Slashdot Mirror
Newt Gingrich Says Visiting An ISIS Or Al Qaeda Website Should Be A Felony (techdirt.com)
flopsquad writes: Following the July 14th terror attack in Nice, France, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for U.S. Muslims to be tested for their belief in Sharia law, and if so, deported: "Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in Sharia they should be deported," Gingrich said in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. While the cleverest few might try to defeat such a test by answering "No," Mr. Gingrich laid out additional steps to shore up the plan: "The first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they're doing on the internet. The third step is, let me be very clear, you have to monitor the mosques. I mean, if you're not prepared to monitor the mosques, this whole thing is a joke." Gingrich also opined that "Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. No word on the First and Fourth Amendment implications of his proposals, nor on where Gingrich plans to deport U.S. citizens who fail his Sharia test. Gingrich went on to say: "Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felon. It should be closed down immediately. Our forces should be used to systematically destroy every internet based source..." Mike Masnick from Techdirt writes: "Merely visiting a website should put you in jail? What if you're a journalist? Or a politician? Or a researcher trying to understand ISIS? That should be a felony? That's not how it works. This also assumes, idiotically, that merely reading a website about ISIS will make people side with ISIS. It's also not, at all, how the law works. Same with the second part about it being a felony to host such content."
What a retard. How do these people even get into government?
Other things should be a felony, too. Like being Newt Gingrich
Jesus Newt, you can take off your crazy pants now. Trump didzn't pick you as his running mate.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's time to arrest Newt Gingrich for conspiracy to commit treason and execute him
of course each and every law enforcement officer of all branches, the government, the CIA, the FBI, etc would all be exempt from this... One law for the rich, powerful, and connected - and one for us lowly peasants they want to lock up forever and get rid of. Freedom of speech? nah, no need for that.
I always find it interesting when I see someone complaining about Sharia law, and the person doing the complaining has no problems at all with the idea of shoving Christian law on everyone.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
See here for more info.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
People are dying. Mass murder has been made popular by ISIS and there have been several in just the last few weeks.
And there will be more.
Ok, so you don't like what Newt has to say. What is your solution?
Or is your solution to do nothing and ignore it?
Now that he's no longer in the running for Veep he's gonna use the bump to sell as many of his books & merchant to frightened old people as he can. As for how extreme his nonsense is, it's kinda like when the Nigerian scammers write nonsense about long lost princes. You want to weed out the less bat shit crazies so you don't waste you're time with anyone who isn't a mark.
/. pointed out that for the rest of the world thinking about the country with the most nukes/largest military tolerating this much crazy is unnerving...
The sad thing is a major half of American politics revolves around this. I forgot who but somebody on
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just don't give them visas, green cards and all that. If we don't let them come to the US legally except under strict regulations, no one's rights get violated. Not ours, not theirs because foreigners have no right to enter our country. Discriminatory? Sure, but I don't see any mainstream party in the Islamic world batting an eye at the policy of Saudi Arabia of "No Jews, period."
Mass murder is becoming common because of ISIS. You don't like Newt's ideas.
What are your ideas?
Don't bring us a problem, we have enough of those. Bring us a solution.
If he had put it in these terms there would be a lot less complaining.
...nor on where Gingrich plans to deport U.S. citizens who fail his Sharia test.
Concentration camps of course. Like the Japanese citizens during WWII.
Probably need to declare some martial law as well.
No, he's actually intelligent. He is not saying this because it would be a smart thing to do, he is saying it to get press coverage and help with some strategic goal for his personal brand or for one of his current projects.
Real lawyers write in C++
...won't terrorists "just ignore the law?"
How easily the lessons of history are lost upon the ignorant. When you threaten to imprison people for:
1. Having certain thoughts
2. Belonging to a specific ethnic, religious, or social group
3. Viewing, possessing, or accessing information
This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to totalitarianism and genocide. That is not to say that the dissemination of certain ideas are not dangerous (e.g. incitement to mass murder), or that certain forms of information/content should not be illegal to possess or distribute (e.g., child pornography). Yes, ISIS materials and websites that promote terrorism are awful, but merely *accessing* these, in of themselves, should not and cannot be regarded as criminal, since you would not only criminalize their supporters and sympathizers, but you'd criminalize anyone attempting to investigate them for the purposes of covert surveillance or academic research.
Terrorism, by its nature, is not the incitement of terror in a society for its own sake; no. Terrorism is a strategy by which individuals seek to overthrow a state by attacking its civilians; who, in their fear, appeal to the state to protect them through ever-increasingly draconian policies, such as those proposed by Mr. Gingrich. The state, whose interests are not to protect the people but to consolidate power and wealth into its own hands, makes the deliberate choice to restrict freedoms, until the people become so oppressed that they overthrow the government. This is how terrorism wins.
If the world wants to defeat ISIS and the like, the solution is to prevent their ideas from having any appeal. By threatening the same people that ISIS is trying to attract, all in the name of "national security," those who run the government are sending a very clear signal to anyone with a brain that in fact, they are not interested in stopping terrorism, but are all too happy to leverage fear as a way to gain power.
This might as well be a fucking "nerd tabloid" at this point; posting the ostensibly insane ramblings of an old man is nothing but click bait. Encouraging discussion of something so irrelevant is offensive, especially for your audience. This is vapid content, for vapid people.
What ever happened to the "stuff that matters" part of Slashdot?
"Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail
Who's going to be the first person to create some malware that visits ISIS and Al-Qaeda websites, and deploy that malware to members of Congress?
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Due to my browsing to this article about the terrorist who calls himself "Newt Gingrich", I believe I have less respect for the Republican party. The communist witch-hunt was simpler, since terrorist propaganda is more common.
Same goes for all other religions.
Joseph McCarthy already tried all of that and it was a goddamn disaster for obvious reasons. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass. It's time for you to retire from politics and let the adults handle it now.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Newt gets stupider by the minute.
Don't forget- this is the guy who was having an affair while his wife was sick cancer, and who had her served divorce papers while she in the hospital recovering from surgery to remove a tumor. What a sweetheart.
And, to top it off, he was having the affair while he was trying to impeach Bill Clinton for.....having an affair. No hypocrisy there, no siree.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Why are we paying attention to him? He's been discredited as a hypocrite, with bigger moral failings than those he was accusing of not being of good character. He should be all rights be a non-entity at this point and doing nothing more political than talking at the local Oddfellows club.
Rejecting someone based on belief in Sharia is stupid. Sharia does not mean someone believes in overthrowing the US, or in violence, or anything like that. No one practicing Sharia in the US is cutting off the hands of thieves. It's just a religious set of rules, vague and fuzzy rules too as no one is in agreement on them anyway. If you're Muslim then you hold to at least some parts of Sharia (like not eating pork). And there are dozens of varieties of Islam.
In the extremist evangelican community there's been myths spread around that Sharia is replacing US laws in some place, which is ridiculous. We have many faiths in the US where the members may follow additional laws and rules and codes; for instance a legal divorce granted by a court of law is not considered binding in many faiths (Roman Catholics may need to get an additional annullment, some Orthodox Jewish groups need to get a specific "get", etc). Many religions and sects will want you to resolve disputes within their group rather than within the courts. None of those laws nullify US law though. And likewise, no one is trying to replace US law with Sharia law.
