Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Free Speech 1st Amendment      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 101
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment Page 5 of 21    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

I did say I disagree with the law in Arizona because it seems arbitrary and targets primarily hispanics, but also other people of color.


I don't doubt it seems that way to all those who swallows what MSNBC, the Daily Kos, and similar propaganda organs say as true, rather than bother to read the law. You can't say, specifically, how SB 1070 is arbitrary, or how it targets hispanics or anyone else by race or ethnic origin. If that were true, it would almost certainly make the law unconstitutional--and yet now you deny that you're against enforcing it. Why would you *not* oppose the enforcement of any law you think arbitrarily discriminates by race or ethnic origin? But that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. And everyone else is entitled to their opinions about how much weight to give it.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 102
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 8:41:05 PM

Kind-of like waterboarding people who we claim have no legal rights.


Yes, I certainly do claim they had no rights under U.S. law. Instead of constantly implying that claim's wrong, why don't you just come out and tell us what legal rights war criminals captured and held overseas have, and where they come from? And if you can't, why do you keep suggesting something you know is not true?

I thought everyone, at some point by now, had seen a movie where the commander turns to the soldier who's planning to go on a secret mission and says something like, "I don't suppose I have to tell you, Lieutenant, what happens if you're captured out of uniform?" And don't you know that when Major Andre was captured with instructions from Benedict Arnold in his boots, Gen. Washington refused his request to be shot like a soldier, and instead had him hanged for a spy?

Jihadists are not soldiers, but war criminals, and they certainly can be interrogated pretty roughly. I'd guess the usual method of getting information from a captured spy, saboteur, surrender-faker, etc. has been to point a rifle at him and tell him to talk fast. On Iwo Jima, a group of Japanese in a cave waved a white flag, and one of them came out, smiling, speaking English, and talking about his time at UCLA. After he'd talked for a minute, a shot came from the cave and hit one of the Marines in the arm. The others returned fire and killed the men in the cave. The wounded man grabbed the Japanese, marched him behind some bushes, his buddies heard a shot, and he walked back out. Legal? Perfectly. Faked surrender is a war crime; calling on an officer for a quick trial was impossible in that fighting; and once a soldier fakes surrender, he has no more right to it. If the men had actually surrendered, it would have been murder to kill them.

I believe our laws--state laws, at least--generally reflect the moral views of a majority. I don't know how an action breaks a law, but not overtly. Either it breaks the law, or it doesn't. Most of us probably think sometimes that a things should be against the law. And if a group of people feel strongly enough about it, they can organize and urge their representatives to change the law.

What you say about institutionalized racism makes no sense, because it's clearly unconstitutional. Do you really believe there are all these laws that unfairly discriminate by race, and somehow, no one's ever filed a complaint about them, and the DOJ has just never noticed them?

Instead of being so outraged about what you think are unfair applications of the Fourth Amendment, why don't you research the Court's reasoning in some of its car stop decisions? There's a whole series of search and seizure decisions involving race, pretext, and all the other things you're implying. I think if you read them carefully, you might not think they were unfair at all.

Incidentally, Town of Shaw? is a decision on the very thing you mention--more public services to the white side of town, fewer to the black area. The Court found unconstitutional race discrimination, because the discrepancy was larger than the government could justify on any practical grounds. If the people in your city believe the police are violating federal civil rights laws, why don't they file a complaint with the U.S. Attorney's office, or whoever handles such things? Or do they just want to gripe that the cops won't let them drink and drive?

Any police chief in the U.S. in 2010 who's not aware that misconduct by his officers could cost his city a fortune--and therefore cost him his job--is too dumb and foolish to hold it. And officers themselves are only indemnified as long as they stick to department policies. If not, they can be prosecuted under federal laws for violating someone's civil rights. I think the officer who sodomized the Haitian man in New York with a wood toilet plunger handle some years ago got a very long prison sentence.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 8:57:57 PM

Professor Gates


That jerk of a professor and his Cape Cod pal, Mr. Obama, were the real racists in that incident. Not surprising that a man who dislikes Jews as much as Mr. Obama seems to would also have a chip on his shoulder about whites. Jew-hating used to be unthinkable among liberals. But now--usually disguised as hostility toward Israel--it's very much in vogue among leftists all over the world. We've just heard them all howling for Israel to be punished, like a bunch of Nazis lusting for Jewish blood on Kristallnacht. It just confirms my belief that these leftists are nothing but a new breed of fascist, with many of the same intolerant, pagan, tyrannical urges as Hitler's followers. They are the exact opposite of "liberal," in the traditional sense of that word as tolerant and enlightened. Naturally they hate Israel, the U.S., and any other democratic society.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 104
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/10/2010 9:29:32 PM

It just confirms my belief that these leftists are nothing but a new breed of fascist


And that's why they call it "confirmation bias."

