More of Obama's slippery slope.

[MikeK]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

[Bill Glasheen]

And folks wonder why libertarians fight so hard to protect the 2nd amendment.

Let's not forget this gem, which the same political circles are fighting to reenact.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

- The Fairness Doctrine


God forbid any of us speak our minds against the government...

Can you say Hugo Chavez?



I about laughed my butt off when I saw Joe Kennedy on TV as a spokesman for that dictator's free-oil-for-the-poor campaign. See Joe Kennedy, Hugo Chavez and That Free Heating Oil. Wow, sound familiar?



- Bill

P.S. Rant=off

[MikeK]

I was trying to be nice and not mention Cousin Hugo and how close Obama policy towards the media is to his.

We have to come up with a cool name for Obama like Dear Leader or something.

[Bill Glasheen]

The website I got that Joe Kennedy picture from called him "Che" Kennedy. So you're on the right track, Mike.

- Bill

[Gene DeMambro]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The bill was introduced by Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, and Olympia Snowe, a - gasp - Republican. Don't recall Pres. Obama's name on the bill at all.

And besides, this is nothing different than when the national defense apparatus impounds entire warehouses full of drug and medical supplies for civilian or military needs in a crisis. Dont' recall any opposition to that here. Could it be because they happened under Republican administrations recently?

"Dear Leader" or"Choosen One". Please pick one epithet and stick with it, would you? We are getting confused.

Don't recall us being at war with Venezuela. Did I miss a memo?

Gene

[MikeK]

Very pithy. Drink up Gene.



http://stutteringmessiah.files.wordpres ... ol-aid.jpg

[Gene DeMambro]

Prefer Crystal Light, but thanks anyhow.

[Bill Glasheen]

Wow... I never saw that coming...

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

You don't have to go far to see where the slippery slope can lead to. Wasn't this the last country similarly to clamp down on the internet?

Just wait until we get into the recently proposed investigations of the CIA interrogation practices applied to key captive terrorists. But of course O told us he wasn't going there, right?

- Bill

Ahmadinejad Calls for Prosecution of Opposition Leaders

Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's president called Friday for the prosecution of opposition leaders over the postelection turmoil, saying that senior activists currently on trial shouldn't be the only ones punished.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call stepped up the pressure against reformers in the continuing unrest that has gripped the country following the June 12 presidential election.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Serious confrontation has to be against the leaders and key elements, against those who organized and provoked [the riots] and carried out the enemy's plan. They have to be dealt with seriously," Mr. Ahmadinejad told a crowd of thousands in Tehran before Friday prayers.

The president said prominent activists who are currently standing trial have to be treated with "Islamic mercy," portraying them as "deceived" into taking part in the unrest. "These deceived and second-hand elements have to be dealt with Islamic mercy. Don't give immunity and protection to the main elements and punish the deceived and second-hand elements," he said.

More than 100 pro-reform activists and politicians, including many who have made public confessions, are currently on trial in Tehran. Rights groups and others say the public confessions were coerced by threats and abuses in custody.

Mr. Ahmadinejad didn't specifically name the opposition leaders. However, many hard-liners and members of the Revolutionary Guard have publicly called for the arrest of defeated presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi, as well as former president Mohammad Khatami.

The president also admitted for the first time that detained protesters were abused in custody but denied any government involvement, claiming instead that it was the work of Iran's enemies and the opposition. "These actions that were carried out in custody ... were part of the enemy's scenario," he said. "Security, military and intelligence forces are free from these shameful acts."

The opposition says the crackdown on the demonstrations killed at least 69 people, while the government says only 30 people have died. Hundreds have been arrested since the election and the opposition says some of them died in prison from beatings and other abuse.

- WSJ

[Glenn]

Unfortunately the threats the bill is aimed at are real, but like in 9-11 most likely such an attack would have already done its damage before a president even had the chance to pull the plug on public networks. What I find interesting is that they would even need a bill for this, seems to me any president would already have this authority, just as Bush did to ground all non-governmental aircraft for days after 9-11.

[Bill Glasheen]

What I find interesting is that they would even need a bill for this, seems to me any president would already have this authority, just as Bush did to ground all non-governmental aircraft for days after 9-11.

Indeed.

So I hope the same people screaming about The Patriot Act will similarly balk at any institutionalization of said restrictions of free expression.

Cyberterrorism is real, and this is old news. Needing new legislation to deal with it - and in the manner stated - is worrisome.

- Bill

[Glenn]

institutionalization of said restrictions of free expression.

Devil's advocate here, but given that the existence of the internet has nothing to do with free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment, how does this bill have anything to do with free expression/speech, the first amendment, or any other rights? I think we frequently get confused about what is a true right given by the Bill of Rights and what is a convenience we like to take for granted.

The first amendment says, among other things, that the government cannot infringe on freedom of speech, which basically means that you can make almost any statement you wish and not have to worry about government retribution. It does not say we have the right to say whatever we want, whereever we want, whenever we want, or using any means we want. In particular, this right has to be balanced with other rights and responsibilities:

There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander).

Similarly, people who are disruptive in public, make threats, or violate corporate (or other) e-mail/internet policies find out there are definite limits on "free speech"....as do graffiti 'artists'

No where in the first amendment does it say we have a right to the internet (or any other communication medium for that matter). The internet exists as it does today, not because it is a vehicle for free speech, but because it is an economic juggernaut. It started as a joint military-university research project (ARPANET) in the late 1960s, and then the government opened it up to commercial interests in 1988 and widespread use began shortly after the World Wide Web was introduced in 1989. From there the internet exploded due to the commercial interests. But as with GPS, what the government provides it can also take away.

Rather than worrying about what shutting down private access to the internet would do to free speech, we need to be more worried about what it would do to the economy. Most economic transactions involve non-governmental network activity to some extent. If such networks suddenly became restricted, it would negatively impact everything from the smallest one-person business to the largest corporation, and be a bigger impact to the economy then was 9-11. Imagine all credit/debit card transactions (online and in-store) in the country suddenly not working, companies afraid to take checks (the few that still do that is) because they cannot use the verification readers...you would need cash for everything, but could not get it from an ATM because that uses the internet. Online ordering would cease. As would file tranferance, e-mail, instant messaging, VOI communication, the remote access that IT requires, etc (although if LAN networks are not touched some of these functions would still exist on a limited internal basis). The economic costs would quickly run into the billions.

And that actually makes it unlikely that a president would ever act on power given by such a bill. Unlike 9-11, few lives would be at stake with cyberterrorism. The only way a president would ever pull the plug on non-governmental access to the internet is if the costs of damage caused by attacks would be greater than the economic costs of shutting down the internet, for example if cyberterrorists were to try to use the internet to knock out power grids.

So I hope the same people screaming about The Patriot Act will similarly balk at any institutionalization of said restrictions of free expression.

Have you ever noticed that each side will complain about perceived infringment on freedoms when the other side is in power, but never repeal any of these when they come back into power?

[Rising Star]

Gene,

Olympia Snowe may have an "R" after her name, but her record would indicate otherwise.

John

[Gene DeMambro]

I'm confused. Does Bill think we face oppression like they have in Iran? If so, I'd like to hear more.

Gene

[Jason Rees]

Bill, I'm shocked that our former warriors against government intrusion into our rights have donned skirts and grabbed pom-poms. Just shocked, I tell you.

Reminds me of the womens' groups wrapping their arms around WJC during the Jones/Lewinsky/pick-a-name-out-of-a-hat scandals.