Having your own rules about what foods to eat or when to fast, whether or not to pay/receive interest, how much to give to charities, or what to wear, should never disqualify someone from being a citizen or resident of the US.
If you deport someone because of belief in Sharia then where do you deport them do if they are native born citizens of with multiple generations in this country? This is just hysterical pandering and fear mongering by someone known to have poor judgement.
Newts are slimy, nasty little fuckers.
If we required them to stitch gold stars on their clothing (or pink triangles, Red triangles, blue triangles, purple triangles or black triangles) they could be easily identified. I mean who are they trying to assimilate to the culture they are living in.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
Following the July 14th terror attack in Nice, France, former House Speaker Newt Trump has called for U.S. Trumps to be tested for their belief in Trump law, and if so, deported: "Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Trump background and if they believe in Trump they should be deported," Trump said in an interview with Trump News' Sean Hannity. While the cleverest few might try to defeat such a test by answering "No," Mr. Trump laid out additional steps to shore up the plan: "The first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they're doing on the internet. The third step is, let me be very clear, you have to monitor the trumps. I mean, if you're not prepared to monitor the trumps, this whole thing is a joke." Ttrump also opined that "Anybody who goes on a website favoring ITIT, or Al-Trumpa, or other trump groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. No word on the First and Fourth Amendment implications of his proposals, nor on where Trump plans to deport U.S. citizens who fail his Trump test.
How about we propose that anyone visiting Newt Gingrich's website should be charged with a felony? It's just as harmful.
His proposal does just as much to undermine the Constitution of the United States as any AQ or ISIS propaganda. Let's all be glad he no longer holds public office, and hope he never does again.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Many people don't remember the 90's when the news was full of whatever vomit spewed from this man's mouth. When he cashed in his all his political favors for the millions of dollars that he was given by big corporations after serving in office, I thought we had heard the last of him. Makes sense that the worse of the worse would come crawling out of the woodwork. Thanks Trump.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
That makes just about as much sense, but - then again - hypocritical Bible-thumpers are just Christian Ayatollahs with a different God, and so why would anyone expect anything less from such a mind(less)-set.
Dear Newt: the sick and the tired need to get out of government.
Please hand over the matches and head for the nearest exit, and don't get cranky if security decides to perform a strip search.
Just a question. What's Arabic for "glasnost?"
Fine Newt. So what is the penalty for THIS?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
How about making it a felony to suggest stupid, unenforceable or simply outright impossible to uphold laws? Every time a politician suggests a law that can easily be shown to be beyond idiotic by someone who, unlike said politician, knows something about the subject the politician wants to regulate, the politicians collects 30 days of jail time.
I swear, by the end of a 4 year term the average congressmen is in for life. And then some.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is CIAdot long-summary bump-comments-on-previous-story-to-oblivion horse shit.
The CIA surely scared Newt into saying what they want him to say. If you lock everybody up for visiting a fucking website no matter if it is dogs fucking cats or 10,000 fags sucking dicks you will do what to the taxpayer?
No politician could publicly knife his constituents in the back over visiting a website like this. A felony seriously? Just hot air? Nope. The CIA literally are done. Fucked. Siyonara. Turn out the lights, the party is over.
They have the coup in Turkey now to make you think "oh damn, I hope that doesn't happen HERE" and at the same time they have a mass murder in France pumped to the global public as in "what can our government do to help little old us".. etc.
In between going wtf you are supposed to be annoyed by Pokemon GO stories.
psst CIA. It's getting hot in here.
Kind of surprised to see something along the lines of an insightful discussion on today's slashdot, so I'll give a shot to answering the question (since I haven't found such an answer yet). It's actually an economic model that could be of interest to slashdot, insofar as slashdot is some sort of journalistic enterprise.
Solution: STOP supporting the terrorists with FREE publicity. I'm not saying that the journalists shouldn't report the terrorist incidents, but they need to stop using deliberate publicity-seeking disaster porn as part of their business model. The never-ending quest for more eyeballs to sell more ads is giving the advantage to the terrorists. The more outrageous the terrorist act, the more free publicity and the HARDER the mass media works to give the terrorists more free publicity. In case you haven't noticed, it is NOT discouraging the terrorists from trying to devise ever more horrendous attacks.
Instead, ALL of the responsible mainstream media sources should agree NOT to compete for eyeballs with disaster porn produced by terrorists. The reports of terrorist incidents should be unified and limited. They should form a special consortium to prepare the reports on terrorists incidents, and all of the media sources would only broadcast the SAME stories about the terrorist acts. The stories would avoid sensationalism and simply report the terrible facts. Each media source could use all of the reports, or some of them, but it would not be a competition for eyeballs for terrorists. Actually, the incentives would now be reversed, and all of the media sources would be motivated to produce more news about other stories so they can compete for those precious eyeballs--but without helping or encouraging the terrorists.
Free publicity is an oxymoron. It is incredibly valuable. Just ask the Donald.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
still just trying to get invited to the front of the plane.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
One of the current rdns addresses for Tor is
'allahuakbar.islamislove.com'
Pretty sure under Newt's Law, this would flag you for an immediate felony.
All the US Gov has to do to get convictions is start providing a low of new 'terrorist named' nodes to the Tor network and their 'social problems' will have been solved. All under the guise of terrorism.
To the rest of you out there: Get out of America while you still can.
Being Newt Gingrich should be a felony
to fight theocracy.
What about the American citizens who were born there? Where do you deport them to?
What happened to freedom of religious belief? You know that pesky First Amendment
Kind of surprised to see something along the lines of an insightful discussion on today's slashdot, so I'll give a shot to answering the question (since I haven't found such an answer yet). It's actually an economic model that could be of interest to slashdot, insofar as slashdot is some sort of journalistic enterprise.
Solution: STOP supporting the terrorists with FREE publicity. I'm not saying that the journalists shouldn't report the terrorist incidents, but they need to stop using deliberate publicity-seeking disaster porn as part of their business model. The never-ending quest for more eyeballs to sell more ads is giving the advantage to the terrorists. The more outrageous the terrorist act, the more free publicity and the HARDER the mass media works to give the terrorists more free publicity.
This is all sadly true. Appeals to emotion tend to cloud reason. The terror porn sells and it sadly makes people afraid. The only solution I can think of that might work, at least in the long run, is to require extensive training in logic and reasoning in school, ideally everywhere. You don't get a high school diploma without being able to spot a logical fallacy a mile away. Of course, this would only be a partial solution, since the skills may atrophy, or may never be applied outside the classroom, but I think it would be a step in the right direction. Of course great care might have to be taken so the course material doesn't offend anyone, otherwise your liable to get the course shut down and lose the benefit. One could argue that the attack on some types of coursework by some people is another serious problem, but, well, when solving a problem, you often have to accept the attainable instead of the ideal.
How can we get logic and reason to be an important part of our training as people? Logically, I'm about as likely as anything to die of something related to my imperfect diet and not enough exercise, or failing that things like car wrecks are still pretty high up there. Terrorism is way down the list, yet it reminds us how fragile things can be, and it kicks off our danger detector, even when the actual amount of danger is pretty low.