I do grant you that there is a difference between a communist and a liberal. Thank you for saying so!
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 105
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/13/2010 7:17:01 AM
I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, "Mexican Visitor's Lament"- 10/25/07.

I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, "illegal aliens pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes. What Happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?" Hummm, I thought, what would happen, so I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS I found below.

It's a good question it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers I found may surprise you!

In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.

In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids would move back 'home', mostly to Mexico. That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000
gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.

Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.

Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% drop-out/flunk-out rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver's 4% unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law, and English.

In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home', the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 Billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.

No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our over-crowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.

In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the '18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!

America's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America 's economy which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt.
$8.7 trillion debt.

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.

Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11% of our greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, roads, electricity, or any kind of sanitation.

The New York Times reported them to be America's new 'Third World' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I've seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.)

By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We already invite a million people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation. It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.

Interesting Statistics!

Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them:
1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens.(that's Billion with a 'B') -
http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 billion dollars are spent each year on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

5. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That's $1.2 Billion a year.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. -
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine, crack, Guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S.from the southern border.
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period and nbsp; -
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/publications.php?b=deportation

13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families and friends.
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States!
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

Total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!

"No problem can be solved within the same consciousness which created it".
--Albert Einstein
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 106
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/13/2010 7:29:34 AM
FTC Backs Off Drudge Tax

Kurt Nimmo
Friday, June 11, 2010

The FTC is running for cover in the wake of reports it plans to tax websites and electronic devices in order to rescue dead tree dinosaur corporate media. FTC head honcho Jon Leibowitz nixed the proposals during testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, reports the Washington Times. “I think that’s a terrible idea,” said Leibowitz when asked about the taxes on Wednesday.
FTC Backs Off Drudge Tax onepixel
FDRcoin.jpg FTC Backs Off Drudge Tax onepixel

FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.


Earlier in the week a Rasmussen Reports poll revealed overwhelming opposition to the scheme. Three out of four of respondents opposed taxing electronic devices and approximately the same amount opposed the so-called Drudge tax on popular alternative news websites.

“The American people have absolutely no interest in taxing new media or consumer electronics to prop up an industry that’s clearly on its way out,” Rasmussen noted. “Just 19% think the government should get actively involved in steps to save the newspaper industry and other forms of traditional journalism. Sixty percent (60%) oppose government involvement in such activities. Twenty-one percent (21%) aren’t sure if it’s a good idea or not.”

The number of Americans opposed to a government “bailout” of the dying newspaper industry has increased since early last year. “Seventy-one percent (71%) oppose a government bailout of the newspaper industry like the ones for the financial sector and the automobile industry, up from 65% in March of last year. Only 14% say a government bailout of the newspaper business is a good idea.”

After the Washington Times reported on the scheme on June 4, the FTC denied it is pushing for new taxes on media. “It’s merely trying to decide if — not when or how — it should ever take regulatory action as part of its mission to protect consumers and competition,” explained Ed O’Keefe writing for the Washington Post.


The FTC claims these ideas were then compiled in a “discussion draft.” The latest Washington Times editorial, however, disputes this. “In fact, the agency’s Federal Register announcement for the proceeding questioned the propriety of news-aggregator websites that ‘do not pay for content’ — this document was filed long before public hearings were held.”

Moreover, Mr. Leibowitz has held such ideas in the past. Before joining the FTC, he was vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America, an organization that defends an extreme view of copyright law in order to prop up Hollywood’s increasingly obsolete business model. At a December workshop, Mr. Leibowitz complained that online news readers get a “free ride instead of paying the full value — or in fact paying anything — for what they’re consuming,” notes the Times.

