Slashdot Mirror
Go To Jail For Visiting a Web Site? Top Law Prof Talks Up the Idea (slate.com)
David Rothman writes: Eric Posner, the fourth most-cited law professor in the U.S., says the government may need to jail you if you even visit an ISIS site after enough warnings. He says, "Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective way—and by this I mean ideas that lead directly to terrorist attacks that kill people. The novelty of this threat calls for new thinking about limits on freedom of speech.
The law would provide graduated penalties. After the first violation, a person would receive a warning letter from the government; subsequent violations would result in fines or prison sentences. The idea would be to get out the word that looking at ISIS-related websites, like looking at websites that display child pornography, is strictly forbidden" There would be exemptions for Washington-blessed journalists and others. Whew! Alas, this man isn't Donald Trump — he is a widely respected University of Chicago faculty member writing in Slate.
The law would provide graduated penalties. After the first violation, a person would receive a warning letter from the government; subsequent violations would result in fines or prison sentences. The idea would be to get out the word that looking at ISIS-related websites, like looking at websites that display child pornography, is strictly forbidden" There would be exemptions for Washington-blessed journalists and others. Whew! Alas, this man isn't Donald Trump — he is a widely respected University of Chicago faculty member writing in Slate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Brought to you by George Soros and The Open Society Foundation.
Where open society means you can be open to what they want you to be.
These same sorts of people were saying the same things about Communist writings back during the Cold War. The bottom line is that there is a significant segment of the population that abhors freedom of speech, and they'll use whatever is convenient to get at it.
Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective wayâ"and by this I mean ideas that lead directly to terrorist attacks that kill people. The novelty of this threat calls for new thinking about limits on freedom of speech.
There are two things to note. First, the "danger" is not novel or unusual. Nazism is a good previous example of such a dire threat. And we have plenty of over-the-top, hysterical examples throughout the history of the US of foreign ideas like socialism, Catholicism, and other such things (usually imported by immigrants) threatening the US. Somehow the fabric of US society endured.
Second, we have the ludicrous argument that this propaganda is effective on the basis of a single, two person terrorist attack in California (as well as a few others throughout a world of over seven billion people).
Using the law to force Facebook and Twitter to do more to block ISIS propaganda would make sense but also falls short of what is needed. No approach is perfect, but there is a way to deal with these problems.
Blocking ISIS propaganda is "makes sense". "No approach is perfect". We have two more assumptions here. First, that blocking ISIS propaganda is a good idea. and second, that we can ignore how terrible an idea is. Why not advocate the nuking of say, two billion people who happen to be or live near Muslims? No approach is perfect.
Consider Ali Amin, the subject of a recent article in the New York Times. Lonely and bored, the 17-year-old Virginia resident discovered ISIS online, was gradually drawn into its messianic world, eventually exchanged messages with other supporters and members, and then provided some modest logistical support to ISIS supporters (instructing them how to transfer funds secretly and driving an ISIS recruit to the airport). He was convicted of the crime of material support of terrorism and sentenced to 11 years in prison. Amin did not start out as a jihadi; he was made into one.
Dude had his computer hacked. He didn't mean to try to help kill people. It just sort of happened with all this bad content forced on his computer screen. Here, the implicit assumption is that people can't be responsible for their actions when it comes to this insidious jihad stuff.
In one case the seemingly naÃve individual posted general questions about religion, to which ISIS supporters quickly responded in a calm and authoritative manner. After a few weeks, the accounts of hardened ISIS supporters slowly introduced increasingly ardent views into the conversation. The new recruit was then invited to continue [conversing] privately, often via Twitterâ(TM)s Direct Message feature or on other private messaging platforms such as surespot.
This reminds me of the hysterical exhortations about the danger of recreational drugs and how drug users are lured into a shadow world of sin and iniquity.