I understand that if the media did less terror porn it would help, but I just can't see a way to achieve that goal without sacrificing a freedom we aren't willing to sacrifice. Here is a thought. I almost hate to use the word balanced, giving how battered and scarred it is these days, but a story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Perhaps we could encourage news to be more well rounded.
For instance, if a terrorist attack occurred, don't just tell about the attack. Tell us about the town, the place, and the people before the attack. Then also, after a year or so has passed, tell us about how things are now. Tell us the story about the brave old couple who refused to be defeated who rebuilt and serve the best pasta in the area. We could also, as a people, simply try to demand more from news agencies than the same news repeated for the current 3 day news cycle. The world is a big place. Something else has to be going on that is interesting. I don't believe this kind of reporting is impossible, though if we really want it we have to demand it. All in all though, I'd bet on the training in logic and reason to be a more likely path for change, assuming it could ever be added to the core curriculum.
Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felon
Engaged "in a felon?" How does that compare to being engaged to a woman while your ex-wife dies of cancer, after you've told her she isn't young enough or pretty enough to be a First Lady? Ah, the party of family values. Newt Gingrich is an unrepentant piece of shit of a human being and nobody should be paying any attention to what he suggests.
"If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
piss the f off
Gingrich, and all like-minded US residents, should be force to learn the US Constitution before being allowed to utter another word. Failure to do so should be grounds for a long jail term, followed be deportation to who-gives-a-shit.
Solution: STOP supporting the terrorists with FREE publicity. I'm not saying that the journalists shouldn't report the terrorist incidents, but they need to stop using deliberate publicity-seeking disaster porn as part of their business model.
I know where you're coming from, but what about the reporting of the latest attack in Nice, France was "disaster porn"? The reporting I've seen didn't seem sensationalist, but then, I suspect the sensationalism is directly proportional to which news source one consumes. But I fear you're asking for the impossible for *everyone* to show reasonable restraint, and what's more, you're implicitly putting partial blame on the media, not the barbarians who incite others to attack innocent people or support them through funding, training, or other support - and I'm not sure that's really fair.
No one likes to hear that there simply isn't a reasonably way of preventing all such attacks in a free society while still remaining free. Our law enforcement agencies will simply have to do the best they can under the constraints we ALL have to live with to root out these monsters and keep us as safe as possible. And our job is to not let terror attacks do what they're intended to do, which is to intimidate and terrorize us.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
The US and the EU have a bet going to see who can pass the dumbest ideas on Earth :|
I'll see your ban on encryption and raise you a felony just to look upon words ! :|
Anyone who reads a book or watches TV depicting criminal behavior should be charged with said behavior. A service that provides support or hosts a site that is pro ISIS should be guilty of a felony ?? How about they be notified and asked or told under some valid law or jurisdiction to take down such a site first.
She turned me into a Newt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
He did not say "visiting an ISIS or Al Qaeda website should be a felony". You actually have to visit and "favor" ISIS.
I still think Newt is wrong, and you should have to prove that you gave significant aid to ISIS or Al Qaeda, but it makes what he said less bad.
Keep in mind the GOP platform came out strongly against porn as a blight on society. If they actually succeeded in the ISIS felony, you *know* porn would follow.
... you know who else rounded up people and sent them away based on their belief? HITLER.
Newt is famous for gaining popularity by saying words without listening to what he says. Possibly my favorite Newtism is when he ran for president mostly by taking credit for trying to make all branches of the government republican. There were many problems with this.
1) He was proud of taking everything Americans consider to be true and holy which is their belief that by voting, they could be represented and not fear a tyranny that could unilaterally pass laws and taxes, etc... Without checks and balances. He wanted to make it possible for the Republican Party to simply pass laws without the possibility of debate leaving more than half the entire population of the country entirely at the mercy of the few.
2) He wanted to win the republican primaries by promising to eliminate the democrats ability to have any say in government at all. He wanted to make sure the house, senate, judiciary and executive branches could pass a law without any possible opposition. But, by doing so, he would the face general elections which would require him to convince the remaining population to vote for him even though he clearly stated in his primaries he considers their opinion to be so meaningless, he wants to ban it from government. So, basically he wold guarantee that no one outside of his party would vote for him... thereby leaving his own party unable to have a chance at 4 years in the executive office.
Clinton is doing something similar now. She makes promises and makes statements which are clearly outside of the scope of her presidential responsibility and power if she were to win. While Trump make the same stupid assed promises, she is guilty of sheer stupidity since she was the president's closest advisor for 8 year and if there is anyone eligible for presidency today that actually does understand the responsibilities and purview of the executive office and has one of the most experienced advisors (as Bill was president) at her side, it's her. Yet, she moves her lips and says things she knows she can't do either practically or legally once she's in office.
The issue here is that politicians play a game to gain ratings and score points. Consider the presidential debates where candidates are scored based on come backs and witticisms and it's a game to them and the country. It's like watching an elimination reality TV series where the contestants know that if they get caught having sex on camera, they won't be voted out that week because the viewers go nuts and don't want to miss seeing it again.
Society has permitted politics to because a major televised sporting event in the form of a reality TV series. This is mainly because Fox, CNN, NPR, and about ten thousand bloggers and Internet new sources make their livings out of fantasticizing headlines to gain viewers and ratings.
Donald Trump probably has contributed tens of billions of dollars to the news networks because he's so frigging amazingly good at reality TV that news networks worldwide are making massive ratings. People are excited to hear what stupid shit he'll say next. Between Trump and Kanye West, Twitter is actually going to survive at least until 2017.
Along time ago, organized sports came into existence to get people to stop watching politics and let hem focus instead on watching people beat each other to death inside of colosseums. We've known for thousands of years that humans being primitive organisms with little real intelligence are obsessed with domination. We instinctually want to turn everything into a battle or blood match. Mac vs. Window, HP vs Cisco, Ethernet vs. TokenRing. Almost never have we gained any advantage from anyone winning over anyone else.
We are raised to believe competition is good and great and awesome. But we don't consider what that means. We insist that democrats or republicans have to win. We think that Mets or Yankees have to win.
The truth is, competition is only good so long as there is competition. Competition allows two or more competing bodies (people, technologies, etc...) to
... when some Muslims there demanded the right to use Sharia to settle family disputes etc. outside of the provincial court system, not only did the premiere rule it out, but also struck down already instated exceptions for Jewish and Catholic family courts, which were being used to justify the call for the same exceptions for Sharia. Fair's fair!
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ontario-premier-rejects-use-of-shariah-law-1.523122
what is this nazi germany 2016? and is the next move put all Muslims into Internment Camps? trump is not that extreme.
Because knowledge and freedom means imprisoning and removing the legal rights from those who's belief system differs. Well done Newt... Sieg Heil!!
Is one of the dick heads Trump was vetting to run with him. Did you guys read the Republicans put Internet open into their national agenda as well? You guys cheering your boy Trump happy yet?
I suggest that for his test he makes them eat a ham sandwich.