It is no secret the government wants to control if not eliminate the alternative media and throw support and tax payer money behind an effort to support a corporate media that has faithfully acted as a propaganda outlet.

As the Times notes, Obama has a penchant for ignoring the will of the people and pushing unpopular legislation such as his health care “reform” and other control and tax schemes such as cap and trade (currently in trouble in Congress, mostly due to strong opposition).

The FTC plan will not go away. It will simply morph into another scheme or be shelved until the government feels it has a chance to shove it down the throats of the American people. In the meantime, the old dead tree corporate media will continue to die, as will the corporate media television news networks.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/16/2010 8:54:40 PM

Europeans don't get the concept that Free Speech must be banned.


Are you saying you think European countries protect speech more carefully than we do here? I'm sure they don't. Their Muslim populations tend to take a dim view of free speech, and in places like the Netherlands, the government kowtows to them by prohibiting all sorts of speech Muslims might find offensive. is just one example. Incidents like the Khomeinists in Iran putting out a hit on Salman Rushdie for writing "The Satanic Verses," because they considered it blasphemy against Islam, hacking Van Gogh's distant relative to death in the street for making a film critical of Islamists, and the furor over the Danish cartoons portraying Mohammed as a terrorist bomber, just to cite a few examples, seem to have cowed a lot of Europeans into submission: "Just don't make them mad, and maybe they'll leave us alone!"

It's interesting that leftists don't much like free speech, either. Inhibiting freedom of speech is exactly what political correctness and "hate crime" laws are all about. So is their tactic of slandering people who disagree with them as "haters," "xenophobes," "racists," "homophobes," and so on. It's meant to make any reasoned discussion impossible, by accusing anyone with a different view not just of being wrong, but of being immoral.

Leftists also don't much like the other 1st Amendment freedoms--that's why this talk about stifling the freedom of the new press--the Internet--while upholding only the freedom of the traditional press, which mostly favors their views and helps them sell their big-government programs to the voters. As for free association, we saw their effort to smear the Tea Party members just for quietly meeting to demonstrate against this administration's policies. And leftists are reliably hostile to traditional religion--they insist the 1st Am. requires "separation of church and state," even though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it to require anything like complete separation of the two.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 108
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/18/2010 6:10:38 AM
http://tammybruce.com/2010/06/targeting-free-speech-h-r-5175-the-disclose-act.html

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/text

We have received information from Capitol Hill regarding the "Disclose Act" and we must work to defeat this bill. The vote is expected to take place tonight or tomorrow.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (McCain- Feingold) - a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year. Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United.

Speaker Pelosi and the House Majority Leadership are making it a priority to pass this bill. This bill is designed to take away the influence of Tea Party and other conservative groups in the upcoming November election. We feel like this bill will be successfully challenged in the courts, but the ruling will not come before the November election.

An exemption has been carved out for the Labor Unions and other leftist advocacy groups. The NRA was also exempted so they would not oppose it.

Roll Call Magazine reports today that they have carved out even deeper exemptions in order to assure passage and we believe it clearly shows the intent of the bill is to diminish the effectiveness of Tea Party groups and other newer conservative advocacy groups.

"Facing wide-ranging blowback from an exemption tailored for the National Rifle Association, House Democratic leaders have decided to expand the carve-out from disclosure requirements in a campaign finance measure they are trying to pass this week.
The new standard lowers the membership requirement for outside groups from 1 million members to 500,000. Those groups would still need to have members in 50 states, have existed for 10 years and can accept no more than 15 percent of their funding from corporate or union sources. The broader bill, called the DISCLOSE Act, comes in response to the controversial Supreme Court decision in January that struck down limits on corporate and union spending in elections. The bill would force groups participating in elections to name their top donors, among other changes."
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 109
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/18/2010 6:23:34 AM
FCC Moves to Regulate Internet


Matt Cover
CNS News
Friday, June 18th, 2010

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on Thursday to begin the formal process of bringing the Internet under greater federal control – a move sought by both President Barack Obama and FCC Chairnman Julius Genachowski.

This step comes after the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in April rebuked the FCC in its attempt to enforce a controversial regulatory doctrine called Net Neutrality, which would allow the government to prevent private Internet providers from deciding which applications to allow on their networks.

