Senator Wants 'Terrorist' Label On Blogs 370
itwbennett writes "Terrorist suspect Jose Pimentel had a blog on Google-owned Blogger. And so it follows that Senator Joe Lieberman sent a letter to Google CEO Larry Page taking him to task because 'Blogger's Content Policy does not expressly ban terrorist content.' Lieberman also pointed out that YouTube does ban terrorist content and added that 'Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.'"
Yea... (Score:5, Interesting)
So if we ban public content that indicates terrorism and force them to hide it better from the government, how would that be better at countering terrorism? At least if it's public everyone can see it and so can the government, which would enable them to do something about it, rather than being unprepared.
Re:Yea... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm assuming that it all makes perfect sense, if you squint hard enough...
Re: (Score:3)
Out of sight, out of mind?
Obligitory terrorist content... (Score:5, Funny)
Were you terrified?
Re:Yea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Career Politicians = Political Products (Score:5, Insightful)
Since career politicians are bought and sold should we refer to them for what they truly are: Political Products.
Hey, guess what! (Score:5, Insightful)
Those 'founding fathers' must have been a bunch of rag-heads or something.
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, the official content policy of the United States [wikipedia.org] expressly allows things that could be considered terroristic, or even things that advocate Islamist extremism.
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:5, Insightful)
The official content policy of the US of A starts with "Congress shall make no law".
It doesn't say "Corporations shall may no policy..."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:5, Insightful)
American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they have better understanding than you give them credit for...
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:4, Informative)
American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.
I don't think American Revolutionaries fit the traditionally, pre-9/11-label-everything-as-terrorism definition of terrorism. AFAIK, the American Revolutionaries made no attempt to induce mortal fear (i.e., terror) into the general British population.
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:5, Funny)
Mel Gibson put the fear in those fuckers. I saw the documentary. They called him The Ghost.
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:5, Interesting)
Not true. Subversives did things like blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military. Bombings and such were relatively rare because they were so hard to successfully carry out at the time, but they certainly did happen. Americans also spread propaganda in London and other cities to try to change public opinion (while I don't consider this terrorism, it falls under what we label as "terrorism" today).
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I grew up in Kingston Ontario, part of Canada that was largely settled by Loyalists. Even after 200 years the hatred for all things American by the general population was rather shocking.
Re: (Score:2)
But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?
Re: (Score:3)
But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?
If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.
Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:4, Interesting)
But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?
If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.
Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.
Maybe if you can just take out infrastructure without hurting or endangering anyone you have a point. As soon as you do either of these things though you stray so far away from acceptable behaviour that causing terror is a pretty good definition.
By the way, I do also take this to the conclusion that police officers tear gassing peaceful protesters are also guilty of state sponsored and sanctioned terrorism. I would like to see them in the dock too, I would just give them a lesser sentence than someone who actually committed murder.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.
I'd have to agree with you.
terrorism would have put fear 'out there' first, probably with some ultimatum. "convert all of the US to islam in the next 24 hours or we attack". THAT will terrorize the nation.
but attacking, then saying 'this is because we hate you guys' not really terrorism. they didn't hold us in terror. they simply just hit us.
does hitting an enemy qualify as terrorism?
most of us know this term is over-us
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are many such "civilian" things that are considered valid military targets by the U.S.: telephone networks [cursor.org] (when the enemy military has it's own comms networks, so destroying the civilian system does not affect them), civilian electricity infrastructure [cursor.org] (electric plants, city substations etc.), civilian fuel supplies, factories that manufacture everything from baby milk powder to paint, the foreign embassy of a non-combatant nation [wikipedia.org] (an "accident" - the only bombing in that war directed by the CIA. Hmm
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:4)
Well of course not. The definition of terrorism is to instill fear in the general population. Bombing a British military supply depot would not be terrorism. But bombing public docks and scaring loyalists was most certainly meant to intimidate the public.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia has, among other things, this to say about the attack on the USS Cole:
"President Bill Clinton declared, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable". Some critics have pointed out that, under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism[32] (see: 22 USC para 2656f(d)(2))."
So you are right in what you say, and political leaders tend to hate
Re: (Score:3)
A politician lied, imagine that?
That's the problem here. We allow terms to be used with such impugnity that they become pretty much meaningless. It's not limited to politics of course. Advertisers love to do the same thing to language.
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:5, Insightful)
blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military.
Sounds more like good guerrilla warfare than terrorism to me. If the supply lines of your much larger enemy have a chokepoint (as it was during the Revolutionary War; the enemy depended on naval transport for everything) that's exactly what you want to target, mainly for the material and personnel effect (the latter assuming most of the people working in the shipyard accepting British transport were on the side of the enemy). Psychological effects at most are a tertiary bonus, if you were lucky...blowing up a dock in the Revolutionary War would be a really inefficient way to instill enough fear in the public of Great Britain to change public support of a war.
