moncyb's Journal: Does USSR now mean United States Soviet Union?

I was just reading Slashdot, and an idea hit me.

From this article (posted by rkz): But the bar owners are in a bind. If a person is caught smoking it, is the bar that is fined, not the individual.

This form of forced "self censorship" sounds shockingly like something I was hearing about China and how they censor information about SARS on the internet and SMS. Force the business owners to take measures to stop people from being able to commit illegal (or potentially illegal) acts instead of punishing the actual "criminals". The fat lawsuits against McDonalds work this way as well. In a more direct correlation, the DMCA does it too--though for corporations instead of the government.

This is a good story about China and SMS: SMS, SARS, And Censorship June 2003. At any rate, it goes into the details.

In March last year it required all websites and domestic and foreign internet providers to sign a "self-discipline pact" obliging them not to disseminate "harmful texts or news likely to jeopardise national security and social stability, violate laws and regulations, or spread false news, superstitions and obscenities".

Sound familiar? Just substitue "intellectual property" for "national security and social stability" and you just described how ISPs are regulated in the US.

A report about China's censorship from the State Department itself. US State Department: Expert Commission Links Spread of SARS, China's Legal System.

Maybe the US isn't quite at the level of China, but it's sad how the US is degenerating into behaviors which are typical of oppressive communist regimes.

Not quite true, AFAICS

[Cyberdyne]

This form of forced "self censorship" sounds shockingly like something I was hearing about China and how they censor information about SARS on the internet and SMS.

Big difference: the requirement for bar owners to ban smoking, drug taking etc is just a ban on allowing their premises to be used for criminal activity. (I don't agree with the Mad Mayor's anti-smoking fixation, but AFAICS it is still a valid law.) Stopping you smoking in a bar is very different from stopping you telling your friends about a vi

Re:Not quite true, AFAICS

[moncyb]

I admit I didn't collect my thoughts very well.

First off, the ban on smoking isn't banning an illegal act, smoking is still legal in the US. Now it's just severely restricted and heavily taxed. As to "the requirement for bar owners to ban...drug taking" I assume you are talking about bills such as the RAVE Act [drugpolicy.org]. These laws go much further than just forcing bar owners to stop drug use. The police in the US already have virutally unlimited powers to arrest people and seize property which is alleged to have t

Re:Not quite true, AFAICS

[Cyberdyne]

First off, the ban on smoking isn't banning an illegal act, smoking is still legal in the US.

In itself, yes, but in bars in NY it's now illegal.

I agree the "RAVE Act" seems bad, and exposes one "bug" in the current legal system - it was, AFAICS, defeated in the normal legislative process, but then got in through a backdoor.

As to the lawsuits against fast food, it isn't over. As I remeber, when the lawsuits against the tobacco companies started, the plaintiffs didn't have much success. Many people were