The court said that the FCC did not have the authority to prevent Comcast, specifically, from blocking certain peer-to-peer Web sites.

The FCC is now trying to reclassify the Internet to broaden its authority over the Web. Currently, the FCC only has “ancillary” authority, meaning it can regulate Internet access only in the process of regulating another service that it has direct authority over, such as television or cable.

The 3-2 party-line vote on Thursday at the FCC began the formal process of reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service – its current classification. This is necessary because, as an information service, the government has little power to regulate Internet networks.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 110
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/18/2010 8:33:19 AM
^^^^^Legislation like this makes clear why we can't afford to depend on courts to stop these people. The surest way is at the polls--change Congress, and this stuff can't become law.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 111
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/19/2010 6:35:07 AM
Well Thinking if that is what you understand about this move then you clearly don't understand the free market. You also need to read the part of the bills and regulations that gives the FCC the power to determine which websites are approved or not etc. Net Neutrality is a another share the wealth program for people that don't have the ingenuity to find a better way and form of censorship.

Let me give you an example: during the hey day of AOL when everyone was getting busy signals a buddy of mine started his own company. Within a year he had most of the AOL customers on his service in the Sacramento area and he became a threat to AOL and was offered millions to sell. I will just say that he has been comfortably retired since the 90s.

Let Comcast and the phone companies use their out dated systems do what they want and I will start a new company to compete with them in my area, as I have already owned an ISP in Fresno.

What this is really about is they are losing money to the Point to Point wireless ISPs that don't need billions in infrastructure to deliver services. If you don't know what Point to Point is then you are not really informed about this whole subject.

Oh and only about 30% of the internet uses phone line anymore.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 112
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/19/2010 6:54:01 AM
Lieberman Introduces Bill Targeting Internet Freedom



Kurt Nimmo
June 19, 2010

Senator Joe Lieberman wants to give Obama and all future installed teleprompter readers in the Oval Office the power to shut down the internet. In order to hype the supposed national security threat posed by a decentralized internet, the independent Lieberman — meaning both establishment parties don’t want him — has spoken in near-apocalyptic terms.

“For all of its ‘user-friendly’ allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” said senator Joe. “Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.”

The “technoignoramus Liarman and his fellow kleptoplutocrats,” as Scott Evans describes them, are attempting to scare the plebs into accepting this First Amendment destroying legislation — not that it matters because, as Jim DeMint has revealed, these corporate and bankster commissars pass legislation in secret without the consent of the plebs they supposedly represent.

Cybersecurity is simply another stratagem contrived by the government to shut down the free flow of information. In a non-bizarro world where globalist control freaks would not be allowed to run roughshod over to Constitution and the Bill of Rights, network security would be the responsibility of the owners of those networks.

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act was introduced by Lieberman, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE). It follows a similar bill introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) which would allow the federal government to unilaterally “order the disconnection” of targeted websites. Rockefeller opined at the time we would all be better off if the internet was never invented.


Senator Joe’s bill is nothing if not another example of totalitarian government on steroids. “The bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the ’security status’ of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries,” writes Andy Chalk. “Companies would be required to take part in ‘information sharing’ with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that ‘relies on’ the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. ‘information infrastructure’ would also be ’subject to command’ by the NCCC under the proposed new law.”

Imagine if you can what sort of “security status” this website would merit.

“It is alarming that so many people have accepted the White House’s assertions about cyber-security as a key national security problem without demanding further evidence. Have we learned nothing from the WMD debacle? The administration’s claims could lead to policies with serious, long-term, troubling consequences for network openness and personal privacy,” writes Evgeny Morozov, a Belarus-born researcher and blogger who writes about the political effects of the internet.

Joe has called for government control and censorship of television, so we can assume his “cybersecurity” jihad will not stop with the government micromanaging network security. He has a keen interest in deciding what the plebs can watch and presumably read on the internet.

It is not just Joe. It is also the FCC. Under the guise of protecting consumers, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted 3-2 to open an inquiry into how the broadband industry is regulated. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed to place broadband services under the same regulatory framework as telephone service, which is more strictly regulated than broadband. In other words, more government control of the internet.