Modern examples of the difference:
Terrorism: Flying jetliners into buildings in a way sure to get good media coverage and keeping the threat of the possibility of it happening again ambiguous.
Guerrilla tactics: Attacking supply lines of your enemy in Afghanistan, rather then wasting your personnel in a head-on attacks against a much stronger enemy.
Guerrilla warfare != Terrorism
Re: (Score:3)
Ben Franklin himself spread propaganda in London that today we'd consider terrorism. You'll need to read up on attacks aimed at citizens, particularly loyalists, to understand more of what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
They know their history perfectly well they get a statement for their bank accounts every month.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure they understand history well. But I guess they found out that they're in the boots of the Brits.
Or was that in the boots of Louis XVI?
Re:Hey, guess what! (Score:4, Insightful)
Those revolutionaries authored the basis of all of our laws.
They aren't just figments of history. Their legacy remains quite intact even to this day. In some ways they serve as a cautionary example of where certain sorts of slippery slopes lead.
That is why the whole revolution happened to begin with.
People will only take so much before they tar and feather the tax man and parade him through the street.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How about "Fascist".
That's a tag they all wear.
Yo Joe (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Honorable Senator Lieberman:
May I interest you in an important Historical Document [wikipedia.org] that, I might add, you were supposed to have read and understood when you were sworn into the Senate?
Reading comprehension is important for everyone.
Re:Yo Joe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yo Joe (Score:5, Insightful)
He read and understood it. He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.
Re:Yo Joe (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if that's the case ... then he's clearly a terrorist.
Upholding and defending the principles of the US constitution is part of the job description, isn't it?
So, if he's against the Constitution, he's against America, and therefore a terrorist. He should be publicly flogged, and then hanged until dead.
Of course, I'm not seriously advocating violence towards him ... but I find it appalling that lawmakers have been stomping over enshrined rights to keep up this farce of Homeland Security ... hell, even the term dredges up images of Nazi's and their Fatherland.
Re: (Score:2)
No no no.. it's not the Fatherland, it's "Papa Joe's".
Re: (Score:2)
We can't wait for all this laws & courts bullshit, grab the terr'ist and throw him in Gitmo, and torture him to find out who he's working for!
Re:Yo Joe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. Unfortunately there are no consequences for contradicting their sworn oath. At best they could be impeached by an ethics committee, but their coworkers wouldn't do that. They could be voted out of office but citizens are more concerned about the immediate threats to their pocket books and security. Plus anyone moral and intelligent enough to run against them doesn't want to deal with the BS.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the relevance to a corporation's content policy? Do you suggest that the congress can't use its influence to encourage voluntary compliance with the movie rating system either?
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, hey, hey... that wasn't meant that way! Back when that paper was written, they didn't expect anything like the internet to happen where everyone and not just a select few could make their voices heard.
Politicians (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I think they can't get any more stupid, one of them goes and proves me wrong.
The sad thing is, that limits of stupidity are meant to be exceeded.
Force always attracts men of low morality.Albert Einstein
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt.
He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.Albert Einstein
Human beings must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it.Albert Einstein
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.Albert Einstein
Re:Politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.Albert Einstein
This is actually not correct, as there is one thing that is worse and much more dangerous: Passing laws that have no support in the general population. You can NOT uphold laws against the will of your subjects. A law that has no support will be ignored at best. Subverted at worst.
It's also not so much the bad law that's dangerous. What makes it so dangerous is that people start to question upholding the rest of the legal code as well. If I ignore this law, why not that one, too?
Once you made someone a criminal, he's prone to ignore other laws because, hey, why bother whether I go to jail? For reference, see the 1930s and prohibition.
Re:Politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite the opposite, for the average person personal moral standards and conscience are the primary reasons to uphold or to break a law.
Do you kill someone for fun or profit? I guess not. Why not? Because it's in the law that killing is wrong? If so, I question your morals, to be blunt. I don't kill people because I consider it wrong. That it's in the law is a coincidence, and I'm quite happy about it since it fits my moral codex, but that's not the primary reason why I don't go over to my neighbor, bash in his head and take his stereo (since, well, when he's dead it's not like he needs it anymore).
Would you turn in someone who you know kills for fun or profit? Even a friend? Maybe so. Even if he's a friend, but killing someone is simply wrong. And I wouldn't consider someone my friend who goes about and kills people 'cause he doesn't like their looks.