But there is something we can do to protect people like Amin from being infected by the ISIS virus by propagandists, many of whom are anonymous and most of whom live in foreign countries. Consider a law that makes it a crime to access websites that glorify, express support for, or provide encouragement for ISIS or support recruitment by ISIS; to distribute links to those websites or videos, images, or text taken from those websites; or to encourage people to access such websites by supplying them with links or instructions. Such a law would be directed at people like Amin: naÃve people, rather than sophisticated terrorists, who are initially driven by curiosity to research ISIS on the Web.
Because punishing people for reading the wrong websites will work. When he discovers that sending people to jail, als
Well, we already have Swatting so it's not going to be a huge surprise there.
Add to it the possibility of having adbanners and a kiloton of other things involved in activating the links.
Daesh (IS) makes Lemonparty seem like eyebleach.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
This is a perfect example of why ANY attempt to undermine or diminish the intended scope of the 2nd Amendment should not be tolerated by the American public. Even the "scholars" will perform mental gymnastics to justify their arbitrary notion of what is "protected" and what is "criminal".
Well, for WWII, specifically, I was too young (not born) but my family was there. I, myself, served as a Marine and had the opportunity to participate in combat. Details of which are available.
Oh, wait, you thought I was one of those who wasn't willing to serve and just liked things that go boom. No, I love things that make noise. I am, however, still willing to serve and aid those who can not or will not do so on their own. It's the neighborly thing to do.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
He isn't some random dude. He is a law professor. And one of the most cited in the country. Come on. He should be fired immediately.
Just like the president, you mean? I guy who (theoretically, since we'll never see his actual college records) was an expert in constitutional law, lectured on it, and served as a professor at the University of Chicago. And yet he proposes all sorts of completely counter-constitutional things (most recently, like taking away people's constitutionally protected rights without due process ... you're on the no fly list, the constitution no longer applies to you!). Yes, he should have been fired a long time ago, too, on exactly such grounds. Not because he proposes or talks about such things, but because he actively practices such things.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Educate yourself. Then educate your family. Then educate your friends. It doesn't take very much.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to do this though. How can you trust any information coming from the government or media when the messages they spout are deliberately designed to deceive and to push an agenda?
How exactly do you go about educating yourself about a program that has been classified by the government for "national security reasons?" There's not much you can do except wait for the next Edward Snowden to come along to give you accurate information.
I do agree that a democratically elected government is best served by an educated voting populace, but that is a tall order given the barriers currently in place to keep the truth from the American people.
Most of the anti gun crowd, has never seen or held a gun in their lives.
And are happy to keep it that way.
Disclaimer: I live in urban Europe, not rural US.
And there is part of the problem. We out here in Rural USA do not like the liberal idiots in urban USA, or any of Europe who think they know what is best for us. We tired of their stupid "One Size Fits All" laws that may be great in the big city, but suck for us in the country. For instance, a .222 high-power rifle with a 20 round magazine might be an "assault weapon" in New York, and totally not needed there... BUT our here in rural Nebraska, if I am working with cattle out in the pasture, and a mountain lion comes charging, then YES I DO NEED to have this tool, with a lot of high powered rounds available to shoot quickly. City idiots do not understand that this is NOT a cute little kitty kitty, it is a killing muscle machine that thinks I am its next lunch. How about a rattle snake? Am I supposed to walk up and grab it? ..throw it off to the side? That only happens in the movies. A 12-guage shotgun is the better tool for that job. What about in rural Wyoming, where one might encounter a wild bear? These are NOT cuddly teddy bears. Maybe I should just ask it to be friends, like some of my college educated idiot friends might suggest.
Guns are just tools, and like any tool, can be deadly if misused. I can kill you very quickly with a #2 Phillips screwdriver, or a ball-peen hammer, but I won't, because I respect, and do not misuse my tools.
We are also tired of city idiots referring to all of us as bible thumping toothless redneck uneducated hillbillies. That is exactly why I refer to all of them as big city liberal idiots. Education does NOT equal intelligence, and in many cases, is inversely proportional. Keep your "great ideas" to yourself. Your shitty ideas do not apply to all areas of this country, or this world. If people in the big city use ARs to kill people, then that is a big city problem, not my problem. Fix it in the city, we don't need or want your advice out here... and no, we do NOT want to be more like Europe. If you USA big city liberal idiots think Europe is so great, then pick a country in Europe, and move there. I'm tired of paying so much in taxes to support your sorry entitled ass.
btw, I don't support or believe in ANYONE'S brand of sky fairy, I do have an advanced education, and I have all my teeth. Go huskers!