Finally, Lieberman’s bill would allow the government to force internet providers to “immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed by the Department of Homeland Security.”

The Department of Homeland Security?


We know who these folks consider a threat to national security — constitutionalists, gun owners, returning veterans, and militias.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/19/2010 1:52:43 PM

The free market will ensure the cheapest possible, full access internet. The govt doesn't even have the authority to get involved with the internet in this way under current law.


Exactly right. It's not clear to me what authority Congress has to regulate the Internet as proposed. And even if the Internet qualifies as interstate commerce, it can't be regulated in a way that infringes very far on freedom of speech. Foreign spies may have used newspaper ads to transmit military secrets in code during WWII, but the U.S. didn't ban all newspaper sales to prevent that. And if it had, it's pretty clear that would have violated the 1st Am.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 114
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/19/2010 3:07:43 PM
Does the failure of government cause it to butt into areas not needing their "guiding hand", or, is their butting in to ancillary areas cause them to lose focus? I am always struck by how screwed up things get when government gets involved. BTW anyone notice the very successful Mohegan Sun casino in Ct. got $64 million gift from Chris Dodd? That sounds like an act of "fairness' that should make Dodd's retirement a little more comfortble.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 115
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/20/2010 6:37:49 AM
thinkingin ca I know exactly what the spin of the Net Neutrality bills is about.

Let me ask you this, is there anything the government does that you disagree with?


Napolitano Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism


Sydney Morning Herald
June 20, 2010

FIGHTING home-grown terrorism by monitoring internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the US government must make to beef up national security, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

As terrorists increasingly recruit US citizens, the government needs to balance civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, she said. But finding that balance has become more complex as people have used the internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of US-based terrorism incidents.


Ms Napolitano said it was wrong to believe liberty was sacrificed if security was embraced, and pointed to restrictions on full-body scanners at airports to protect privacy.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/20/2010 9:51:36 AM
It seems like privacy's an absolute, fundamental right the government can't limit, when it justifies abortion on demand. Say that the Supreme Court made up a right to abortion, and so-called liberals start screaming. And yet they don't say a thing when Big Sis wants to spy on our internet messages to spot Americans the government considers subversive.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 117
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/20/2010 12:50:13 PM
Can someone explain why Incompetano insisted on calling what happens in iraq, iran, etc. some weasel words like 'Overseas Contingency Operation. ..." but in the USA she's bent on controlling terrorism?

Do these foggy libtards ever cease amazing one in their desire for foggy, mushy, imprecise languge? Call things what they are, you can't change things by renaming them no matter how hard you try to control reality through obsfucation.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/20/2010 1:46:51 PM

Can someone explain why Incompetano insisted on calling what happens in iraq, iran, etc. some weasel words like 'Overseas Contingency Operation. ..." but in the USA she's bent on controlling terrorism?


To me, it's right in line with what multiculturalism and political correctness have been about from the start, underneath the candy coating. And that is undermining this country--no surprise, considering they're doctrines created and promoted by European communists. Anyone who doubts that should read what various members of the Frankfurt School wrote about these things, starting well before WWII.

Western civilization--and by extension whites, men, Christianity, technology, excellence, and traditional American culture--are generally bad. And non-whites, the Third World, earth worship, feminist values, and religions other than Christianity and Judaism are generally good.

Remember how Mr. Holder absolutely refused to admit that extreme Islamic beliefs could have motivated the Muslims involved in the Times Square, Christmas Day, and Fort Hood attacks? The fact no one in this administration will call what we have 100,000 servicemen overseas fighting what it is--Islamic jihadism--is a sign, itself, that the Islamists are winning.

