Slashdot Mirror
New Cyberlaws
It seems the US Government is at it again. The first story discusses a bill passed by the US Senate (but not yet the House) to prevent cybersquatting. Apparently, anyone who registers a domain in bad faith can be hit with a hefty fine. The second is an article at Wired about a new law being pushed that would make it a felony to link to websites which contain information about drugs and "where to buy related paraphernalia".
Promoting and selling drugs does in no way fall
into the category of free speech. The day that
you lose a love one or more due to drug you will
realize that drugs is an issue that will not go
away and that we as parents will support our
government in keeping those drug dealers out
of business.
Drug abuse is a medical problem, not a legal problem, and should be dealt with as such. Prohibition has cause more problems than it has solved. (You'd think that we would have learned that lesson in the '20s)
Yes abuse of certain controlled substances is a problem, but making criminals of the addicted is not the solution. And prohibiting the free flow of information is definately not the solution.
--Rob
Puritanical morals anyone?
So you're saying it should be illegal for me to take a bong hit/drink a couple beers and then walk down the street? That somehow by doing that I am endangerig the moral fiber of this country? Gimme a break (and some credit)
(BTW I am all for making it illegal to drive, cars are very deadly)
+&x
When was the last time you had to pay $8,000+ to hit the delete button in your mail client? Besides, it's not like there aren't ways to avoid getting spammed.
According to the linked article, only parked domains which attempt to profit from TRADEMARKED properties are affected. In other words, the government is bending over backwards to protect the interests of IBM, but domain squatters will still be very much in business, making sure that a really nifty common name or phrase (www.sheep.com?) will cost me at least $5,000, the Internet equivalent of paying hundreds of dollars for a front row seat to a PHish concert.
Feh.
>It looks like these US laws took the combined
>stupidity of both parties to create. Maybe
>getting the GOP and 'crats to co-operate isn't a
>good idea... With Canada's multi-party system,
>we're virtually assured that there will never be
>co-operation among the politicians...
I'll skip commenting about encription considering
that it is not even part of the article we're
talking about. Big brother issue but nothing
to do with the current law being proposed.
This is to protect companies from assholes
stealing the names for profit. I would like
them to broaden it to include family names
as well. So if your name is not Catudal for
instance you can't get a www.catudal.com place.
Catudal is my name. In Canada there is a company
in BC who bought hundreds of French Canadian
family names for profit. They are another group
of assholes who should be nailed.
Your multiparty system is a joke. It means that
a political party can technically get elected
with a majority governement with 25% of the vote
or less in a case where the votes would be equally
distributed among the different parties. The
prime minister is the sole ruler of the government
and the ministers are what we call in French
"mitaines" with no real power because if they
do something the prime minister doesn't want
them to do they are fired promptly. If a member
of parliament vote against a law that the majority
of the population is against he may well be voting
himself out of office as he is overturning the
government, thus firing himself. There is no
real guarantee that he'll get reelected for
his courage as people know damm well that they
are electing a dictator prime minister and the
MPS are just numbers to get that moron elected.
>Seriously, though, linking a crime? Hello, FIRST
>AMENDMENT! When will people get it that freedom
>of speech means you can say, write, or type
>whatever you want, as long as you're not directly
> violating someone else's rights (i.e. libel).
Promoting and selling drugs does in no way fall
into the category of free speech. The day that
you lose a love one or more due to drug you will
realize that drugs is an issue that will not go
away and that we as parents will support our
government in keeping those drug dealers out
of business.
Any law that would prohibit the discussion of
the issue on the other hand has no chance of
standing and will sooner or later be made
null and void. So far I have seen nothing of
the kind in the new law. In the previous law
this was different but it was amended so it
would not violate the constitution.
The constitution doesn't protect your right
to use or sell drugs but doesn't prohibit you
to discuss it. If your web site promotes it's
use you may fall into a crack where it would
be possible to assume that you are a drug
user or drug dealer. Otherwise why would you
waste your time doing such ridiculous stuff?
>The cybersquatting thing doesn't scare me quite
>as much.
The day your company has it's name stolen by
some jerk you might change your tune. It is
no less than robbery for someone to use somebody
else's name or property name to make profit.
As for freedom of the press in general
canada has no lesson to give here. Remember
that vicious murder in the Hamilton area?
There was a news blackout in Canada. We were
able to know about it here in the US but
canucks were deprived the right to know about
the whole thing thus giving the chance to
the killers not to get the right punishment.
Come to find out that is exactly what happened,
the ones involved barely got a slapped on the
hands. The killer convicted should be released
shortly. Actually, due to the kind of vicious
crime he did he should never be released except
for his funeral, actually his ashes should be
sent to the dump.
Or a liberal who's sick of most other liberals' hypocrisy... but yeah, 50% right.
I can imagine the popularity of international domains and foreign web servers increasing if the government manages to get this one through... Then they'd have to start banning *looking*. Silliness.
BTW, does anyone know if there's even an Internet savvy board or committee? Not to knock our representatives and senators, but I bet I know more about this shit than they do.
(sure this is a tired old joke, but somebody had to say it.) ;-)
...if the anti-drug bill actually passes, somehow I have a feeling Clinton will veto... even if he didn't inhale.
--- this comment is presented in WIDE SCREEN STEREO!!!
Well, as long as you're going down, how about linking some neat drug-related sites for us?
Here's a few:
Jolt
INFACT Homepage
Altavi sta: Simple Query "drug related"
This was just a lazy search for sites. I'm sure there are plenty of drug or paraphenalia related web sites around.
The title pretty much says it all. I'm not sure what can be done to truly deter spam, though. This bill about cybersquatting is probably a good idea...
--Lenny
By keeping that from happening there is less
chances for that fucked up person to kill
in order to get his fix.
Considering that most killings are drug related,
reducing the use of drug can limit the number
of killings. If the killings were only of other
morons this might be an acceptable route but
this isn't the case. We often see good law
abiding citizens being robbed and/or killed
for drug money.
There are countless number of good people who
lose their sons or daugthers due to a drug
addiction which is often hard to prevent with
the fucked up school system with no discipline.
Oh, knock off the trolling. Republicans have practically nothing in common with Libertarians, as their philosophy is completely different. As for the handful of Libertarians who have run as Republicans, well, there are about as many who have run as Democrats.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
we also often see "good law abiding citizens" being robbed and/or killed for food money. Food is EVIL. Let's outlaw it.
You ignorant fuck. Robbing and killing are illegal in and of themselves. There is no need to prosecute the people who are "good law abiding citizens" except for their drug habits. That is the only effect of having laws specifically against drug use. The people who also commit other crimes can easily be prosecuted for those crimes.
By repeatedly voting for Republicans and Democrats, the American people have advocated this kind of war on the Constitution. And everyone here that has continued to vote for members of these two parties is a co-conspirator.
The *only* way you're going to stop this rush towards fascism is to stop voting for these fools, and to start voting Libertarian, and to get your friends to do the same. Even if you don't support every Libertarian position, you will at least begin to counter-balance the always-pro-regulation fascists who infest our governments.
As one prominent Libertarian likes to say:
If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got.
Insanity is defined as expecting different results from the same actions. Currently, the voting public is displaying insanity.
Stop it now. Start the change.
Thank you for this opportunity to advocate. Now back to your regular /. discussion
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I figured it was just pessimism on the rise. After you see so many stupid bills become law, and notice the chance a given bill has to pass into law is inversely proportionate to its Stupidity Factor, you just gradually stop trying to get your hopes up that something will make sense, and call bills law. Chalk it up to Murphy's Bill.
As for SB1428 (the drug paraphernalia one), anyone have any good links while it's still grandfathered in? Remember, they can't pass an ex post facto law, so get those links on now, kiddies
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Now, obviously, drugs are, by and large, a bad influence on many of the people who use them, and (the real problem) the neighbourhood or area where they're being dealt. However, why shouldn't I be able to find out that if I take LSD, I can have some pretty amazing hallucinations - but, that if I take LSD, I will never be able to be a surgeon, because of the possibility of LSD flashbacks? Why shouldn't I be able to find out the pros and cons? After all, if drugs are so bad, obviously the cons will outweigh the pros, won't they?
The bottom line is, the US government wouldn't even think about banning articles in magazines or newspapers dealing with drugs. Why is it OK to stop people from disseminating information on drugs on the web?
The ACLU, like many other organizations, believes that its main tenets do have a moral basis. Their ethos is based on the belief that freedom of conscience should be absolute.
School prayers seems to be a flashpoint for many, and some might argue that the freedom of religion dictates that religious expression be allowed. The establishment clause, however, dicatates that no religion shall be established.
In many localities, tacit support is given to "student-initiated" religious activity by some groups (particularly christaian evangelicals), while no support, or active resistance is presented to adherants of other religions.
Another flashpoint is the display of "The Ten Commandments" in publically funded institutions. While it may be argued that these commandments represent an basis for morality, they do notserve as the basis for all moralities. Several of the commandments deel with specifically religious issue, and some would argue the ten commandments are superceded by the Christian doctrines of the new covenant and the Great Commandment.