French intelligence have been monitoring its own mosques for a while. Extremists know that and recruit outside of mosques.
... goddam Constitution in the ass?
Neuter Newt.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
sometimes a person can end up on an unintended site. this man is a moron and a threat to America when given a soapbox.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
More severely retarded politicians get into government and make their populations vulnerable by refusing to see blatant cause-effect relationships between a global terrorism movement and the ideology driving it. All across Europe and North America there are politicians so desperate to prove their own tolerance that they are rapidly importing into their societies people who despise the principles those societies were built upon. Then when the imported persons commiot violent acts, these same know-nothing elites lie their asses off about what happened and hide evidence, even denying basic facts after the public becomes aware.
Just look at the German government. They imported this stuff into Germany and on New Years as over a thousand German women were raped or molested by immigrants the Germena governemt exercised more effort covering it up than protecting its own people.
Look at France, where it has now been found that the French government hid the details of the tortures that happened at the Bataclan massacre.
Look at the Obama administration that tries to re-paint every Muslim terrorist attack as "gun violence", "man-caused disaster", "workplace violence" and so forth. This very same administration rushed to the nearest microphone to denounce any opponent as a racist or bigot (as long as he/she is NOT Muslim).
The truly voluntarily-menatlly-crippled are the ones that refuse to see the obvious connection between a belief system that teaches that anybody who disagrees must be subjugated or killed, that no man-made law is valid, that a woman is 1/2 or 1/4 the value of a man depending on if she is testifying in court or exercising any other right, etc. and the violent terrorism its adherents have been carrying out all over the globe. The idiots are the ones who have no solution as the bodies pile up like wood at a sawmill and who only get exercised when somebody points out that the emperor is naked (i.e. Islam is as its name indicates: a religion of SUBMISSION, not "peace") and that it has a centuries-long reputation for violent jihad pricisely because it's "prophet" specifically taugh and practised violent jihad. The complete horse posteriors are the people who would denounce somebody like Gingrich who ties cause to effect, who whine about how mean he is, or what a jerk he is, while having absolutely no solution to the problem of muslims who can, at any moment, decide to become serious Muslims and faithfully carry out the commands of their prophet to go on a killing spree.
The US Marine Corps was created by the Continental Congress in November 1775, even before the US was officially an independent nation. Marines are called "leathernecks" for a reason: they had leather collars on their uniforms to make it harder to behead them. They were originally sent into two struggles: (a) the fight against the British, and (b) the fight against the Barbary Pirates (Muslims who were taking American merchants as hostages) which is where the leather collars came into the story. The Marine Corps sing about the "shores of Tripoli" in memory of those early fights in Libya rescuing Americans from Muslim pirates.
The Christian Crusades started in response the the Islamic take-over of the Biblical Holy Lands and the subjugation of the Christians there and the sacking of Christian churches.
Islam has a demonstrated history of wave after wave of bloody massacres and violence ever since it was founded about 7 centuries after Christianity arose. History teaches that it
No word on the First and Fourth Amendment implications of his proposals
Get a clue. The Bill of Rights is no longer in effect and much of the rest of the Constitution is or soon will be dead. How the hell can we defeat the enemies of freedom unless we take away all American's rights, assume they are guilty unless proven innocent, and deport everyone who doesn't accept the Truth of the One Christian God? (Including the split personality disorder and the zombiesm.) The enemies of this country have a paranoid hatred of us and we must defeat them by proving them right.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
know your enemy.
I didn't say anything about Congress in this reply or the earlier one, so it's really hard to regard your response as sincere or in good faith, but I'll go ahead and pretend for a bit that there is some potential for a civil discussion today's slashdot.
If you want to raise the NEW question of legislative mandate, I would say it could fit under the "public good" idea that was part of the licensing of the airwaves by AM radio stations way back when. It was explicitly required that they serve the public good in exchange for being granted what were essentially monopoly rights for the use of certain frequencies. I think that was actually a good thing and probably contributed to some good things in America in more democratic days. More "politically representative" days if you have been indoctrinated to hate the other word.
What I am suggesting would basically be an agreement among the major news broadcasters NOT to compete for eyeballs by using disaster porn that was created for that purpose. All of them would agree to use the SAME coverage. If a news story was classified as "artificial disaster porn seeking free publicity", then that story would be handed over to a special group of reporters who would cover the story on behalf of ALL of the responsible news organizations. Because they would have access to the same coverage, they would not be competing for eyeballs on that story, and they would not have the incentive to make it bigger and better, which is exactly what the terrorists want.
How to staff the special group is a good question. I think that there should be a special pool of experienced reporters assigned from all of the news organizations. However, it might make good sense to have some of them be permanent employees of the special pool.
Still don't see any need for government involvement, though it might make sense to reward the media organizations that participate with a special tax credit, or put a special terrorist-support surtax on the media organizations that refuse to participate.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Put yourself at the next massacre, and DO NOTHING. Allow yourself to be killed. Hell, you can accellerate the process by publicly drawing a cartoon of Mohammed.
Better you, than the innocents you demand be sacrificed upon the altar whre you are tyring to prove yourself a superior "tolerant" person...
or... perhaps...
Is your real name "Mohammed", or "Muhammed" or any of the other versions Muslim immigrants use in western countries?,/p>
Perhaps you are typing from a WiFi spot in Iraq or Egypt? Only a stupid dhimmi, or a Muslim supremacist would advocate people of western civilization doing nothing while being invaded by this proven backward and violent ideology.
I'd bet a hefty sum of cash you would NOT advocate people stay silent and not react if a Chrisitian religious figure like Franklin Grahm were to do something REALLY extreme like run for President. You probably would not say "do NOTHING" to your friends if some non-Muslim were getting enough power to roll-back gay marriage or ban abortions. When somebody advocates peacefully ejecting immigrants who demostrate support for MURDERING gays (or people who listen to rock music), and raping women (particularly if they're [gasp] dressed in a way that esposes their ankles or wrists), then YOU think the guy speaking about ejecting the violent radicals is the actual "bad guy".
This is what cultural suicide looks like.
The President pretty much summed it up when he said "Heck, I couldn't even pass that test!"
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I feel like I'm being unclear. I am absolutely NOT saying that the criminals are not heinous monsters. I am saying we should NOT play the game by the monsters' preferred rules. We can change the rules against them.
Let me try to reword it:
If a story is classified as "disaster porn created for free publicity" (which would include almost every terrorist attack), then that news story would be transferred to a special pool of reporters. They would produce unified reports that would be shared with all responsible news organizations. There would be no additional free coverage for the terrorists, and no competition for eyeballs, since that story would be reported in the same way everywhere. Some news organizations might choose to give it less time, but that would be their decision.
Rather than trying to make money from supporting the terrorists, the news organizations would be incentivized to compete on everything else. Only the fake news deliberately created for free publicity would be subject to "equalization".
I don't want to go too far into speculative details, but I think the special pool should be staffed by experienced reporters from all of the news organizations, probably serving on relatively short rotations. I also think there should be a protest mechanism, if some of the news organizations feel that a news story or some aspects of a news story should not be limited to the special "disaster porn" pool.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The only solution I can think of that might work, at least in the long run, is to require extensive training in logic and reasoning in school, ideally everywhere. You don't get a high school diploma without being able to spot a logical fallacy a mile away.
You know, I've yet to see anyone who rants and raves about this or that logical fallacy in online discussions who actually knows what a logical fallacy is and what effect those sorts of logical errors have on the argument. Most of the time, they confuse even simple things like logical and rhetorical arguments. As far as I can tell, those who shout the loudest about the importance of logic and reason are the least likely to understand either.
Don't get me started on the contortions they make to label part of an argument with whatever random fallacy popped in to their head. If you were to pay careful attention to these morons, you could come to no other conclusion than logical fallacies are completely interchangeable!
If the idiots who worship logic and reason like they're ancient Sumerian gods don't even understand the basics, what hope do completely disinterested high school students have?
If you really want to prepare students with practical critical thinking skills, you'd skip logic entirely and focus on rhetoric. It's far more useful in this modern world.
The rhetoric sounds good but simply has no basis in reality. 30% of the Muslim population average across the globe wants Sharia law to be the rule of their Government. If you believe the statistic 1.5 Billion Muslims that is 500 million people that want you dead if you are not a Muslim (go read up on what Sharia law is). 50% believe that anyone leaving the Muslim faith should get the death penalty. More than half say that it's okay for a guy to hit his wife (as long as she deserved it), and that the death penalty is fine for adultery. Adultery almost always applies to women since a woman's testimony is worth 1/4th a mans, so if a woman gets raped it's her own fault and she should be killed for it.
Sorry that facts don't back the common rhetoric, but if we can't admit what's real we can't begin to contemplate a solution.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You were extremely dishonest, as I will illustrate momentarily.
NEVER quote individual sentences from any book. Not the Bible, and not the Koran. Treat ALL books as "books".
Bible sentences are numbered as a form of scholarly navigation in a pre-standard-book-printing world where a particular sentance could be on different spots of different pages depending on the shape and size of the paper and the hand lettering or printing, not because they are individual stabnd-alone fortune cookie sayings. It allowed a bit of text to be found by saying "the book of Mark, Chapter 2, verse 3" and so forth, enabling different people with Bbiles in different form factors to refer to the same text. Christian scholars originally numbered sentences for navigation, and average Christians are raised using numbered verses and thus used to doing it, but it is sloppy and leads to bad things as people can easliy get very bad ideas without the context, as you could with any book.
When you read the entire Bible, IN FULL CONTEXT, you get a consistent book. The Bible DOES NOT advocate ANY violence. It recounts certain specific historical violent events in the past, and predicts certain violent events in some indefinite future moment, but NEVER advocates for violence and NEVER tells Chrsitians to try to bring about any of the dark future events. There is NO basis for any claim that Jesus taught his followers to do any violence. This is VERY different from the Koran, where the Prophet Mohammed is labelled "the perfect man" and his followers are taught to emulate him - and he is a violent warloard who rapes and murders and advocates peacefully converting people to Islam where possible, coexisting with non-Muslims when necessary, and forcibly converting or killing non-believers when possible.
Now to your dishonesty:
I would not normally quote the Bible on Slashdot, as this is a tech site, not a religious one, but you have so twisted things in an obvious deceit that I must to expose it. I will quote enough for the minimal proper context:
Chapter 10 of the book of Matthew is Jesus speaking to his 12 apostles. He is instructing them to go out into the world and TEACH his message with words and deeds of peace and to simply peacefully leave places that reject them. He then explains that he is not there to, as we would now say "muddy the waters" or "blur the lines" but rather to draw strong distinctions, separating some from others. He is warning them that they will not always be well recieved and that his words will cause some people to be draw TO the apostles and that others would be hostile and turn away from them. In THIS way Jesus says he is like a sword separating things. To get the full context, you need to read the entire Book, but this is Slashdot,so I will only quote enough to out your deception enough that those who care can see it and do more reading on their own to see just how deceptive you have been.
Beginning at verse (sentence 16) Jesus, speaking to his apostles, warns about the environment he is sending them into and how they ought to behave saying:
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."
Then he further warns about things they will face and that, as his servants, they will be treated worse than he (as their master) is treated:
"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all
Well, one thing that's different about Nice is that, at least to my knowledge, no one has been given credit yet. That makes its coverage rather unique.
It's probably too much to expect the media not to report terrorist attacks. People want to know about such attacks. Even if it weren't on the news, it'd be all over the internet, so word would still get out. However, they could stop mentioning the individual organizations behind the attacks. Doing so only gives them the exposure they want, essentially rewarding them for a successful attack by making more people aware of the organization and its goals, and indeed, increasing the organization's prestige among those who might be interested in joining such an organization. Meanwhile, what does the public gain by knowing who is responsible for the attack and what their motivations are? Fear of doing whatever it is that that organization doesn't like? Yes, like we need that.
When there's gang violence, do they talk about the individual gangs involved, what each gang's beliefs and goals are, which gangs current control what territory, and keep a running tally on how many of each gang have been killed by which other gangs? Of course not. No one cares, and doing so would only popularize the more successful gangs and encourage more gang violence because of the attention it brings. Yet that's exactly what we do for terrorism. Indeed, we do the same for mass shootings, always going to great lengths to publicize the shooter's motivations, and almost like it's a result, mass shootings seem to be on the rise.
Honestly, I'd much rather go back to the days of the Oklahoma City bombing where all anyone cared to know about those fucks was that they were dead or in prison. Even to this day I still don't know why they did it, and I'm just fine with that. Now everyone is quite happy to talk about the grievances of terrorists and mass shooters. Remember all of the controversy over the publication of the Unibomber's manifesto? Now there's no controversy at all. Talking about what ISIS wants is completely fucking normal for some reason.
....and burn all the books.
http://www.isis-products.com.t...
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail.
First he proposes a clearly unconstitutional law, and then says...
We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in Sharia they should be deported.
How about we test every politician, and if they don't understand and believe in the Constitution, they should be deported!
Can you not recognize a trial balloon? More common in the UK, where someone less senior (_NOT_ the big cheese) throws out details for an established theme to see reaction. Easily deniable if excessively opposed, easily co-opted if insufficiently opposed. Look for a payoff as an Ambassadorship or Cabinet post.
As for legality, please show me the Feds care. They certainly did not when Senator Joe McCarthy abused subpoena power. Both before and since, the Feds have lawyers who will argue that zero is one.
A good plan would be to make Bear Spray and Tasers widely available in France, cheap if not free. Arm the citizens with those, give them a fighting chance without endangering the community. A large blast of bear spray in the cab of that truck in Nice would have went a long way to disabling him.
My comments never get voted up, but I know this is a valuable idea... Peace
is this:
https://www.google.com/search?...
Yes we should deport all muslims, and christians, and anyone else who believes in abrahamic religions. These violent religions are a scourge on this earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Bear spray creates a cloud which is appropriate for running bears off but Is not as appropriate for self defense against people, especially indoors. I think you would be better served using regular Mace.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
don't tell anyone
You first shithead.
Let's see you test that theory. I will pay to watch.
understand why huge portions of the global population do what they do and why entire civilizations are built they way they are.
I have read "The moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Starship Troopers", many works of Asimov and I believe I understand them. I read them even though I know they are fiction. I read "The Hunt for Red October" even though I did not believe it was a true story. I've read many other works of fiction, and I've listened to songs about imaginary situations, and watched TVshows and Movies I knew to be completely made-up, like Star Trek. I've read Shakespeare and Hemingway and many other books by many other authors,both fiction and non-fiction. This is all part of being a well-rounded, culturally-aware and "educated" person. You can read a Bible and/or a Koran with the belief that one or the other is a sacred text (though yoou cannot hold both to be valid without being schizophrenic) or with the equal certainty that they are both complete works of fiction. Either way it is educational, eye-openeing, and intellectually honest in two ways: You'll actually know what's in those books, AND you'll know when others who cite them are doing so honestly or dishonestly.
I presume you also recommend people not read the Constitution of The United States, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Wealth of Nations, The Communist Manifesto, Democracy in America, Mein Kampf, etc?
Well-educated people read plenty of stuff they agree with, some stuff they believe in, and plenty of stuff they know to be fiction and/or complete garbage.
Ignorant people celebrate NOT reading books and sometimes even heap them into piles and burn them.
You have the post-modern flare of youthful enthusiasm for self-inflicted mental blindness that is all-too common these days. It's sad really. People with your attitude of blissful ignorance are the counterpoint to people who spend their lives building libraries. [facepalm]
So we should put the public dissemination of information concerning such events firmly and exclusively into the hands of an arbitrary group that's not actually accountable to anyone? Smart.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
it worked perfectly and I have never in my LIFE heard a Democrat/Liberal complain about it.
NAZIism and Islam are both supremacist ideologies. Islam has nothing to do with skin color, though it's adherents have been playing a very two-faced game with that concept all along using western insecurities about racism as a weapon. If you talk about screening for Muslims at airports, they laugh that Islamic people are of all ethnicitiesand thus you are stupid to think you can screen for them. If you say that you want different rules for Muslims, they they scream that you are a racist. Islamic Sharia law would completely displace the US constitution and eliminate all rights for atheists and agnostics, who would be subject to the death penalty.
During WWII, Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt put more than one group of AMERICAN CITIZENS into internment camps:
JapaneseAmericans were gathered-up on purely ethnic grounds and put into camps with the worry that they might have allegiances to Japan and might engage in sabotage. Because they were an ethinc group, this has been hugely publicised and their internment classeed as racist and the have been apologized to and been paid a token compensation.
German Americans, were subjected to a SECOND round of internment (it was ALSO done to them during WWI). They were mostly put in camps for being of both German heritage AND suspected of having the same beleifs as the enemy. Given that they were caucasian, they have never been able to scream "racism", the popular media has NEVER portrayed them as "victims", and most people have never heard of it. The few Americans who are aware have been told that they were all goose-stepping NAZIs (which is a joke when you consider that it happened also in World War One). There were indeed some goose-stepping NAZI sympathisers, just like today there are many Muslims in the US who are ISIS sympathisers.
If you are gonna condemn Newt, who was a history professor and certainly must know this bit of history, then you must also condemn FDR and the Democrats for putting thousands of German Americans into camps, most with no evidence of actual wrongdoing.
Remember: Islam is a BELIEF system, and it involes a replacement for the US government that would implement a legal system in which non-Muslims would have no or reduced rights depending on the subject (death for gays and atheists, subjugation for Christians and women, etc). Christianity is also a belief system, but it's the one that the US Constitution was derived from when Christians created the country.
Someone should send Mr Gingrich a tinyurl leading to ISIS website.
I am not an American, so I really don't care about the party politics. There seems to be great people and idiots on both sides. But I thought this guy was one of the few that had a brain and used it on occasion. Now he has become Trumpified. What is going on?
"Arm the citizens with those, give them a fighting chance without endangering the community"
You think spraying a closed cabin of a speeding truck would be better than the >50 full metal jacketed bullets that actually hit the cabin?
Lot's of hate in the world. From Islam extremists, to our own home grown terrorists killing cops and a lack of respect for differing views. One point he is right on, that you can't stop it unless you stop its spread. Social media is a curse in some ways as it gives a platform to spread hate. Just imagine if the Nazi's had social networking to spread their evil? The propaganda machine has given ISIS exactly what it needs to recruit. It also has empowered groups like Black Lives Matter who spend little time stopping black vs black violence and more on hating police. What Gingrich has wrong is trying to prosecute those that visit the sites rather than working to take them down.
"Merely visiting a ISIS website should put you in jail?"
Now replace this with child porn website and you'll all agree.
"What if you're a journalist? Or a politician? Or a researcher trying to understand ISIS? That should be a felony?"
Keeping everyone from accessing those sites would be more successfull than keeping them public so that journalists access them.
If we close their sites, sure, they could go to darknet but then it will be far more difficult for them to recruit and spread their "philosophy" and that is what we want.
ISIS (and ever terrorists) is partly successfull because of news coverage ad how easy it is to access their sites.
"Well, one thing that's different about Nice is that, at least to my knowledge, no one has been given credit yet."
Nowadays credit is taken, not given and yes, Isis already took it.
How are they going to know?
Think about that part, that's what they want. "Hey, we are just obeying the law by keeping you from ISIS by tracking everything you do online.
Don't pay us any mind.
I couldn't agree more. I am so disgusted about all the details now flouted about the Nice attacker, and all the speculation whether he was with ISIS or not.
Instead I'd like to see reports about the victims or near-victims. These are our martyrs.
I'm also glad about every voice saying that we should not change our way of living in the face of terrorism.
Because the Great Firewall of China worked so well and nothing could possibly be abused in Totalitarian Government style. What could possibly go wrong?
We'll make great pets
I agree with the comments that Newt is an idiot, and this is a slippery slope. But. Dawned upon me that visiting a kiddie porn site is considered a violation of the law. So why not reading a site that promotes and instructs believers to kill westerners by whatever means possible (drive over them in a truck). I'm not sure I'm smart enough to work out the differences, but all of ya might pause for a sec and replace 'ISIS site' with 'kiddie porn' in TFA and re-read the responses y'all wrote.
They poor guy still thinks he is in the running to be Trump's sidekick in the upcoming circus. Someone better break the bad news to him gently.
This is almost exactly the same shit that was happening with Jews before WWII. I am astonished that people don't recognize it.
He and his cronies from Bush era would have to be hanged, drawn and quartered for publicly fraternising with leaders of above mentioned groups. Remember the photos of all of them hugging and shaking hands with leader of these terrorist groups? Not? They are publicly accessible with Google searches! So, the pot calls the kettle black........
its obvious that the whole of Washington DC has a desperate need to be in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (and while we are at it lets review the Bill of Rights).
as any member of the armed forces has to say " I must disagree with what you are saying but I WILL DIE TO DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT"
(now i would personally leave the sites up but have logs of who goes and what they download/view while there)
If you really want to prepare students with practical critical thinking skills, you'd skip logic entirely and focus on rhetoric. It's far more useful in this modern world.
