.

Sounds more like good guerrilla warfare than terrorism to me. If the supply lines of your much larger enemy have a chokepoint (as it was during the Revolutionary War; the enemy depended on naval transport for everything) that's exactly what you want to target, mainly for the material and personnel effect (the latter assuming most of the people working in the shipyard accepting British transport were on the side of the enemy). Psychological effects at most are a tertiary bonus, if you were lucky...blowing up a dock in the Revolutionary War would be a really inefficient way to instill enough fear in the public of Great Britain to change public support of a war.

Modern examples of the difference:
Terrorism: Flying jetliners into buildings in a way sure to get good media coverage and keeping the threat of the possibility of it happening again ambiguous.
Guerrilla tactics: Attacking supply lines of your enemy in Afghanistan, rather then wasting your personnel in a head-on attacks against a much stronger enemy.

Guerrilla warfare != Terrorism

Yo Joe

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:Yo Joe

[truthsearch]

He read and understood it. He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.

Re:Yo Joe

[Anonymous Coward]

He read and understood it. He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.

Well, if that's the case ... then he's clearly a terrorist.

Upholding and defending the principles of the US constitution is part of the job description, isn't it?

So, if he's against the Constitution, he's against America, and therefore a terrorist. He should be publicly flogged, and then hanged until dead.

Of course, I'm not seriously advocating violence towards him ... but I find it appalling that lawmakers have been stomping over enshrined rights to keep up this farce of Homeland Security ... hell, even the term dredges up images of Nazi's and their Fatherland.

Geez, it's already done...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Lieberman is the terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Free speech and all that...

[Macgyver7017]

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?

What about Christian extremism?

[Tastecicles]

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"?

testing our elected representatives

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-State

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

It's like watching "Brazil", as reimagined through "The Simpsons".

Re:Yea...

[Evil Shabazz]

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.

Career Politicians = Political Products

[denis-The-menace]

Since career politicians are bought and sold should we refer to them for what they truly are: Political Products.