It ma
(Damn, I was so close to getting the first post.) What the hell is this country coming to? This smacks of censorship. What happened to free speech? I don't give a rat's ass about drug paraphenalia, but I support the right to discuss it on the web if you really want to. Whay are we afraid of knowledge? Are our leaders so moronic that they really think this would make a difference in the already-lost "war on drugs"? Once again, this is an example of Congress doing something for the sake of doing something, not because it would be effective. Idiots. I become more disgusted with this country every day... and yes it is better than most, but I fear the path that we are taking leads to someplace decidedly repressive... So the question is, what do we do about it? I suggest we start by letting our leaders know how moronic these ideas are.
--"A man's Palm is his best friend."
--"A man's Palm is his best friend."
(IIIx, that is...hehehe)
And of course, if they're homeless, they should try to spend their money on something worthwhile (letting getting some place to live?) instead of getting high!
There is a meta-topic that I've become increasingly concerned with in recent years. The topic is the apparent willingness of our legislators to not head the Consititution of this country in preparing bills which in many cases then become law. The Supremes frequently strike down the stupider ones, but they should never have been called upon to do so. A great example is the CDA. Everyone knew it would never fly before it was passed and then signed. But the congress knew that they could pass the law, get some "I'm for the children" votes at the next election, and just let the Supremes clean up their act for them. Clinton could have just vetoed the bill to save time and money of course, but (a) he too likes the "I'm for the kids" votes, and (b) the presidency has an ever longer and more prestigious history of violating the constitution. Ok, so the CDA gets struck down, just as everyone expects. Not a month later, CDA-2 is proposed. Again, everyone knows it's a constitutional obscenity. Again, everyone wants the "I'm for the kids" votes, and everyone votes for it. Again, millions in tax dollars are going to be spent in cancelling it in court. This is just one example. There are many, many, many more. What recourse do the people have when their elected representatives waste time and tax dollars legislating "feel good" laws that are blatantly illegal? Wait till the next election and throw out the bums? We all know that just doesn't happen. On the drug link law, Feinstein's not up again until 2004 -- who the fuck is going to remember this then? By 2004, the law will have been overturned by the courts for a good 3 or so years. Probably Feinstein will be in the news talking about her stance on abortion, and about how she loves being a woman, and doing ads on TV for breast cancer stamps to get the women's vote, and then whoring herself on the technology circuit and in Hollywood, getting all the rich people to stoke her coffers so she can't lose. And what's the alternative anyway? A nazi^H^H^H^Hrepublican like Micheal Huffington, her last serious opponent? Please. So can we sue our government for wasting time and money? Has anyone else ever thought of that? Suing to recover wasted tax dollars, not from the government, but by holding the individual legislators responsible. It might be a bit harder to fund that TV election campaign if you're having to siphon funds off to pay down your civil rights abuse judgement. It's not some unseen "government" that's abusing my constitutional right to (a) publish information about whatever I damned well like, and (b) link to other people's sites that I either agree or disagree with. It's not "the man"; it's not "the republicans" or "the democrats". It's individuals. Individuals who are certainly smart enough to know that what they're doing is both illegal and just plain wrong. Diane Feinstein, Orrin Hatch, I'm coming after *you*. You personally, not at the polls, but in civil court. If you repress me, and illegally attempt over and over to take away my rights under the constitution, I will do something about it.
Each person decides whether he is a victim or not. Obviously, you are too complacent to take any action. Perhaps others are not..
That's right - and what about all the online travel agencies promoting travel to Holland?
I wonder what the law would do about a link to a page telling Californians about the requirements to qualify for medical marijuana. Especially if that was a California-approved page...
I can't wait for some serious, Supreme Court, rulings on the first amendment and the net. Not that I'm all that sure they'll get it right (you know, how I see it...)
These articles come on the heels of the article about Ontario (Canadian province) promoting public use of encryption. Could it be that Canada's government (well, OK, Ontario's) has finally gotten a clue (while the US is still looking)?
It looks like these US laws took the combined stupidity of both parties to create. Maybe getting the GOP and 'crats to co-operate isn't a good idea... With Canada's multi-party system, we're virtually assured that there will never be co-operation among the politicians...
If only we could get the Canadian government to stop taking your first-born as income tax, and get tech wages here up to more than Silicon Valley janitors make...
Seriously, though, linking a crime? Hello, FIRST AMENDMENT! When will people get it that freedom of speech means you can say, write, or type whatever you want, as long as you're not directly violating someone else's rights (i.e. libel). The cybersquatting thing doesn't scare me quite as much.
Score two for us Canucks...
There have been numerous people posting questions asking what they hope to accomplish, and why on earth people would focus on this, knowing they can't hope to control all the information on the internet. The cold hard honest answer, is that it is the thrashings of a doomed, failing policy-making body.
For close to a full century, there has been a pointless persecution of marijuana. Why didn't we learn the lesson from the 20s and the prohibition era? Prohibition simply doesn't work.
The point is, the whole "war on drugs" is a bogus, hopeless cash-cow which has reached far beyond the end of its usefulness. Look at murder rates for this century -- they parellel the level of fanatacism in "ridding" our streets of these substances.
It's not working. But the current regieme of the hyprocritcal white male bastard cannot admit that it has spend a century doing something it cannot do -- so you see even more gregious violations of our basic freedoms in the name of "protecting" us from ourselves. This is just one in a long line of ever-more outrageous assaults, all in the name of the 'war on drugs'.
And it's all become one mammoth cash-cow now. How many people are on the payroll simply to keep me from putting substances in my body? It's in all their interest to keep things the way they are, even if it means ever more eroding of our freedoms (hey, it goes right in hand with what the FBI is trying to do, cool!), more people clogging up our prisons, more people getting their guts blasted out whiles the pigs are out arresting people for smoking weed, more of everything we need to do away with.
It's also a strike against the internet. The 19th century beaurocracies of might and steel fear the internet, because they cannot control the flow of information, so all their best-laid iron fist plans get destroyed. It's a fear, and a hatred, which they cannot tolerate -- the government must put it's greedy fist all over the internet, so it can continue to control the minds of the populace.
He who controls information, controlls the past, present, and future. And they don't want it in our hands.
Two instances in one case of the death throes of a system that will soon perish. I'll be the first to put 'em up against the wall when the time comes.
It's a tough call.
In that case, yeah that's factual news reporting, and that's okay. But things get murky when the factual news reporting is 'Tony P. at 123 Main St. is selling controlled substances. He's there 9 to 5, and is happy to give you the first hit free.'
This is why we have the judicial system, to hash out a legal decision on this (because unless you are involved in a case related to it, your opinions don't do much)
I don't like limiting my freedom of speech but using it to commit a crime is generally considered a criminal act. It is not freedom of speech to give a bank teller a stickup note, for instance.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What's the difference between option A and B? It seems to me that option A leads directly to B, in which case option B is not actually "bullshit," but the result of meaningful opinion. Now, to stick my tongue out to all of you who say the Bible is completely useless (btw, there's an extreme duality here, some say its a magic book full of all knowledge, and others say it isn't worth the bookmark that comes with it; I disagree with both), there's a quote somewhere in there dealing with this. Something to the effect of "raise a child in the way that he should go, and all his life he shall not depart from it." Now, I do believe this is true, you know, that parents have a direct influence on a child's future. Considering that, if a child is raised "in an environment that encouraged individualism, intelligence, and free thought," I'd expect that to lead to a child more likely to say "you can't control me." Right? But of course, we can't have teenagers running about saying what they think, property is to be seen and not heard. Maybe I'm wrong, and they will live "happy socially constructive lives and generally doing their best to help forward Hassan." I don't know, that's my take on it at least.
Please don't. I like the few thousand km of salt water between the USA and the Netherlands.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Do I see a coney hat with eyeholes in it in your future? Heh.
if it would be illegal to link to a links page. I'm not american, and I can link to whatever I want. pretty easy to set up a links to all kind of marihuana related pages, including a few about the use of marihuana in medicine. Ofcourse, this information would be illegal too, can't have people know about new medicines/painkillers.and where would the line be drawn? if it's accepted as a medicine, you can link to it? well.. in that case.. link to marihuana all you like. in several countries it's accepted as a medicine. furthermore, marihuana is kinda legal in the netherlands. (strange situation, takes a bit to explain) wanna link to a marihuana site? get a dutch account somewhere.. there's enough of them about :)
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
yeah its too late to salvage the system we have now
I couldn't have said it better myself
Insert mind here.
Maybe now is a good time to mention the Libertarian party.
After I've watched our government attempt to take literally every freedom they can away from me, I made a stand and became a card-carrying Libertarian. The name alone means the world to me, "Libertarian." Liberty. I wish I knew what it was like.
I will vote a straight Libertarian ticket from this point on, and do everything I can to promote the freedom that this country was built on. Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew what the country their brothers died fighting to create had turned into. And our greedy politicians (with their own, personal agendas) are only too happy to increase the RPM of their spinning.
"The essential principles of our Government... form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety." --Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
Politics has become a game all of its own, where the people we elect either don't feel they can, or simply don't, vote to protect what truly made American special in years past. Some of the ideas the Libertarian party present scared me a bit, at first; some of the Libertarian ideals may scare you at first. Really think about it, though. Is there ANYTHING you can think of that you think the government can handle better than you, yourself?
Obviously, defending our borders is not a one-man job. But, the Libertarians allow for National Defense. The Libertarians do NOT allow for offensives that take our resources and cause national attention to be focused on us (can you say Yugoslavia?)
But, do you think you know better how to spend the money they take for income tax? Imagine what you could do with the money that gets taken out of each and every check you've busted your butt to earn. Imagine if that went into investments, instead. Think you'd be able to pay for all your children's education, privately? Not a problem.