I believe you've made my point. Rhetoric/shallow arguments/oversimplification/feel good quotes/complete and utter b.s. is more useful in the modern world, just as you say, because people do not see through it since they lack critical thinking skills. That is the whole point.
People need to be able to spot the b.s. a mile away, if you're going to make b.s. less useful.
The Orange Man chose Mr Pence, not Mr Gingrich, as his running mate.
That moron Newt ...
The Nice attacker "... did not seem overtly religious. Locals said he was often seen drinking beer and never attended the small mosque near his block of flats. ... had been in trouble with police between 2010 and 2016 for threatening behaviour, violence and petty theft. ... "
In March, a court in Nice convicted him of assaulting a motorist with an improvised weapon - a wooden pallet
Source: BBC.
The Paris attackers (the two Abdeslam brothers, one who blew up himself, and the other one who was arrested) owned a bar serving alcohol and were not religious either. They did not attend a mosque. There were drugs in that bar too, and neighbours complained.
Source: Business Insider.
Other attackers also got in trouble with the law, petty crime, drug dealing, ...etc.
This seems like a recurring theme with Islamic State now. They don't recruit from religiously observant people, like Al-Qaeda used to do. They recruit ex-criminals, apparently seeking salvation by committing a 'martyrdom act'.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Example:
Do NOT click on this URL: http://heavy.com/tag/isis/
On the other hand, this is a perfectly safe Mickey Mouse cartoon site: http://heavy.com/tag/isis/
How many times have YOU been misdirected to a website to which you had no intention of going? And that idiot wants it to be illegal?
If you visit a child porn site and view images, are you not guilty of a felony?
Will they not try to put you in jail if they can find you?
Will the operators of the site not be prosecuted for felonies?
The precedent is set. They question is now, do you view the wanton murder of innocents, the advocating for such, etc. to be as egregious as child abuse?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
...Newt would find himself arrested, having clicked the link to review his lost package or overdue library book, etc. If you don't understand the Internet then you shouldn't opine on how it should be regulated. One watering hole attack later, the entire populace of United States would be under indictment. Think FaceBook injection...
It is not free publicity. It is paid publicity. It is paid by the advertisers, who care so little for the content that they'd run "the fire channel" where you saw homes burning to the ground 24/7 if that had more people tuning in. "Ow my balls" is already the most popular TV show, but it was called "America's Funniest Home Videos" and is now known as AFV or something. Celebrities who have nothing to them other than they are obsessively rich and on TV are running for President with no prior political experience.
It's all about the money. People slow down to look at the car wrecks. As long as TV collects money based on some function of viewership, there will always be a car wrecks on TV
what about the reporting of the latest attack in Nice, France was "disaster porn"?
I've seen the videos over and over on TV and web sites warning "graphic video" of the truck driving through the crowd. What's the point of that other than disaster porn?
I've stopped watching CNN since that's all they show. It's an endless stream of lost airplanes, terrorist plots, police shootings and Trump propaganda there on CNN.
This is not a hard game to play. Education is as as simple as a goddamn web search and attempt to read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sharia deals with many topics, including crime, politics, marriage contracts, trade regulations, religious prescriptions, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting. Adherence to sharia has served as one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Muslim faith historically.[5] In its strictest definition, sharia is considered in Islam as the infallible law of God.[6][not in citation given]
It is ILLEGAL under SHARIA to be Gay! It is ILLEGAL under SHARIA to ignore Muslim religious requirements. You can be Christian but you better face East and Pray when they do, or you are a criminal.
Saudi Arabia lives under Sharia Law, which is why you can not freely travel to that country and do so at your own risk by US Law. Show us how peaceful the Religion is by paying a visit and publicly announcing you are a gay. Even better, go publicly announce your Jewish faith and read some Torah in the public square. You are a feckless lying twat who would do no such thing because you know you would be beheaded by those "peaceful" Muslims following their Sharia Law.
I have facts to back my statements, not bullshit. Where are your facts exactly? Oh yeah, those things are bad.
I just proved your statements false, and further repeated attempts at lying are going to be ignored. Not because you are Anonymous, but because you are a liar attempting to hide behind anonymity.
Here is the poll I mentioned. Not that a lying liar like you would read any such inconvenient facts but the bystander may.
Feckless and dishonest, quote the resume you sport.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Too Stupid; Didn't Read
Should reading this site be made into a misdemeanor? Judged the laws of which nation?
Don't run afoul of the government
Get out there and eat the pig
Don't run afoul of the government
Get out there and eat the pig
Don't run afoul of the government
Get out there and eat the pig
Don't run afoul of the government
Get out there and EAT THAT PIG!
Known racist asshole says racist asshole things. Film at 11.
For you to know that, someone has to have given them credit. ...or are you subscribed to the ISIS newsletter?
Visiting or hosting a child porn website is already a felony, and the arguments for those laws are exactly the same as the arguments regarding visiting AlQaeda or ISIS websites voiced by Gingrich. Can anybody spell out the difference?
No, it's paid by all the people who those terrorists hurt or killed to get their message into our news.
Forget about this retarded idea of monitoring all sites Americans visit. The way to win is to kill ten thousand ISIS for every American they hurt or kill. Just rain down missiles and bombs. Start counting from the very earliest attacks on us that were decades ago - all those must be avenged.
Please die a horrible death.
No, that is not what I said at all. Either you are intellectually dishonest or you have a reading disability. I feel sorry for you in either case, but you have convinced me there is no reason to continue this conversation. Congratulations.
Now THAT is more like today's worthless slashdot as I have come to expect it.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Newt isn't doing this little piece of performance art for himself of for you, he's doing it for the people in our society that are too pig ignorant to comprehend why his statements are idiotic. The people that basically have a say on how everything's run, and are determined to fuck us all over. Because that's how our system here in the USA really works.
Newt got elected the same way a lot of other politicians have such as Feinstein from California and Orin Hatch from Utah (In office since 1976). They are nominated by their respective party and candidates choose this candidate because he/she is nominated by their party. Many Republicans will vote for drumpf even though they dislike him but feel anything is better than a Democrat such as Hillary Clinton for president. Many Democrats will vote for Hillary even though they don't fully support her and even some Republicans who dislike drumpf could choose to vote for Hillary as a protest over the nomination of drumpf by their party.
let's just throw the first amendment out the window
Newt almost got it right. He certainly moved from "belief system" (faith, that should not be questioned or discriminated against) into "belief of laws". Newt's expression "belief in Sharia law", when further refined "expressing alliance to a (Sharia) Law" that is incompatible with US Constitution and Laws, we are getting closer to "figuring out what the hell is going on". When I became a naturalized citizen of the USA (yes, it was a different USA...) I had to pledge alliance to the US Constitution and Laws. Kids used to pledge alliance to the US every day in school. Nobody can serve two masters. If anyone wants to take advantage of the goodies that the US offers, yet hold a higher alliance to e.g. Sharia Laws (that are clearly incompatible) should not be in the USA. If the US Constitution and Laws are not upheld but a man has four wives, engages in "honor killing", female genital mutilation - or beheading (things all right under Sharia Laws, but clearly violating the laws of this land) should not be tolerated on US soil. The USA made this clear distinction earlier, with a high rate of success. Those who expressed alliance with Communism of Fascism were certainly denied of visa, when found already here (like the Rosenberg couple overriding US laws by interests of the Soviet Union, were executed. We successfully got rid of Fascism, Communism. We can and hope will successfully get rid of Sharia Law in the US.
