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.'"
So if we ban public content that indicates terrorism and force them to hide it better from the government, how would that be better at countering terrorism? At least if it's public everyone can see it and so can the government, which would enable them to do something about it, rather than being unprepared.
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May I interest you in an important Historical Document that, I might add, you were supposed to have read and understood when you were sworn into the Senate?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.
'Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.'"
Well Mr. Lieberman, you're quite the one to talk about inconsistent standards. And I'm sure censorship is most definitely the best way to fight terrorism online. It always works, right? Right?
US Government: Fighting the symptoms, and not the causes. To get one vote at a time.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
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?
Should google label anything from the US government as terroristic?
These days, no one can really tell who's the good guys, with random bizarre wars and occupations so on.
"These Palestinians looks like they have some pretty good land we Jews can take.. Let's take it with US government funding!"
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.
... but unfortunately that doesn't stop individual Sith Senators from trying to use their influence to curb free speech.
Ironically, some of his speeches on Iran would probably have to be censored if he had his way. I guess YouTube already won't host his Beach Boys parody, BOMB-BOMB-BOMB BOMB-BOMB-IRAN.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's guys like Lieberman that drag American into the whole Middle-east religious wars, due to his fundamentalist support for Israel.
I propose that whenever Google reports search results pertaining to Lieberman, they're required to mark-up him as being a root-cause of America's terrorism problem.
You track them.
How do you track them?
You lure them our into the open.
How do you get them in the open?
You lull them into a false sense of complacency.
If you prevent this content, it still it exists, it just moves underground. The serious terrorists are already encrypting and doing steganography, its about catching casual idiots like this guy.
So senator joe is no tactician. Allow this content, and monitor it for the lone yahoos. Basic strategy joe
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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..."
More like the Three Stooges version of 1984.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C6lZPebJiN4
http://www.whoarethe1percent.com/
"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.
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.
He once was a Democrat but the last time he ran for office he was defeated in his party's primaries by a candidate that Connecticut Democrats apparently felt better reflected the values of their party. Subsequently Lieberman ran, and was re-elected as, an independent.
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
BOO!
Were you terrified?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law