Do you think you know better whether or not you should take drugs into your body? Do you want the violence in your neighborhood to go away, because now you can buy pot, crack, and meth at Eckerds or Revco. Prices go down, violence stops (because dealers are no longer protecting their territories), and the only people who use are the people who choose to. Kind of like smoking, now. And we can EDUCATE those people, just as we are doing and have done with tobacco; it's not as "cool" to smoke as it used to be, because people know it's stupid.
Certainly, the government doesn't know how to censor yourself or your children better than you. Every time we turn around they are making more and more choices for us on what can and cannot be allowed to fall into our vision.
Perhaps the most telling thing for me is the symbol of the Libertarian party: The Status of Liberty. Much better than an Ass and an Elephant.
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
--Xar
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I guess "a libertarian is a conservative that's just fed up."
ACLU is like fricking censorship. Really. Anything, absolutely anything that might possibly offend somebody else is regarded as a threat to liberty etc ...
We will end up with society where everybody is to afraid to say anything even remotely controversial in a fear that ACLU and others might go after him.
Do you want that ?
Perhaps
* If allowed to stand, such would set precedents that would make further bizarre laws easier to pass.
* The sponsors of the bills think that they'll get 'em votes, particularly given that there's a strange level of "for-the-children"-is going on right now.
* Ending the "war on drugs" would be a serious admission of either the impossibility of prohibition, or possibly the wrongheadedness of trying. {shrug}
Hmmm. Governments do benefit from the forfeiture laws, 'tho, as do people who buy off the confiscated property...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Prisons ain't cheap. "Cheap prison labour" ain't gonna happen in the US, unless they go Gulag-style or something like that. Plenty of white folks in jail for drug violations, also...
Money might be involved in that cocaine and heroin dealers tend to contribute less than alcohol concerns, 'tho -- alcohol also benefits from the fact that we tried already to ban it and failed, miserably.
There's a strong contingent of people who come from the "it's bad for you, it's bad for society, ergo it's now illegal" school. That, and inertia, are probably among the biggest reasons why the "drug war" is continuing. That, and the fact that other countries tend to ask the US for help in this regard.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
If this thing does become law, I think somebody should set up some offshore web page with some information deemed to be illegal, while not something terribly offensive (maybe something like a technical description of a water pipe -- better yet, find a patent on something like that in IBM's patent database, or find some other gov't document with similar info) then everybody can put a very innocent looking link on their pages to that "illegal" info. That's a slightly more active form of civil disobendience than yet another colored ribbon gif.
I've read that long-term use of MDMA can cause neurological damage. This does make it a poison, albeit a very pleasant one. This puts me, a serious small-l libertarian, in a bind. On the one hand, I don't want the government throwing people in prison for doing things that are their own business. On the other hand, I don't want anyone peddling stuff that's inherently damaging, or is un-tested. We have enough trouble with people dying from the FDA-approved stuff, let alone the ones crippled by stuff like fen-phen.
One thing for sure, neither Feinstein nor Hatch have any business trying to revoke the First Amendment for the things they don't like. I think the next Amendment should attack the problem of knowingly pushing laws which violate the Constitutional rights of the People; the legislators should be barred from holding public office for ten years to life. That'll put the kibosh on this stupidity.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
|| But don't you even *think* of
|| infringing on my First Amendment
|| rights or trying to get government
|| influence on the 'Net to save me
|| from them.
Neither you nor anyone else have a right...
Dude, he agreed with you. Yeah, he didn't like drugs. Fine. That's what we call a 'different opinion'. Deal with it. Just don't jump all over him on the 1stAmendment thing because he said your drugs were bad.
It's kinda hard to see from atop that high-horse, huh?
(Pun intended)
--
"To do what ought to be done, but would not have been done unless I did it, I thought to be my duty"
Who benefits from the war on drugs? Well, drugs and/or alcohol were involved in about a third of all violent crimes last year, or maybe the year before. Any politician who is tough on other people's drugs can be considered a "good guy" and is immediately elected and reelected. Of course booze won't be mentioned in any big tirades against crime (unless consumed by a teenager), they contribute too much money to the Republican/Democrat Pary. Which brings us to the second beneficiary. Legal drugs. Tobacco and alcohol corporations benefit, they're "okay." Pharmacudical/chemical interests also benefit. Actually, I read that the whole "reefer madness" thing was sponsored by a logging company, because hemp paper was better than tree paper, and they had extensive deforestation rights. I haven't been able to check on that tho. And of course, the CIA can keep selling the illegal stuff. ;)
I see two choices, either start a revolution or leave the system. The first will be probably be as you described;
'I hope we can get rid of these fuckwads peacefully. I'd hate to have the streets run red with blood, but that sort of thing may be necessary. I'm not optimistic though. This one saying keeps coming back to me... "It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."'
The second could be here:
http://www.freedomship.com/
If you are concerned about your civil liberties being chipped away by the government, who wants to "protect the children" or some such nonsense, and furthermore seems to think that we're ALL children, the least you can do is voice your opinion. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is one of the major proponents of this bill. WRITE or call and let her know what you think about The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act.
(from http://feinstein.senate.gov/cal ifornia_offices.html)
This is her SAN FRANCISCO office, for other offices follow the above link.
Jim Lazarus, State Director
525 Market Street, Suite 3670
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/536-6868
You Utah-ites (Utahns? Utonions? Utizens?) can call up Orrin Hatch and give him a piece of your mind too.
Ahhhh, Feinstein. The same Senator who appeared lately on... _Dateline_, was it? defending her role in the "Assault Weapons ban" that was based on specific features (such as flash suppressors, folding stock, etc), and who labelled every attempt to redesign thusly-banned weapons to comply as "craven".
But you'll find plenty of anti-drug people on both sides of the aisle, methinks. Remember the Reagan years, and the "Just Say No" campaign?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Oh well... If that post violates the law, then so will hundreds of others, say any post linking to the New York Times, which also presents drug news regularly.
This law will not pass, & if it does, will be overturned in all of about 5 minutes.
I wonder, has anyone asked themselves why our government seems so intent on passing laws that are blatantly unconstitutional? This is just the latest in a long string of these laws lately, such as the law allowing the ten commandments in schools.
It's somewhat ironic that the republicans are the ones screaming "Tax Cut!", but they are the ones responsible for nearly all of the waste when it comes to passing unconstitutional laws (each of which costs taxpayers many millions of dollars).
That's really odd.
The ACLU defended the American Nazi Party's right to stage a march in Illinois. They've defended the Ku Klux Klan on numerous occassions. Those are two pretty offensive groups IMHO, but they have just as much a right to speak freely and assemble as anyone else.
The idea is that in order to protect our freedoms, they have to be protected for everyone. Otherwise the door is opened for muting minorities and the unpopular.
Would you have blacks be denied their civil liberties because whites don't like them? Catholics being denied the right to worship? Windows users burning Linux in the streets?
The way I see it, the ACLU is more about abolishing censorship than promoting it. Even though they aid groups that would like to get rid of our freedom, they're entitled to as much freedom as anyone else.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Genealogy of the Drug War
End the Fucking Drug War
I will gladly flout the law by keeping these pages up if it does ever pass.
"Did the creators of the link law ever stop to think about people with so called 'free for all' link pages? Or how about when someone has a link and the
/. be guilty of a felony b/c someone posted an URL? Or any site that allows posting of URLs... could the site itself be sued?
content of the site being linked to changes? So because someone puts up something that I may or may not approve of I get the jail sentence?? Sounds
like someone needs to pull their head out of their rear and get a kl00."
Thank you for saying this, this needs to be addressed before something like this could ever be enforceable. Would an AC posting an URL to
Not to mention that this has no bearing at all outside the US!!! If I link to a page that links to a page that links to a page with that info, am I in the bad? If those sites aren't in the US, it doesn't really matter, does it? Scary stuff indeed... thank the gods this isn't actually a law yet.
Part of my original message was sarcastic (especially the part about it being impossible for Canada's parties to co-operate). Still, your response shows your ignorance of the Canadian political system and of the US Constitution.
:-)
>Your multiparty system is a joke. It means that
>a political party can technically get elected
>with a majority governement with 25% of the vote
It is possible for a President to be elected in the US with less than 50% of the popular vote (his opponent can even get more votes and lose)--ever heard of the electoral college? If a Canadian party wins less than 50% of the seats, they must form a minority (coalition) government with another party. This usually results in a government that actually does what the people want, and doesn't make too many stupid laws. True, Canada does have more severe party discipline than the US. Of course, your President just has people rubbed out if they piss him off (Vincent Foster, Ron Brown, Gary Parks...)
>This is to protect companies from assholes
>stealing the names for profit. I would like
>them to broaden it to include family names
>as well.
So what happens if I change my last name to Microsoft? Seriously, though, domain names are a commodity. Let the free market decide what they're worth.
>Promoting and selling drugs does in no way fall
>into the category of free speech.
Linking to the site is an entirely different thing. I look at links as giving someone directions. If you ask me for drugs and I sell them to you, I've broken the law. If you ask me for drugs and I tell you that a penguin named Tux who lives in Finland sells heroin-doped herring, I haven't committed a crime. Just imagine the next step for this law... Linking to strong encryption sites could become high treason... This is not a good precedent.
