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May I interest you in an important Historical Document that, I might add, you were supposed to have read and understood when you were sworn into the Senate?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.
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.
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
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
What exactly is it that you right-wingers think George Soros does, that inspires so much hatred? It's amusing that you Fox News disciples seem to think that just uttering the man's name means a lot to the rest of us. It doesn't. The only time I've seen any examples of what he's supposedly so bad for, was when Glenn Beck tried to claim that Soros helped the Nazi regime (when he was a child no less), which is utterly stupid, along with false. When you look at what he actually does, he is a pretty solid fighter of communism, and fascism in Europe
BOO!
Were you terrified?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
What's funny is that even people on the Right can't tell you why they hate Soros so much. The man is a self-made billionaire who grew up in Hungary during the time of Nazi Germany, and is one of the most successful capitalists in the world. He is largely credited with being crucial to the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, where he pumped millions of dollars into supporting pro-democratic programs and independent media. On top of that he is an incredible philanthropist contributing millions of dollars to organizations all over the world in support of spreading democracy, egalitarianism, and toppling oppressive regimes.
As far as I can tell, the reason they hate him is because he made getting George Bush out of office his top priority in 2003, arguing that America, as leader of the world, was taking the world off course with the War on Terror. He also supports death with dignity through assisted suicide and drug policy reform. The man is obviously a monster.
Jon Stewart also had a fantastic takedown of right-wing conspiracy theories about Soros.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation