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".
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
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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
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)
A 'Bill' is equivalent to a submitted story.
A 'Law' is equivalent to a posted story.
Basically, a bill is the introduction of any
legislation into either Senate or the House.
The bill, once introduced, is sent to both
the Senate and House, and each sends it to
a committee to 'adjust' the details. (Sometimes
there are changes due to party issues or
other things....), then the bill goes back to
both houses. If a majority
in both houses, but there are changes in the bill,
then both committees work to adjust the bill,
then it's revoted on (the same version now)
in both houses. If still a majority from both,
it's sent to the Pres' desk, and if he signs
it, AT THAT POINT, it becomes Law.
(I probably have a detail wrong somewhere, but
the gist is there
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
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