About the high taxes here--yes, they suck. Paying over half your income to the government is akin to slavery. True, we get medicare for some of that money, but I'd rather decide for myself what I'm going to spend my cash on. There is some hope--Alberta and Ontario have taken big steps towards reducing the tax load.
Finally, it's not that cold here! Sometimes I think Americans get confused because Canada's weather is always reported in Celsius, which sounds a lot colder... Where I live in Canada, the temperature almost never drops below 20 F (-7 C) in the winter, and usually stays around a comfortable 70 to 85 F (21 to 30 C) in the summer. Yes, the Yukon and North West Territories are cold (but then Hillary Clinton thinks the Yukon is part of the US, and Alaska is just as cold).
hmmm... Well, you seem to be implying then that prescription drugs are more dangerous than illicit drugs, which is probably an overgeneralization. But to make that determination, wouldn't you have to take the ratio of the number of illicit drug users compared to the number of illicit drug user deaths, and do the same for prescription drugs/prescription drug deaths? I think that would be an oversimplification too, you'd have to take usage habits into consideration, too. Perhaps you should say instead that prescription drugs kill more people because of poor usage habits that aren't really talked about because precription drug companies are "okay." You know what I mean. "I have a bad headache, so instead of taking two asprine like the bottle says, i'll take seven, and wash it down with a few glasses of brandy, and take some Tums, the magic ones with Holy Calcium of the Ages (tm) included for fat people in commercials, to calm my stomache after eating those herbal and vitamin supplements on an empty stomache." Just a thought.
Also, about nine years ago, when I was in sixth grade, during one of those DARE-esque "special" classes in school where they interrupt science or math class to talk about drugs (i'm sure that's why US math and science scores are down - they interrupt class for a different indoctrination period), I asked the teacher what the most dangerous illegal drug was, and he completely freaked out. Complete change in demeanor and an expression of what I assume was shock. He spent something like ten minutes assuring me that all drugs were created equal, and were therefore equally dangerous. He almost pleaded for me to believe it. It was very odd. So, Mr. Chipka, maybe next time I WILL teach class..
But because of pot's extreme illegality, people are less likely to do dumb things (which generally involves leaving the living room couch) like driving or operating heavy machinerey.
The solution is to make driving or operating heavy machinery on pot illegal. As it is now, just smoking it in your living room is illegal, driving is no more illegal (though it IS more dangerous).
Overly restrictive laws don't turn people into puritans (or responsible adults), they just diminish respect for law.
Actually one of the bill's two sponsors is Senator Diane Feinstein, a Democrat from California.
Actually, according to Feinstein, it's not okay to bear arms either. But that's a whole different can of worms.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
an intern giving a married man a blowjob is somehow more offensive and perverse than a teenager humping a pie?
Sure, the teenager didn't betray his family or lie to the entire population of the U.S.
What I find insulting is that it will be illegal for me to link to a drug-related site (apparently, even if the site isn't located in the US), yet it's acceptable for a police officer to come into my sixth-grade class and tell us that drugs are bad, but then proceed to tell us how to do them safely. And on top of that show us what a crack-pipe and bong look like, not to mention photos of tar-heroine, marijuana, etc.
Finally, how can they make linking to information (or providing that information directly) illegal when I can go downtown to two of the most popular music stores in Portland and see them selling pipes, lighters, paper-rolls, etc -- right from the display cases next to the tee-shirts and collars?
What's next? Criminalizing talking about it? Or even criminalizing talking about criminalizing it?
[paranoia] One sure thing is that the best way to prevent change is by preventing discussion. Just imagine what it will be like when they silence discussing politics and sharing political information? [/paranoia]
---
seumas.com
Not to mention the fact that said teenager was a figment of somebody's imagination, later filmed as a actor in a studio.
+&x
Leader of the free world starts to sound stupider and stupider (yes, I know...) as I see more legislation like this being passed (halfway) and more clueless controllig politicians.
+&x
Speaking as a California resident who voted for ANYone else, Diane Feinstein isn't happy with anything she can't personally control, and the Net? a wilderness of anarchists, dope dealers, sex offenders, tax evaders -- can't have any of THAT going on, NOOOO!!
The obvious way to invalidate a law against linking to "paraphenelia" sites is for some cloutful outfit like -- oh, say the NYTimes to have such a link. The little guy like you and me can be stomped into silence, but I'd like to see the gov't try to take on the major print press -- no one else is so well equipped to demonstrate the stupidity and futilty of such a ridiculous law.
If PRO is the opposite of CON, what's the opposite of Progress??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
yeah, I knew feinstein, a democrat, was the co-author of the "link to drugs and go to prison" bill. I didn't switch my flag from the republican to the democrat side, by any means, that's like jumping out of the frying pan and into the 4e7 K core of any various blue giant star. Right now, my flag of political alignment belongs to no one party. Not anymore. I'll never vote along party lines. But, as americans, we don't get much of a choice in these virtual puppet elections, do we? Hmmm...
"Get out of my way! Can't you see I'm trying to save the world!!" -Xion
I tend to believe that drugs are illegal because they might expose someone to facets of reality which aren't broadcast on the officially sanctioned reality channels (ie, television). That might lead to individuality and free thought and we sure can't have that, now can we?
PeeWee
dont let it happen.
lest the thought police come after you
or our govt. becomes like the chineese govt.
yes this is a brash statement. the FIRST AMMENDMENT may well be our most precious right.
wonder if this means ill have to do political shit. i hate politics and all that shit...
maybe ill just tell the hyper liberal hippies
i went to collage with... they seem to like all
that....
Since crypto is a munition, should we defend the :)
right to encryption on Second Amendment grounds?
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
That's nuts. I can understand a law against posting where to purchase drugs, as that could tie in with the selling of them. (not that I really care if people darwin themselves, just that telling people where to go to purchase contraband is related to selling the contraband)
Other information about drugs however, and the *linking* to that information, should remain legal. I have few doubts that this law will be upheld given how it violates some of the rights granted by the first amendment. Anyone know what the ACLU's said?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
If the link law passes, then it'll be illegal to link to this discussion.
PeeWee
I agree, no way would a law like this stand up in courts. It would just prove annoying for some time and could put some people out of business. (the lag time from passing the law to it being ruled unconstitional). I am curious as to who, in particular, thinks that proposing these types of laws is thier duty.
+&x
Troll or stupid, can't tell....
I'm sure the Bar Association of America (or it's real world equivelent) would love such legislation.
+&x
rob, you're breaking the law...
Pork is not a verb
Remove all my gardening links (cuz I could use that information to grow the "stuff", plus it might contain the words 'growing' and 'pot').
Take down any link which may contain references to hydroponics and wide-spectrum lighting (cuz I might use that information also for growing "stuff").
I'd also have to remove the link to Crack.LinuxPPC.Org
Could I leave the link to a page entitled "Methamphetamine - for fun and profit"?
My studio - www.graylands.ca
Of course your post could cost Rob, what, like $10.000 and three years in jail.
Rob: But it clearly states that we are not responsible for posts!?
Cop: And the law clearly states that if you link to one of these sites you go to jail.
I know what will solve the problem, more lawyers (note: "lawyers" should be in bright green to reflect it's acidicly sarcastic purpose)
+&x
There are a handful of people in the US who receive every month in the mail a big biscuit tin with 300 machine rolled reefers, supplied by Uncle Sam. They are all sufferers of terminal ailments like cancer and Parkinson's disease, and it's a research program about the medical benefits of cannabis. The goodies are grown on a research station in one of those midwest states beginning with M.
I don't know the details, but this is not an urban legend, this is real - it is frequently cited in pro-legalisation discussions, and the process is shown by UK documentaries on the issue.
I'm sure a quick sweep of the pro-legalisation web sites will turn up info about it.
Does not the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States state, quote,
?
It seems to me that Congress and/or the Senate is working in direct opposition to the cardinal principle on which this entire nation was founded. What possible purpose can this law serve? Do they think that preventing links to pages about marijuana will somehow stop drug problems? Haven't there been drug problems since long before the internet was even conceived? What is the point of this useless legislation?
I would like to take this opportunity to say that, square as it may sound, I have never used any drugs of any kind, except alcohol (the drug of choice today -- and forever, I'll wager). But I think that people have the freedom to do whatever they want to their own bodies, and any attempt by the government to limit what a person can do to him/herself is flat out wrong (as long as they are only hurting themselves, of course).
What makes this even more idiotic than the principle behind it is the fact that they are doing this with marijuana. Not crack, or heroin, but pot. Reefer. The drug that you KNOW everybody in the Senate, House, and White House has used at one time or another. Surely the most harmless drug available today, I'll bet even less harmful than alcohol, which can clearly be tied to problems like cirrhosis of the liver and drunk driving accidents. When was the last time you heard of someone dying from an overdose of weed? Come on.
I am sick and tired of our elected officials working to do things completely contradictory to the reasons we elected them. Who has ever voted for someone that said, "Vote for me, I'll restrict your access to information, but it'll be for your own good!"? But how many of us would love a candidate that said "Vote for me, I'll make all information available to you and let you make your own life decisions!" I sure would. But given politicians' reputations for keeping their words, the first one would probably be the better choice because at least he was telling the truth.
There are more important problems facing America today than trying to limit access to the incredible resources on the Internet. This is related to the thing Jon Katz wrote about kids not being able to see American Pie. Do you think any 14/15/16 year old is not mature enough to handle this stuff? Do you think they don't already have stacks of Playboys hidden away somewhere? Do you think the people who passed these asinine laws didn't have stacks of Playboys when they were 14?