How about copying a movie or a song? Is it wrong? It's also in the law that it's not allowed, but how high is your inhibition to do it compared to murder? Same level? And if not, just because the punishment is lower? Ok, then how about nicking your old granny's purse? Same punishment (in my country) as for downloading a bunch of songs and movies. Same inhibition? Same level of "wrong"? It's the same punishment, and given that gramma is nearly blind, the chance of getting caught is also pretty much the same.
Laws and morality have nothing to do with each other? Do you really think so?
Geez, it's already done... (Score:4, Insightful)
Illegal content isn't allowed on Blogger.com at present.
Terrorism is illegal at present.
Therefore nothing new to see here, just move along and stop wasting our time.
Maybe Senators could focus on something important, like the economy and trillions in debt instead.
Re: (Score:3)
"illegal content" is the issue.
YouTube operates under "TV-Like" rules to proactively keep from being censored. Blogger is about speech. There is plenty of grey between an extreme opinion and illegal speech.
If speech is illegal we have this process with the laws and courts.... Google will happily pull blogs ... With the proper warrants.
Barring that process, shut up and track who posts subversive blogs... Hint: the bad guys aren't the ones running their mouths off publically. Those guys won't ever get on an a
Re:Geez, it's already done... (Score:5, Funny)
Think before you speak! Do you REALLY want Lieberman to focus on something that's actually important?
For god's sake, THINK before you say things like that!
This Video Has Been Removed (Score:5, Interesting)
'Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.'"
Well Mr. Lieberman, you're quite the one to talk about inconsistent standards. And I'm sure censorship is most definitely the best way to fight terrorism online. It always works, right? Right?
US Government: Fighting the symptoms, and not the causes. To get one vote at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
US Government: Fighting the symptoms, and not the causes. To get one vote at a time.
Of course, otherwise they might actually solve a problem or two, and we can't have that...
Re: (Score:3)
I went over to the Sargent, said, "Sargent, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug."
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints off to Washington."
Lieberman is the terrorist (Score:4, Insightful)
Who is trying to terrify us here? Why, Joe Lieberman and his ilk, of course. What is the biggest terrorist organization in the US? The Department of Homeland Security, who wastes no opportunity to further terrify the populace (terror alert! new scanners! we are at risk! etc.)
Re:Lieberman is the terrorist (Score:4, Insightful)
very true.
I don't fly much anymore, but I'm far more terrified of my own government and its paid thugs (blue and other colors) than I am of ANY islamic scary-beard-guy.
my chances of having a problem with mr scary-arab-beard-guy are nearly zero. my chances of having a problem with 'one of my own americans' is probably higher than 50% (pick a unit of time, probably will still hold true).
face it, our own people terrorize us far more than foreigners do.
Free speech and all that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who decides who's a terrorist? (Score:5, Interesting)
Should google label anything from the US government as terroristic?
These days, no one can really tell who's the good guys, with random bizarre wars and occupations so on.
"These Palestinians looks like they have some pretty good land we Jews can take.. Let's take it with US government funding!"
Re: (Score:2)
If the RIAA/MPAA has their way anyone not paying a use fee every time a tune or movie is played would be labeled a terrorist.
I would also argue that the feds are terrorists for what they did to Gibson guitar.
What about Christian extremism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is this yet another case of "one law for us, another for anyone who doesn't agree with us or fit our agenda-du-jour"?
Re: (Score:3)
Congress Shall Make No Law ... (Score:4, Informative)
... but unfortunately that doesn't stop individual Sith [icanhascheezburger.com] Senators from trying to use their influence to curb free speech.
Ironically, some of his speeches on Iran would probably have to be censored if he had his way. I guess YouTube already won't host his Beach Boys parody, BOMB-BOMB-BOMB BOMB-BOMB-IRAN.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't that John McCain [youtube.com]?
Senator Lieberman dreams of Iran (Score:2)
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign... (Score:2)
Tattoo "TERRORIST" across their foreheads too.
Put neon lights on their homes.
Force them to put "I am a TERRORIST" at the start of every sentence they speak.
US Govamnent's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism in real life.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a bit much, don't you think? Perhaps instead we should just make them wear some sort of symbol on their clothes. A nice yellow star, or a pink square, perhaps?
A nice big red cross on the door.
Remember, this retard was almost our VP (Score:2)
Goddammit Droopy... (Score:3)
Lieberman causes terror (Score:5, Interesting)
It's guys like Lieberman that drag American into the whole Middle-east religious wars, due to his fundamentalist support for Israel.
I propose that whenever Google reports search results pertaining to Lieberman, they're required to mark-up him as being a root-cause of America's terrorism problem.
Inconsistent standards? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, add the label.
And let us search with "label:terrorist", "label:piracy" and "label:porn".