If they can make the West doubt its own culture while they intimidate it into refusing to criticize theirs, they can start making us part of the worldwide "umma" they hope to create. They're already most of the way there in parts of Europe. Here, they can count on a lot of leftists for help--they don't much like this country, either. And one of them is president of the U.S.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 119
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/21/2010 6:14:50 AM
The FCC’s Grand Plan to Control Your Internet, TV, and Phone?
From Kelly William Cobb on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:19 PM

This Thursday, the FCC opens up comments on its proposal regulate the Internet. While no one is quite sure all that it will contain, Scott Cleland (a long-time telecom policy expert and insider) has pieced together recent FCC filings from Google to outline how Net Neutrality regulations could be part of a grand plan to control how virtually all media enters your home. Here's a brief summary:

Under the guise of “Net Neutrality” and “consumer protection” the FCC would begin regulating Internet access for the first time under a completely new regulatory scheme (even though they lack the authority to create it). Meanwhile, the FCC would push regulations – cloaked in the heart-warming language of competition and innovation – mandating that your cable box (known as a set-top box) become a “broadband gateway device” controlling access to your Internet, TV, and phone. The FCC has already started looking at set-top box regulations in their National Broadband Plan.

The FCC would then begin setting rates for the total cost of all three services. Chairman Genachowski said he does not intend to set prices for Internet access. However, the legal maneuvering is so tenuous and the desire from left-wing groups so strong that a mere promise to “forbear” from rate setting is certainly no guarantee. On top of this, it would open the door for the FCC to begin monitoring or censoring content on the Internet (in addition to your TV), something Free Press and other progressives, as well as the White House regulatory czar advocate. The Songwriters Guild of America has a great op-ed on why government censorship is entirely possible if the Internet becomes regulated.

This plan outlines a dark hypothetical world that would effectively destroy any future competition for services and turn our nation’s networks into “dumb pipes” under government centralized control. Everyone will buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves. Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim.

Worst of all, this extreme case of political favoritism for Google’s business model (which is developing set-top boxes and carrying all content to users for "free") is not out of the realm of possibility. Both Google and the socialist organization Free Press have long pushed for such regulations and both are arguably the closest groups to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. They are also strong supporters of President Obama who are calling for their payoff. The former head of Google’s policy shop is now Chief Technology Officer at the White House and Free Press’s former press director is the FCC’s spokesperson.

There are a lot of hurdles for the FCC should they choose this horrendously anti-free market route to take over the nation’s Internet networks and control the flow of media. Already facing severe bipartisan opposition from Congress and the court, the FCC would certainly invite another legal challenge. But if it works, Internet, phone, and TV service will simply become Google Chrome, Android/Google-Voice, and Google TV.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/fccs-grand-plan-control-internet-tv-a5081#ixzz0rUd1xFVO
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/21/2010 12:45:14 PM

But if you think it is bad to be successful and make a profit, than you must not buy into the whole pursuit of happiness things.


That's right. Liberals like to think of capitalism as a "greedy" system, although I don't see many of them rejecting the lifestyle it allows them to have. I mean, it costs money to buy eco-friendly cars, attend lectures about America's sins, and outfit the kids with Che Guevara T-shirts.

The Founders drew a lot on John Locke's philosophy of government. Even so, it's interesting that the Declaration changed Locke's phrase, "life, liberty, and property" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (not meaning "joy," but "good fortune.") The idea is that everyone has a fundamental, God-given right to try to acquire wealth.

Twenty-five years later, in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, "life, liberty, and property" came back in. But this time, it referred to what the federal government can't take from anyone arbitrarily.

The two phrases work together. You have a natural right only to *try to* acquire things--not to *have* them. But once you *have* acquired something, the government can only take it from you by fair, legal process.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/21/2010 12:56:39 PM

But wages have been flat for the last 10 years because every job corporations can't give to cheap illegal labor is getting outsourced.


I wonder where all those corporate profits have been ending up. I guess the people who profit must be hiding the money under their mattresses, rather than re-investing or spending it.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 122
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/22/2010 6:31:22 AM
You think this isn't coming our way?

Australian Government To Force Internet Users To Install State-Approved Software

No firewall, no internet connection in latest salvo of web regulation

Australian Government To Force Internet Users To Install State Approved Software

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The Australian government is set to intensify its war against Internet freedom by forcing web users to install state-approved anti-virus software. If they fail to do so, they will be denied an Internet connection, or if their computer is later infected, the user’s connection will be terminated.

“AUSTRALIANS would be forced to install anti-virus and firewall software on their computers before being allowed to connect to the internet under a new plan to fight cyber crime. And if their computer did get infected, internet service providers like Telstra and Optus could cut off their connection until the problem was resolved,” reports News.com.au.