I just don't see how the government can do the complete opposite of what everybody wants and then have the nerve to tell us it's for our own good. Maybe we can show them what we think of these stupid ideas when the next polls come around.
Oh, and this is the same government that sponsored the Starr Report, which was more perverted than American Pie, and probably more "morally damaging" than a movie or drugs could ever be, because it deals with infidelity, blowjobs, etc, and it's all TRUE.
Why don't we start a new campaign for the next election? We can call it "Get rid of the fucking hypocrites." You'll have my vote.
rooooar
Is it just me or is the law prohibiting the mere discussion of drug use downright frightening? Wouldn't this make sites that talk about the side effects of drugs illegal? Of course, as the article mentions this law would probably be selectively enforced so that the government would leave alone anti-drug sites which may list the side effects of hard core drugs, but prosecute other sites which point out that alcohol and nicotene are more harmful than certain illegal "soft" drugs.
The more important point, though, is that they are attempting to crimilaze a particular point of view. The way it sounds, I could get in trouble for saying that I support marijuana legalization even though I have no intention of ever using it myself. I find it inconceivable that they would consider throwing me in jail for merely stating what I think.
You may not care about this law now if you agree with the government's war on drugs, but you should care. If this law passes it will set a precedent for the government's ability to restrict free speech. Eventually, there may be some other issue that the government declares "war" on which you happen to disagree with. Would you want to go to jail from peacefuly disagreeing with the government in public? We're not even talking about taking any physical action here. All you have to do is publicly state your views and you go to jail.
I, for one, will not follow this law if it is passed. In fact, I don't have and never have had any links to drug related sites on my homepage, but if this law passes I will most certainly add some links. Hmmm... maybe I'll even do that now. Maybe a whole slew of us should do that now in protest. I'm off to check out the NORML homepage to see whether I want to link to it...
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
>your response shows your ignorance of the
:-)
>Canadian political system and of the US
>Constitution.
I was born and raised in Québec, went to
university in Québec. I know the political
system very well.
>It is possible for a President to be elected in
>the US with less than 50% of the popular vote
Not 41% as it is usually the case in Canada and
they get a majority government with that.
>(his opponent can even get more votes and
>lose)--ever heard of the electoral college?
That's only true on paper
> If a
>Canadian party wins less than 50% of the seats,
>they must form a minority (coalition) government
>with another party. This usually results
>in a government that actually does what the
>people want,
If I recall the Canadian economy was brought
down the toilet in the days when Trudeau went
to bed with the comies at the NDP.
The biggest screw ups in Canada have been
done during the short lived coalition
government. Not to say that Trudeau and Ray didn't
do a lot of this on their own.
Ontario's economy had quite a fall with Ray. With
a good system like here Ray wouldn't have been
able to screw up the Ontario economy like he
did.
>and doesn't make too many stupid
>laws.
HA!HA!
GST and the tape tax to name a couple.
>True, Canada does have more severe party
>discipline than the US. Of course,
Dictature you mean, here the representatives
are free to do what they want wether or not
the party leadership likes it.
>your President just has people
>rubbed out if they piss him off (Vincent Foster,
>Ron Brown, Gary Parks...)
Moronic and unfounded accusations.
>Linking to the site is an entirely different
>thing
If you link to a drug site this is because you
approve of it but are too chicken to put the
stuff on your own site.
First off: Diane Fienstein(D) is one of the major proponents of the Drug Links Ban. So it's not just republicans taking away our freedom...
As Bill Hicks (a true visionary) says:
"I'll show you politics in america, Here it is right here:
`I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs'; `I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking'.
Hey wait a minute! There's one guy holding up both puppets...'Go back to bed America, your government is in control!'"
My sig has a broken link in it.
This shit is seriously scary.
I hope we can get rid of these fuckwads peacefully. I'd hate to have the streets run red with blood, but that sort of thing may be necessary. I'm not optimistic though. This one saying keeps coming back to me... "It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." Where's that from anyway?
-- $SIGNATURE
It's about time that somone did something about all the DNS squatteres out there. IMNSHO, DNS squatting is the worst thing to ever happen to the net... and now... the IANAN (or whatever they're called) has giving NetNation the ability to register domains directly. (NetNation just so happens to be the largest DNS squatter out there, with over 18 000 domains registered).
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Did the creators of the link law ever stop to think about people with so called 'free for all' link pages? Or how about when someone has a link and the content of the site being linked to changes? So because someone puts up something that I may or may not approve of I get the jail sentence?? Sounds like someone needs to pull their head out of their rear and get a kl00.
The cybersquatting law IMO is right on the money.. so long as it protects the rights of people to parody and protest, something that there appears to be a provision for.
I would agree that he is a moron and anyone
who support drug use but really the democrats
aren't socialists by any mean.
There are conservative and liberal democrats.
Some suck up to liberal groups some don't.
Republicans are for the most part hypocrites
who suck up to the fundies and the richest
people in America.
Ideally we'd want someone like Ross Perot
but then again he's against free trade.
In the end we're better off with a mixture
of Democrats and Republicans who fight each
others and leave us alone. The democrats keep
the Republicans in line so they stay out of our
bedrooms and can't install their theocracy and
the republicans keep the democrats in line so
they don't tax us to death.
While the rest of this post is absolutely OUTSTANDING (and I mean that :), I've got to disagree with the comment that the Starr Report was more perverted than American Pie. Get real guys -- an intern giving a married man a blowjob is somehow more offensive and perverse than a teenager humping a pie? *Chuckle* I love it -- our culture just gave me an excuse to use the phrase "teenager humping a pie" :) I'm sorry for posting a barely on-topic post, but I just wanted to chime in about that comment.
Read my stuff.
Very unlikely....
I just don't see anyone wanting this enough to do that.
I don't actually exist.
Presumably this restriction only applies to those in the jurisdiction of the land of the not so free? Now that .com is no longer under the sole control of Network Solutions, are there any registries outside the USA? If not, does the law apply to registries or just to the squatters? Just a thought "We the People(TM), in order to form a more profitable union, promote commerce, corporates and lobbying groups, provide for the conglomerate defence ...."
>HA!HA!
:-)
:-), casualties of American politics, or anything else like that, email me.
>GST and the tape tax to name a couple.
I didn't say NO stupid laws--besides, those are taxes, not restrictions on freedom in the more general sense (and I already admitted our tax problem)... The Canadian government's biggest problem is that they tax us to death.
The current trend in the States seems to be to leave the economy alone (aside from breaking the occasional monopoly that doesn't play nice with
the girls and boys in Washington). OTOH, everyone in Washington is just itching to start legislating and restricting this new-fangled internet thing. Yes, the government in Canada is busy screwing over the economy, but they're also promoting strong encryption, making sure the CRTC can't muck up the internet, etc.
> >your President just has people
> >rubbed out if they piss him off (Vincent Foster,
> >Ron Brown, Gary Parks...)
>Moronic and unfounded accusations.
Did you miss the smiley? I can understand how you missed the sarcasm in part of my original message, but not in this one. Please get a sense of humour... If I was making a serious accusation, I would have substantiated it with links to a copy of Vincent Foster's suicide note, expert testimony about the validity of the note, reports of the circumstances surrounding Ron Brown's death, etc. If you are interested, I can email you that stuff, but we are really starting to get off-topic here.
>If you link to a drug site this is because you
>approve of it but are too chicken to put the
>stuff on your own site.
You're missing the point here. It doesn't matter what I'm linking to or why. It could be a neo-Nazi page advising kids to make pipe bombs while stoned. It's not for you or anyone else to tell me what I can say or print (PLEASE read the First Amendment).
Maybe, to you, this is a clear-cut case of right and wrong. What about the next time the government restricts your freedom of speech? Strong encryption is *obviously* a tool of terrorists, drug traffickers, and pornographers only [note dripping sarcasm]. Who else would have something to hide from Uncle Sam? The US government has repeatedly demonstrated their hatred of strong encryption. Is it a stretch to think they'd make linking to encryption sites illegal?
And maybe they won't stop with making linking to illegal sites illegal. Maybe if you link to a site that links to a site that links to a site that discusses the factoring of large primes, you'll get busted... Do you see now why this is a really scary precedent? Fortunately, this law is clearly unconstitutional, and will be shot down by the judicial branch (I do admire the US Constitution).
I'm sorry for getting off-topic earlier. If you want to discuss Canada's weather, your sense of humour (or possible lack thereof
"So the question is, what do we do about it?"
Hehe.. Vote for people [like me] who are against this sort of BS.
Lacking someone to vote for run for office... or get someone to run...
I don't actually exist.
So, back from the top on every current topic but this one (unless I manage to sqeeze in another grass link.
:^)
Whilst indirectly blathering about the iminent threat to liberty imposed by second amendment infringements thrust upon us with the unwitting support of the lemming proletariat in the delirious aftermath of two assholes with guns in a high school giving The Man exactly what he needs to stop using KY when raping america,
I came across the idea of using the second amendment to protect rights related to cryptography. After a little thought and a few pints of the one true beer, I realise that it would be completely useless for the primary crypto issue we deal with these days: export control. Since the export of weapons is necessarily and legitimately controlled, and the arguement rests on the current interpretations upholding ITAR, it's self defeating, so America will never be as cool as Canada.