This is why we can't have nice government (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how do you catch terrorists? (Score:4, Interesting)
You track them.
How do you track them?
You lure them our into the open.
How do you get them in the open?
You lull them into a false sense of complacency.
If you prevent this content, it still it exists, it just moves underground. The serious terrorists are already encrypting and doing steganography, its about catching casual idiots like this guy.
So senator joe is no tactician. Allow this content, and monitor it for the lone yahoos. Basic strategy joe
testing our elected representatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:testing our elected representatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Easily Explained (Score:2)
Useless to us all. (Score:2)
This, of course, means nothing. One cannot counter any sort of extremism on-line, Islamic or otherwise. The whole premise stinks of naivety-sm. Alas, this is really why we wont see a solution to the problem. Those responsible view the world through children's eyes.
Only Muslims are terrorists? (Score:3)
So their standards are not affecting your ability to counter violent Jewish, Christian, or other religious extremism online?
the definition of "terrorism" (Score:2)
... according to google is
terrorism/terrizm/
Noun:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
*The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.*
how many governments does that definition cover?
how many politicians?
as someone who was born, (mostly) grew up in, and currently lives in, a country where the term "terrorism/terrorist" is used in SO many contexts - .lk for those who want to know (not .us like many would think) - the word "terrorism" is more accurately
O but think of the children .... (Score:2)
Seriously he is just the dealer at the Three Card Monte game the government(executive+legislative) is playing with the citizen's brain...
On the red card we will fix the economy, but look at this nice "therorist" card...
Not only do we not care, but anything we would do would just be to solve this issue we have:
See people to find things like "bootleg blockbuster video" use various search engines...
Now we would like to know exactly what was searched and found, with google or any other search engine..
So if we c
Who are the fools who voted for him? (Score:3)
This is the same fool who thought Julian Assange should be tried for Treason and still claims to have no clue as to what the Occupy Wall Street protest is about. Andf for those who want to play a fool, Its about getting corporate out of government. So say something and expose your ignorance and while you are at it, tell us, did you vote for Joe?
I suspect he was one of the people in congress that participated in insider trading and has himself committed treason against the united states numerous times, as it is an age old trick to claim of another what you yourself are guilty of, in effort to hide your own guilt.
Clearly he persist with proving he is not qualified to be in Government unless that position is as a sanitation worker.
In related news... (Score:3)
The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-State (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like watching "Brazil", as reimagined through "The Simpsons".
Re:The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-St (Score:5, Funny)
VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C6lZPebJiN4 [youtube.com]
http://www.whoarethe1percent.com/ [whoarethe1percent.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" (Score:5, Informative)
What's funny is that even people on the Right can't tell you why they hate Soros so much. The man is a self-made billionaire who grew up in Hungary during the time of Nazi Germany, and is one of the most successful capitalists in the world. He is largely credited with being crucial to the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe [wikipedia.org], where he pumped millions of dollars into supporting pro-democratic programs and independent media. On top of that he is an incredible philanthropist [wikipedia.org] contributing millions of dollars to organizations all over the world in support of spreading democracy, egalitarianism, and toppling oppressive regimes.
As far as I can tell, the reason they hate him is because he made getting George Bush out of office his top priority in 2003 [wikipedia.org], arguing that America, as leader of the world, was taking the world off course with the War on Terror. He also supports death with dignity through assisted suicide and drug policy reform. The man is obviously a monster.
Jon Stewart also had a fantastic takedown of right-wing conspiracy theories about Soros [thedailyshow.com].
Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I find the fact that some people like to hate on George Soros particularly telling. As you already pointed out, he is one of the most successful capitalists in the world, and spends a lot of his wealth on various causes, chief among them promoting self-determination, less government influence, and more independent media. Makes you wonder what people opposing him are in favor of ...
Looking at the American political landscape, I would think that Republicans would be cheering for Soros. Weren't they for small government and self-determination, too? It appears to me that some of the more vocal Republicans actually support the opposite now: more government (to protect us against the terrorists), and more government meddling in your personal affairs (enforce Christian restrictions).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So, you think George Soros is bankrolling the Occupy movement the way the Koch brothers bankrolled the Tea Party movement? I doubt it. But there are plenty of Fox reporters who would love to break that story so if he is I'm sure we'll hear about it.
Re: (Score:3)
It don't got Rothschilds or Warburgs, either - but you know, they the ones who really pwn3d the shit.
Re: (Score:3)
And spoken like Droopy Dog [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Guess the Party (Score:5, Informative)
He once was a Democrat but the last time he ran for office he was defeated in his party's primaries by a candidate that Connecticut Democrats apparently felt better reflected the values of their party. Subsequently Lieberman ran, and was re-elected as, an independent.