A 260-page report released by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications outlines a plan to mandate Internet users to install government-approved software before their Internet connection can be activated.

Of course, the vast majority of Internet users already use anti-virus software, but by creating the precedent of having to conform to government mandates simply to get online, this opens the door to later requiring government permission to use the Internet at all, as well as a Chinese-style ID verification system which will prevent “undesirables” from using the web.

It also makes it easier for the government to use the law to subsequently demand that a mandatory Internet filter also be installed as part of the software package that blocks websites deemed “offensive” to the authorities.

Efforts to place restrictions on the internet are unfolding apace in Australia where the government is implementing a mandatory and wide-ranging Internet filter modeled on that of the Communist Chinese government.

Australian communication minister Stephen Conroy said the government would be the final arbiter on what sites would be blacklisted under “refused classification.”

The official justification for the filter is to block child pornography, however, as the watchdog group Electronic Frontiers Australia has pointed out, the law will also allow the government to block any website it desires while the pornographers can relatively easily skirt around the filters.

Earlier this year, the Wikileaks website published a leaked secret list of sites slated to be blocked by Australia’s state-sponsored parental filter.

The list revealed that blacklisted sites included “online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.”

The filter will even block web-based games deemed unsuitable for anyone over the age of fifteen, according to the Australian government.

Senator Joe Lieberman on Sunday called for the United States to move towards a a Chinese-style system of Internet control. Under Lieberman’s 197-page Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PDF), President Obama would be given a ‘kill switch’ to shut down parts of the Internet.

Constant fearmongering about cyber attacks is the cover for a global assault on Internet freedom by authorities. The web is being overtaken by independent media outlets which are now beginning to eclipse establishment news organs. This has enabled activists and the politically oppressed to expose government atrocities and cover-ups at lightning pace, something the system is keen to curtail.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/22/2010 1:19:30 PM
^^^^^A constitutional right to privacy must be something magic. It appears out of nowhere when it prevents government from preventing abortion on demand, gay marriage, or other things liberals approve of. And just as mysteriously, it disappears, when it comes to keeping people from smoking, eating unhealthy foods, using a lot of energy, or living in other ways liberals disapprove of.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 124
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/26/2010 7:21:37 AM
Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers

‘Kill switch’ bill approved, moves to Senate floor

Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers
Paul Joseph Watson

Friday, June 25, 2010

President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor.

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.

Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed in the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor.

In response to widespread criticism of the bill, language was added that would force the government to seek congressional approval to extend emergency measures beyond 120 days. Still, this would hand Obama the authority to shut down the Internet on a whim without Congressional oversight or approval for a period of no less than four months.

The Senators pushing the bill rejected the claim that the bill was a ‘kill switch’ for the Internet, not by denying that Obama would be given the authority to shut down the Internet as part of this legislation, but by arguing that he already had the power to do so.

They argued “That the President already had authority under the Communications Act to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” when there is a “state or threat of war”, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.


Fears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic China’s policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley.

While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet.

As we have illustrated, fears surrounding cybersecurity have been hyped to mask the real agenda behind the bill, which is to strangle the runaway growth of alternative and independent media outlets which are exposing government atrocities, cover-ups and cronyism like never before.

Indeed, China uses similar rhetoric about the need to maintain “security” and combating cyber warfare by regulating the web, when in reality their entire program is focused around silencing anyone who criticizes the state.

The real agenda behind government control of the Internet has always been to strangle and suffocate independent media outlets who are now competing with and even displacing establishment press organs, with websites like the Drudge Report now attracting more traffic than many large newspapers combined. As part of this war against independent media, the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 6/27/2010 1:50:27 PM
^^^^^Trying to silence the opposition, just because of its views, is where leftists really show their brownshirt tendencies. And Mr. Obama is one of them. The best example so far is this administration's campaign to smear Tea Party people as dangerous, violent radicals. They even brought Clinton in to imply (while denying that's what he was doing) that disagreeing with this government could bring about another Oklahoma City bombing.

In a way, I hope they keep right on doing this stuff. I think millions of Americans see right through it and think it's wrong. Obama and other statists are something alien to America, and the more they show their true colors, the more people resent them. Come November, they will pay for their disrespect for our Constitution and the rule of law.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Free Speech 1st Amendment