However, when the government begins to crack down on encryption domestically, the interpretation of crypto as a munition vaguely hints that encryption may be subject to second amendment protections. We have a right to bear arms (have access to weapons) for individual and national defence in the event of invasion (framer's intent). Cryptography can be used for those purposes, and it's _obviously_ a munition, right?
It would be sickeningly funny to see government idiocy used in the defense of the right to free speech and privacy.
Of course, to return to my blathering, the second amendment is only given lip service these days. And now that we can't have anything more potent than a single shot hunting rifle or handgun with 20 safety dongles on it (a consipracy by the christian right - finally putting Darwin to rest!), we don't have any way to defend our liberty, so the DC Fools are free to deny any right they please.
Interesting... When typing in an IE 4 text window, my instinctive pressing of ESC caused everything I wrote to be erased. Yet another mickeysoft attempt to screw unix users? Ah, well, at least someone is screwing me
That being said, I'm wondering how many people realize that the entire original reasoning behind using any sort of mood altering chemical was to allieviate pain or make life better for a person in some way (i.e. the use of marijuana for the relief of pain caused by glaucoma)? This "drugs are bad because they will ruin your life" attitude makes me wonder how society came to accept the overuse and abuse of these otherwise helpful chemicals as a common practice. Is the real problem the bad evil awful chemicals themselves or the society that has allowed misuse of them to become such a problem?
Hey, even the Roman Empire fell....
Save the children; quit overparenting!
(Why can't Orrin Hatch just go back to pimping for Novell?)
So now only "furriners" can cybersquat? Or are they to be the next airstrike target?
There are people by the last name of Dizney. Can they be denied a website just because of a similar spelling? What about Ditzney? Where will the line be drawn? Why do I suspect it'll have a lot to do with how rich and influential Mr. or Ms. Dizney or Ditzney is or isn't?
"If the measure becomes law, it will create a new federal felony -- punishable by a fine and three years in prison -- that covers Web pages that link to sites with information about where to buy "drug paraphernalia" such as roach clips, bowls, and bongs."
So they're not going to bust you for having such a site, but just for having a site that links to such a sight?
" It creates another felony, punishable by up to 10 years in the federal pen, banning distribution "by any means" of information about "the manufacture or use of a controlled substance" if the recipient might use it to get high."
So if I say something in a bar some night about the ridiculous government plan to ban the presently legal Phenylpropanolamine (my decongestant of choice)because somebody with drug lab can convert a million dollars worth of it to a few thousand worth of some illegal drug, they can put me away for ten years?
Apparently the re-election junkies are jonesing again. And planning to smoke the constitution.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
It was odd...
I read the Wired article, followed their link to the bill's page at the Library of Congress, tried to find -anything- dealing with the web, checked the portions of the US Code being amended (at law.cornell.edu), and am at a loss.
What are they/you talking about? Banning discussion of drugs? Where does it say that?
As near as I could tell, only two sections of the bill relate directly to the web (and one that indirectly relates):
1. In section 5 (Advertisements for drug paraphernalia and schedule I controlled substances), there is a rather broad definition of "directly or indirectly advertise for sale", including "to post, publicize, transmit, publish, link to, broadcast, or otherwise advertise any matter (including a telephone number or electronic or mail address) knowing that such matter has the purpose of seeking or offering, or is designed to be used, to receive, buy, distribute, or otherwise facilitate a transation in."
The syntax is horrible ("in."? in what?), but it seems that the two words "link to" is what is upsetting the cyberpundits out there.
It also seems rather narrowly tailored. Under this bill, I couldn't link to someone who was actually selling drug paraphernalia or drugs, but that is about all that is limited.
There is a head shop in Buffalo, NY, which has been openly selling bongs and other drug paraphernalia for a while without too much legal problems. I could link to them without violating this law. (In case you were wondering, they have a large sign in the store that says "If you mention illegal drugs, we can't sell to you" which is enforced, and they claim that their materials are for smoking tobacco). If the laws are that easily circumvented...
2. Section 9 (Criminal Prohibition on Distribution of Certain Information Relating to the Manufacture of Controlled Substances) seeks to make it illegal for you to learn how to make illegal drugs if you intend to do so, or if your instructor intends for you to do so (or thinks you are going to). It's only illegal to tell someone how to make an illegal drug if doing so furthers another Federal crime.
So it would be illegal for me to make a page giving instruction on how to best grow pot -- if I intended for you to follow it, or thought that you would. But it wouldn't be illegal for you to link to it.
3. And finally... Section 15 (Antidrug messages on Federal Government Internet Websites). Need I say more?
So, what did I miss? Why is this such a big deal?
I have a question. I have a relative with cancer (rather treatable, but requires radiation therapy). Now if I recall correctly, in some states (I don't know which offhand) this makes the use of marijuana legal to fend off the side effects of the radiation (at least this is my understanding).
Now, if I were to create a web page for the relative's benefit (as well as the family's) that linked to various sites about side effects, etc of legal marijuana use, I'd be subject to prosecution?
Does this make sense to anyone?
Who said anything about morals? I dont think there's anything 'morally' wrong with being drunk or high.. the law would not be to preserve anybody's morals (that should be Your job, not mine or the government's) it would be to protect the wellbeing of the people on the street, includng yourself. You arent going to get grabbed by a cop for public intoxication if you're walking down the street looking normal.. only if you're so blasted you obviously cant even walk straight. You're a danger to yourself (stumbling into a busy street for instance), a danger to others (you could trip people up by staggering into them, knock somebody over into that proverbial busy street etc), and a public annoyance.. i know if i were walking down the street i wouldnt want some guy stoned out of his mind walking up and harassing me. What you do in your home is your business and i think laws against it are rather stupid.. but i also think what you do in your home is Not my business and if i'm not In your home, i dont expect to see it.
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What about a site with links to a foreign site that say "These links are to an overseas site that has links that would be illegal if it weren't an overseas site."?
Or a link to a site with a link to a site...
Or will it shortly be the National Narrow Web?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
>You're missing the point here. It doesn't matter
>what I'm linking to or why. It could be a
>neo-Nazi page advising kids to make pipe bombs
>while stoned. It's not for you or anyone else to
>tell me what I can say or print (PLEASE read the
> First Amendment).
This is just a bill and before it becomes law
it will have to be clarified as to what it means.
If not I agree that it will and should be struck
down as anti constitutional.
The linking I will agree is a bit silly since
you could actually be pointing to the FBI where
to look for a particular asshole. I do that
occasionally on religious sites. There is a
guy promoting nuking non believers and dedicated
a site to it. My linking to his site was a
warning that there are dangerous assholes to
watch out for in this great country. I also
link to one of those rapture site in my humor
section.
The bulk of the letters that I've read on the
weekend about lack of freedom in the US and
bitching about our lawmakers are nothing but
moronic comments by in large drug addicts so it
seems.
This country is and will stay for a long time
to come one of the most free country in the
world.
The government wants to curb drug use to protect
our society the best way they see fit. We elect
them to do that among other things. They often
goof but I would challenge anyone to do better.
As for the encription laws, it was lost by the
government at the supreme court. They will appeal
but are likely to lose at the end. Even if they
don't I fail to see what difference that will do
in our lives. If the government wants to waste
their time looking thru my mail they are welcome
as I don't give a rat's ass.
If they tell me or my family that we have to go to
church, pray or whatever other bullshit, this is
an entirely different issue.
Can't the Slashdot posters get the difference between laws and bills straight?
Neither of these two bills are laws yet. The anti-paraphernalia one is even described as just a "proposed bill" (which is incorrect, it is a bill). Calling one a "law passed by the US Senate (but not yet the House)" is incorrect at best, and inherently contradictory at worst! Calling the other a "new law being pushed" when it was merely introduced 16 days ago is also overstating the case.
Well well well, here we are again. Weren't we all assembled under the waning flag of freedom not too long ago with the encryption export deal? Oh boy.
Two more genuis bills from our legislature. Will the joyride never end? One thing I take a little comfort in is that the second bill, the "link to drugs and go to prison", has not passed yet, it is only proposed. I guess we see how far the Congress is ready to push this. I don't have a lot of hope, but this does mean that there is time to write your congressperson. This is an idiotic idea. The free flow of information does not make people crack dealers or users; quite the contrary! It is precisely the lack and interuption of information and education that will ultimately hurt people with drugs, and anything! This kind of censorship mentality only leads to limited thought (limithought). Or, as someone else in 1949 put it so perfectly, crimestop. The inability to form even a thought on what the government considers illegal.
And one of the co-authors of both these bills? Utah Senator Orrin Hatch (r). Every time I see this guy I want to vomit more and more. And this guy wants to be president! From his webpage:
"...Always striving to protect the principles of limited government, tax restraint, and integrity in public service..."
Limited government aye? Maybe it's a new strategy, the indirect approach of curtailing government expansion by expanding the government! Wasn't a phrase invented for concepts like that...say, doublethink? I think it was that same wise man back in 1949 who came up with that....
Could you believe I used to be a republican?
"Get out of my way! Can't you see I'm trying to save the world!!" -Xion
And what about Search engines? Will Altavista, Yahoo, and Excite and so on have to filter their engine's content to block drug sites? If they try it will have all the same stunning success as attempts at porn censoring have had (none).