Bernie Sanders - He's worth voting for, actually his whole life narrative has been consistent and shows him to be someone worth voting for.
Only I can judge you.
They don't want a theocracy
Theocracy is is exactly what they want.
When they are not planning to bring about Armageddon by looking for loopholes in the Bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ cannot occur until the Third Temple is constructed in Jerusalem, which requires the appearance of a red heifer born in Israel.
Clyde Lott, a cattle breeder in O'Neill, Nebraska, United States, is attempting to systematically breed red heifers and export them to Israel to establish a breeding line of red heifers in Israel in the hope that this will bring about the construction of the Third Temple and ultimately the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.[9]
P.S. Dear moderator, we can do this until I run out of copy/paste... or you run out of mod-points.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Just between us girls, you do realize that you contradicted yourself in your response, right?
No, I didn't.
Early in your response, you mention that the NRA is consistent with "training, responsibility, and safety"
Yep.
and then later say that their role (yes, through their "political wing", but that's hair-splitting, IMO. If you, as an organization support something, your "political wing" expresses it.) is to be a "rabid dog" defender of gun rights.
This is wrong on two counts: First, because you're assuming without support that rabid dog defense of gun rights is irresponsible. Second because it is *not* hair-splitting to claim that the organization is focused on training, responsibility and safety given that the bulk of the organization and its funding goes toward those ends.
I would submit, sir, that if the NRA was *truly* concerned with "training, responsibility and safety" that they would - independent of any law or regulation - require any gun dealer who sports their logo to require that the dealer prove to their (NRA's) standards that the person ready to walk out with their very first AR-15 have some basic knowledge, understanding and competence with the thing.
Why should the NRA be responsible for policing this? The NRA makes educational resources available, including providing pamphlets for gun makers and dealers to distribute. Requiring formal education (or even just testing), merely adds an additional obstacle to gun ownership. I'm all in favor of training, the more the better, but I agree with the NRA that it's up to personal responsibility, not something that should be mandated.
All you you have to do is visit any gun store (or Walmart) and watch the average yo-yo buy one as their very first gun, waving it around, doing their Rambo impersonation, etc. It's a bad situation, I think.
Is it really? Do you have evidence to support your claim that it's a bad situation? The sort of problem you're assuming seems to be one of accidental gun deaths and injuries, which are actually very low (<600 per year, in a nation of >300M people and >300M guns), and declining steadily. The gun problem in the US is one of suicide and intentional homicide, neither of which are the result of "yo-yos" buying their first AR-15.
My perspective on this question -- as a certified pistol, rifle and shotgun instructor -- is that people take guns pretty seriously, and seek out training and education. Perhaps my perspective is skewed, because obviously the people who come to me are obviously the responsible ones, but in my personal and family life I also don't see a lot of clueless people buying guns and "waving them around". And the CDC accidental death statistics bear out my perspective.
Till then, their just shills for the gun makers who love it whenever something terrible happens cause their sales go through the roof.
Thank the anti-gun lobbies for the massive surges in gun sales after terrible shootings. Its their calls for restrictions that cause Americans to buy guns in droves. Also, it's worth pointing out that nearly 3/4 of the NRA's funding comes from individuals, not gun makers. This figure is slightly skewed by the gun dealers who include a "free" NRA membership with each gun sale, but (1) there aren't that many of those and (2) that's only a one-year membership. Contrary to anti-gun propaganda, the NRA isn't a front for the gun makers.
(And, BTW, make it damned difficult and expensive to buy ammo these days! .357 Magnums and .45 ACPs are bad enough, but .22s are impossible to find.)
I still don't understand why the factories haven't ramped up production of .22LR. For the first two or three years, okay, they were probably concerned that the shortage was temporary and did
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.