There are these things in your country. You might want to read up on them. They include freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, freedom of thought, and freedom of information. They are mentioned in various unimportant documents like the "Constitution" and the "Declaration of Independence" and the "Bill of Rights". Some old dudes named the "Founding Fathers" dreamt them up, but you can dismiss them as out of date and irrelevant.
Your idea isn't any of those things. Not only are you wearing Jesus Pants, they are Small Boy Pants to boot. Don't hand the terrorists an easy victory. In so doing, you become ISIS' secret weapon and a tool of the propagandists. Is that what you want? Probably not. But the stupid is strong in you right now and I'm starting to worry.
Who the f*ck ever cares what Newt Gangreen says??? He's nothing but a dead political hack hair ball and a toxic appendage of Fux News. Not even the Drumpf was stupid enough to make him a running mate. A bit telling, you know?
Your Beliefs Doesn't Make You A Better Person; Your Behavior Does;
Casteism
I know this comment comes way too late for anybody to read it... Anyway, I still feel it relevant to point out given the context that in France, legislation making browsing a "terrorist website" a felony (punishable by 2 years prison and/or 30,000EUR fine) already exists (as from the last June 4).
It is telling (on the levels to which Europe is de facto politically sinking), that France, with a "socialist" government, is actually already ahead of Newt Gingrich.
Someone spray-painted "66 died haha IRA" on a building near my workplace. This is in reference to the 1970s tragedy at Ibrox where 66 people were crushed to death, and the IRA is a known terrorism group in Ireland. This was on the back of a building that would've been seen by the same 8-10 people on a daily basis.
This was the third such spray-painting in a week. Like clockwork, the local newspaper reported on it, saying how it was "vile", "hate-filled", how a councillor was "disgusted", someone was "stunned", "condemned", and so on. They kicked up a storm over an attention-seeker's 5-minute night job. These emotionally-charged words are a major problem in reporting, and it's used purely to force an opinion on people. "But some thing ARE vile" you say? In that case, you still refrain from using it because in those edge cases it goes without saying.
Like terrorists, these people want attention. They want everyone to be watching, and the more they appear in the papers, the more it encourages them. I walk past the graffiti every day and I am completely unphased by it despite me being in the targeted demographic. I was told by someone they plan to just leave it there. Likely because he refuses to be forced into action by some street wannabes. When you report on these kinds of things, they say with triumph "HAHA! The fenians/infidels/crackers put us in the paper!" and the cycle begins anew.
They need to report on such things without glorifying them. Just the facts. Blame the group, say how many died and were injured, maybe a quote from a policeman. But publishing the photos of the dead, covering it with massive photographs and 180pt text over seven pages, and going on about it for days or even weeks is not how it should be done.
As a veteran of the internet, I can sum up my entire post with this seed of wisdom: "Don't feed the trolls"
What about obfuscated URL's such as URL shorteners where you cannot see where you will end up?
There would be no way to be on the safe side for sure.
What about advertisements using url's and other websites where what you are going to see is not always 100% within your control?
What about forums or other websites with user created content?
This only works if you trust said group of journalists to provide unbiased reporting (and not to e.g. omit facts as "irrelevant"). I'm not sure whether such an agreement can be achieved. For example, many right-wing-oriented media outlets make it a point to underscore the religion and ethnicity of the attackers, while some left-wing-oriented outlets omit or obfuscate them. Can they agree on a single unified reporting standard? If they do, will the audiences be happy?
I agree with you that this would be extremely difficult, but I sort of imagine that this would be a kind of prestigious assignment, so they would be able to pick the pool from the best journalists, who might agree to take turns doing the videos or writing the final versions of the text articles. Even though there would be no competitive advantage between the news outlets, there would still be a lot of visibility to the individuals who handled these stories, nasty stories though they be.
Then again, the notion of "impartial journalism" is a kind of fantasy. I think it was mostly created by classical liberal delusions, but the reality before and after, and mostly during, too, was that journalists cannot be impartial, but only pretend to impartiality. Each of us has to have a viewpoint before viewing anything. Perhaps "fairness" was a more realistic objective, but I think FAUX "news" has buried that one pretty deep.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Impartial journalism is a fantasy. But with multiple sources, we can at least hope that their biases more or less cancel out. Even if it's not the case, at least as far as reporting (vs not reporting) on facts alone, various competing sources will offer a more complete picture, as well as pointing each others' inaccuracies - I can then piece the facts together myself to get something much closer to what's actually going on, and think for myself instead of relying on their analytics.
OTOH, with a single agency in charge of reporting on a particular topic, the only facts that I get is that which this agency chooses to report. I don't think I could ever trust such a thing to give me a sufficiently accurate picture, especially on a topic as political as that. There would also be extreme temptation for various power players (governments, wealthy private individuals and organizations etc) to try to shape the picture by influencing that agency behind the scenes. Again, they do it today with media outlets, but so long as they cannot do it with all of them at once on a particular topic, just one is enough to get some inconvenient facts out.
Listening to Newt Gingrich should be a felony.
The first step is you have to ask him questions.
The second step is to not let him go anywhere near the Internet.
The third step is, let me be very clear, you have to monitor the Repulitards and the Democraps. I mean, if you're not prepared to ignore the propaganda, this whole thing is a joke.
Well, let me just check that you understand my main point and the distinction that I am trying to make:
Case 1: There is a terrible earthquake and tsunami and 20,000 people are killed. All of the media outlets compete aggressively to provide the most interesting coverage. Some media sources win, get more eyeballs, and get to boost the prices for their advertising and the company has higher profits (or smaller losses, which is quite often the case notwithstanding).
Case 2: Terrorists strike and kill thousands of people. All the media outlets compete aggressively to provide the most interesting coverage. The terrorists are not fully satisfied with their free publicity and any amount of terror that they have created. They probably study the "winning" media sources to see how they can make their next terrorist attack even MORE "newsworthy".
I hate Case 2. I don't think the facts of the tragedy are in dispute. Perhaps it should be part of the filtering that the terrorists will hate that the members of the pool will have to reach consensus on EVERYTHING that they report. Or another way to say it is that the media is being manipulated as PART of the story--and the terrorists are especially happy when they can kill reporters, too.
If you do understand my main point, then I think you should explain why it isn't a problem. Alternatively, if you agree that it is a problem, can you come up with a better solution? I'm not saying that my idea is perfect, but I think we need to do something along those lines or the terrorists are going to win in the long run. Maybe they already are winning if Donald Trump can ride the terror they've created into the White House.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Finally someone said what I have thought and said for a while now. And it was a good summary unlike mine where I go on and on lol. I have so many thoughts on this. The media should also work to stop making assumptions that sooner or later people start to believe about who is a radical islamist terrorist vs who isn't (example - Nice France). Honestly, we play right into it. I better stop before I go on and on. Just wanted to compliment you post!