I'm sick of this shit. I want to start a technocracy - if you don't know a damn thing about something, then you have no right to legislate how it works.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Do you have any idea how much bandwidth Spam consumes on the net? You can filter it out when you retrieve your mail, or delete it when it gets to you, but that spam still got shoved through the backbone, along with millions of its brothers.
All of that traffic which virtually no one wants ties up "useful" (insert your definition of useful) communication. Its like someone littering your expressway with huge crates. Sure, you can drive around them, but it will slow you down. And do you really want to have to drive around those stupid crates?
Cybersquatting isn't a particular nice facet of the net, but I still say Spam is worse...
--Lenny
The EU has some silly laws too, but for a country with no intrinsic freedom of speech (the UK) we seem to have more freedom than the states. Hum. What is the world coming to?
Hugo
I agree. Spam is worse. Per hit, the cost is smaller but far far more people pay for spam than for cybersquating. But that's not really the reason. Spam has changed the way people interact on the net. Prior to spam, people handed out their email addresses at every oportunity. No one filtered. Now we have filters, RBL, ORBS, address munging, and the use of flat out bogus addresses, just to keep the spammers out.
However, as bad as spam is, that doesn't mean cybersquating is ok. Far from it. Both need to go and there is no need to "choose" which one to get rid of.
It's a good start but it doesn't really do very much. Trademark holders already have legal recourse. If the name is not trademarked, the bill doesn't seem to help.
Pihkal and tihkal are great books.
However if you think they will teach you to make drugs well...not without a lab.
ALl of the drug synthesis in these books are written up and designed for a competent chemist
in a lab. Remember, Shulgin (the author) had a
DEA schedual 1 chemicals licence...he could obtain
virtually any chemical he wanted without the DEA
even batting an eyelash.
If you tried to buy the precursors he used you
would be laughed at. If you did buy the, the
DEA would be knocking on your door promptly.
However the book is great. Part 2 of each book is
available online (www.lycaeum.org under
transcribed books) with the authors permission.
Tho I suggest buying the book sbecause part 1
(the novel...kind of autobiographical of Shulgins
life) is excellent.
-- Steve
so what if yahoo or altavista links to those sites? what if i have a spider that would link to them? plus how in the hell US government will control the restof the world and enforce the law there? bomb them? insane...
...sie sind nicht grün
There is no mention about banning information about drugs. It only applies to providing information _how_ to make illegal substance.
That's a huge difference.
you all should know that one of the first steps in a war is a propaganda campaign against the "enemy".
deseminating false information and / or controlling both sides of the argument and / or the media are both excellent ways of accomplishing this.
by the way since our goverment has repeatedly & publically declared war on drugs & its' citizens who use them, shouldn't these people be dealt with under the geneva convention?
which I think among other things forbids the holding of prisoners of war with common criminals.
for supporting documentation read the 6th ammendment to the u.s. constitution which states that any treaty the u.s. is a signatory to becomes the SUPREME law of the land abrogating all other constitutions(s), laws &/or acts of legislative bodies.
If the "war" on drugs is so bad, then why the
hell haven't I been able to get acid for the
last four months or so...
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
The substance known as ***** when made by **** and *** in the amounts of ****** and **** to ***.
Note Should you come in contact with ***** made this way you will know it by ****. The effect of this **** is the same as **** and you should seek help in 40 min or less. If it is made with **** keep paitent warm and dont tell them about the "Bats" they will find out soon enough.
[USA-WOD-FUBAR]
There probably will continue to have some holes in this system since it's the US Senate and that doesn't include the rest of the world really. A site in Amsterdamn with links to where to buy drugs may still be valid and legal; therefore render the whole thing pointless in the end.
If it's going to "work" or really be enforced properly with minimal loopholes, what is needed is probably some kind of international law that is applicable worldwide. But knowing how hard that's going to be (especially with different drugs legal and not in certain countries) it's going to be hard to reach a happy mutual international agreement.
~~~NO CARRIER~~~
Then it will be illegal MP3s, warez, controversial information etc, etc... This has no end.
Watch out for the day it'll be a felony to link to Slashdot !
free speech advocates, ACLU-like lawyers,
and companies that would have vested interest in
such, and prepare a report that YOU CANNOT
REGULATE THE INTERNET. The lawmakers
need to know that, number 1, the internet is NOT
the US's property. This report should be
presented orally to the House and Congress,
as well as sent in written form to all lawmakers,
at ALL levels of government.
No, we're not trying to lie pockets, but we have
to make them informed. Then, if a bill like the
above is introduced, we can elect someone to
whap the person over the head with a hammer.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Since when has the US had total control over domains registered on the net?
Will they extradite me from the UK for registering in 'bad faith'? I really don't think so Chet.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
The congress is made of both the House and the Senate.
It must pass both of them (simple majority) and then it goes to the President. If he passes it too, then it is a law.
Of course, we Americans have all kinds of little details all through the process, but i think everyone does...
"I want peace on earth and good will toward men." "We're the U.S. government. We don't do that sort of thing!!"
.. but I will not vote for her again.
This is outrageous.
I have sent her an e-mail expressing my dismay at her actions, and relaying the message that she has lost my vote.
-geekd
Wake up and smell the coffee, son. The whole damned political culture is corrupt and cynical. There really isn't a dime's worth o' difference between any of them. Even those with the best intentions are taken in the back rooms and read the riot act as soon as they reach the halls of power. It's the "leadership" [cough] of both parties that run things in Washington, and all they care about is their gravy train--life, liberty, and the pursuit of property be damned. It's one big, nasty game of good cop/bad cop, and we're the suckers stuck in the middle.
I don't imagine the situation is much different anywhere else in the world.
slashdot broke my sig
The cybersquaters bill sounds much more reasonable and overdue but it's not without problems. Can I protect my corporate image by registering extra domains that are similar? How far does that protection go? Can I be anticompetitive with it? American culture is so slanted toward lawsuits and making bucks in court that I can only respect the attempt that this bill is making but I hope it's not vague.
The drug law article puts me be a small but not insignificant step closer to agreeing with you. Unfortunately, the Government has sensed this and has managed to erode our second amendment rights with our consent.
:^)
It's an AB-BA locking order. The fundamental right is that of free speech. Second to that is the right to defend it. To deny the right to free speech, the means of defending it must be taken first.
Hmm... I wonder if anyone has ever tried defending encryption using the second amendment?
The trademark law worries me as well. The Internic already made some effort to manage this. Changes in top level domain management may require that this (very reasonable) policy become law.
Nonetheless, it's a fine line to draw. What I wonder is why congress doesn't attempt to allow existing tradmark law sort it out. At present, there's no infringement to use "Pepso" as a brand, or to make a statement about Pepsi, the product. For the most part, the existing trademark laws are reasonable, and these laws should transfer easily to domain names.
What both of these articles demonstrates is the profound cluelessness of our lawmakers. They continue to define it as a new media not suceptible to current policies. The technology is new, but there is nothing new about either free speech or trademarks.
Basically, I think it comes down to the fact that Congress wants to look like they are doing something relevent to current events and culture. They simply fail to understand their actions, and do not consider that they may do more harm than good.
To get back to the first point - rights are first denied blindly by fools. Later they are denied delibrately by the opportunists who replaced the fools.
Any links to the proposed legislation for review? How about some links to good ways to fight it?
Clinton says that he plans to veto the bill on cyber squatting if it comes to him.
---Got Coffee?---
...a pretty good prohibition argument could be made on the following premise: You can't really keep people from smoking pot. But because of pot's extreme illegality, people are less likely to do dumb things (which generally involves leaving the living room couch) like driving or operating heavy machinerey. They're fearful of the law, and are thus content to sequester themselves.
/.'ers were an intelligent lot...
Man, I always thought
This is a ludicrous argument. Think about it: Marijuana generally makes people lethargic & hungry. So let's make it illegal so we can encourage people to drink instead, that way they will be rowdy & violent instead!
If you'd like to make a intelligent argument on the subject of Marijuana, you really should educate yourself on the subject. I highly recommend the book 'Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts' by Lynn Zimmer & John Morgan (ISBN 0-9641568-4-9). It looks at virtually all the SCIENTIFIC evidence for & against Marijuana. You'll be amazed at how little you know. I've been -very- pro-legalization for years (and, no, I don't smoke), but even I was amazed at some of the outright lies that the government has been telling us for decades.
And check out Marijuana News for a look at some of what's really going on in the so-called drug war. (Note: the Marijuana News site -is- biased. Occasionally, they get a bit caught up in their own rhetoric (and of course the site is ugly!). Nonetheless, the site contains vast amounts of information. Read it with an open mind, though, and you will begin to question your governments motives in all of this.)
NOTE: I'm not meaning to single out this particular poster in my criticism. This comment is directed at everyone who is spouting rhetoric without really having a clue on the subject.
1. We have a First Amendment but it has limits. Lots of limits. So many limits in fact, that it is really just a nice idea that should only be followed when the Free Speech doesn't offend anyone. See Dick Armey's "Reflection on Values" Notice the way he says, I'm for free speech, but I'm not for free speech, on the same page.(Sorry for picking of the Republicans, but I haven't found anything equally stupid from the Democrats on the Web.)
2. Technology is Scary: Plenty of articles on this, including this one from Wired, The Bus Stops Everywhere. I actually think the reason why so many politicians are out to regulate technology to such an absurd degree is what has been called future shock in which technology has moved ahead way to fast for some people to keep up with it. Suddenly, your in the future, and you don't like it. It is akin to culture shock like when French radio stations are required to program X-amount of French programming because too much American stuff is popular. So they play a lot of Celine Dion songs over and over again...
3. Electronic Speech is just plain evil: You don't have Jack Valenti (or someone like him) rushing down to capitol hill whenever electronic speech is attacked, because technology companies I think (much like me) would like to pretend politics don't exist. It's this dirty, ugly, mind-numbingly stupid world, and besides we've only got X-amount of time to get that code done before M$ beats us to it. Who has time to go vote when you've got a milestone to deliver that week? So you combine the fact that there is no Pro-Tech lobby, politicians resent having to keep up with computers and the current disrepute of the First Amendment, and you've got a recipe for authoritarianism.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
What happens if I don't realize that the site I'm linking to has information pertaining to how to obtain drugs and related paraphenalia?
What happens if I link to a site that has no such information until AFTER I link to it? That could be used maliciously against someone, in that such information could be posted (anonymously, of course) just to hurt someone. I suppose one could always look at the time stamps on the files, but those are easily manipulated, and does not consider that the page doing the linking could be updated after the linking took place (so the timestamp wouldn't reflect when the link was made). Backup archives could also be checked, but those are usually done on a nightly bases, so changes throughout the day don't show up.
Also, what about search engines? Would they be required to filter out anything that has the word "pot" or "joint" or "crack" in it? I can see it now, we'll start by censoring the pages that talk about cracks in the sidewalks and pot holes in the streets and the joint efforts we are making to fix the problem.
Then California's one vote closer to having a Senate delegation, instead of a Senate embarassment.
Now all we need is a pro-choice Republican, and Feinstein may just go down.
Something a lot of /.ers might not have thought about:
Under the cybersquatting law, which also covers "words similar to trademarks, to draw traffic to their own sites" (from the CNN article), this link to to linux.org would be illegal.
Wonder how they'll handle pre-existing domains. Grandfathered? Ordered taken down? Allowed to expire gracefully?
-LjM
So now I get to be a federal felon, maybe? Gee, I'd never have dared to dream...
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
Because Congress has the collective spine of a jellyfish, that law (prohibiting links to drug information) will pass precisely because it is so bad. Among the crayon-law set it's a good idea, while the more sophisticated members will realize that that the courts will enjoin its implementation and ultimately declare it unconstitutional.
I can even give you likely arguments before The Supremes. Let's take the Library of Congress, a valuable resource that is clearly protected by the First Amendment. Now randomly shuffle all of the books within it and burn the card catalogue.
The value of the books is unchanged, but the value of the emergent *library* is completely lost. To be meaningful, the FA *requires* the ability to disclose the organization of a collection of protection works.
What's the nature of the web? If Congress has it's way, it will reduced to nothing more than another platform for corporate ad agencies. Who would invest thousands of hours in creating *and organizing* information if it's the least bit controversial and Congress may wipe it out an instance? The net effect will be a profound chilling of free speech, since the entry barriers to *meaningful* print publication is far higher than the entry barriers to publishing web pages. (I'm making a distinction here between printing out a couple copies of your thesis on your laser printer, and getting it printed, bound, and distributed to a bookstore, no matter how small, in each major city nationwide. If people can't get your thesis to read it, you might as well not written it.)
Extending this a bit further, I'm sure that even Congress isn't dumb enough to prohibit my publication of a *book* containing a printed list of URLs containing drug information. The same content, on the web, is illegal. This would change the FA from a protection of the *contents* to protection of the *presentation*, roughly akin to saying that indency (read: porn) is acceptable in print, but not on VCR tape. (N.B., the restrictions on electronic publication of strong cryptographic code do *not* apply domestically; the law only bans export of that material and the web, as implemented today, makes such restrictions extremely difficult to implement.)
We could go even further, if *all* links are prohibited that means that you can't even provide links between pages of material. That changes the FA from protection of *content* to protection of *binding*, roughly akin to saying that Ulysses can be published on a scroll, but not in a bound book.
In both cases, this is a profound and fundamental change in the way the FA is viewed, something that the courts (rightly) are hesistant to do. The fact that "conservatives" would suggest such major changes over a triffle exposes the philosophical corruption at the core of the modern "conservative" movement.
Finally, as if the prior arguments aren't enough, I'm sure the challengers will be able to locate a parent *demanding* to have access to a list of nearby sources of drugs and paraphenia. Not because he wants to score some drugs for himself, but so he can be a responsible parent who warns his child away from these areas. Or so he can form a "neighborhood watch" group with the intent of lawfully driving such business out of his neighborhood. There is damn little information which can't be used for both "good" and "bad" purposes.
I am not a lawyer, so you can imagine what experienced Constitutional Law experts could do with these arguments. And that's precisely why I'm concerned that this bill will soon be passed -- like the CDA, it's a way to get (mostly good) press back home without a shred of fear that the law would ever be enforced. Expect it to pass by a large margin.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
What's stupid about that? i'm reasonably sure he was kidding about the homeless thing.. and public intoxication is already illegal.. come up with a way to test for being high and there ya go.
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
Seems like everybody's hyped up about the anti-drug law, and I understand their concerns, but I definitely support the Senate's stand against cybersquatting.
There are limits to how much of a limited resource companies can use, and I do think that domain names qualify as a limited resource- after all, there are only so many words and meaningful phrases in the english language and nobody really wants a url like dsafs453swa.com
I don't know, but I estimate that a good 20% of all domain names are in the hands of squatters right now. I once wanted to get a domain name for my business, but someone else had it.. a relatively obscure name, too. They had no relation to that name, they probably bought it on a whim.
They said they had no plans to use it- they once had but changed their minds. So I offered them $100 for it. They replied with: Sorry, we won't accept anything under $5000 for the domain name.
That's fscking ridiculous! These speculators do nothing but hold onto a name and hope someone wants it bad enough to pay their 1000% premium.
I hope the law is broad enough to kill squatting. It's one thing to buy domain names that pertain to a project you're doing or will be doing, but to buy them for resale???
Personally, I think ICANN should require a clause in the registrar's contracts that says "Domain names may not be resold at a higher price to third parties. Doing so will result in immediate forfeiture of the name to the registrar."
That would kill this silly business once and for all.
Finally, it's not that cold here! Sometimes I think Americans get confused because Canada's weather is always reported in Celsius, which sounds a lot colder... Where I live in Canada, the temperature almost never drops below 20 F (-7 C) in the winter, and usually stays around a comfortable 70 to 85 F (21 to 30 C) in the summer.
Move to Southern Saskatchewan/Manitoba! Wind, dust, heat.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Ontario's support for encryption and the Vancouver-based Cannabis Culture magazine mentioned in the article surely must fly in the face of the American legislators. What more does Canada need to provoke a war with the USA?
Canada does not want to be some 51st state. We don't do things just because the US does. The Internet is an insecure place, and Canadian legislators know it. They also know that criminals are stupid enough that evidence from encrypted traffic won't be needed.
As far as Cannabis Culture goes, I'd rather spend tax dollars enforcing drug laws (and letting the market kill the magazine) than going on some stupid free-speech debate.
Only you (last poster) would be dumb enough to start a war because Canada refuses to be assimilated.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
The problem I have with pro-Marijuana websites is the writing rambles on and on without accomplishing a damn thing, and all the banner ads are for cheap high-fat junkfoods.
(Warning: the above text contains sarcasm, don't hold a flame against it or it will *poof* into vapour)
Otherwise why would you
waste your time doing such ridiculous stuff?
Yea, why would I want to have choices or anything. If the people living before me have decided that something was ridiculous why should I even think about it. Obiously someone (in this case you) knows better than I do.
I don't think any of your other arguments hold much water either. Defending a two-party system?!
The day that
you lose a love one or more due to drug you will
realize that drugs is an issue that will not go
away and that we as parents will support our
government in keeping those drug dealers out
of business.
Support the gov. by building dealers new jails? Thanks but no thanks. How 'bout removing the onus of illegality? Then those crazy druggies won't have to kill to get the money they need to stay high.
We also need more laws to protect stupid businesses. What, you didn't pay attention and somebody bought your URL. You should sue them. What your product sucks and doesn't sale. You should sue them. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO LEGISLATE STUPIDITY. Although they do a hell of a job trying.
+&x
If I post a comment with a link to a site about crack here in HTML format (so it becomes a link), then who is to be charged with this 'crime'? I'm not linking to the web site, /. is. /. is not the owner of the content, I am. But I didn't send a link, just some text that /. turned into a link?
And if I just put up a plaintext URL, without making it a link, is that illegal? I'm still directing people to that site, they just have to type it in themselves (or cut and paste).
Despite the obvious unconstitutionality (?) of this law, the logistics are simply insane. I do not think intelligent laws regarding the internet, or computers in general will ever be passed untill a few generations of congressmen have passed. And even then, I'm sure the technology will be ahead of the laws.
But what really worries me are the judges. A clueless judge can do more harm than 5 bad laws. Almost makes me want to buy an island and move out. Anyone want to give me $5 billion?
I can see it now... enraged potheads filling the streets, intent on marching on Congress to overthrow the government.. and then saying "fuck it", sitting down and having a cone.
At the end of the day, the most noticeable effect of the Stoners' Uprising would be a shortage of snack foods from vending machines.