Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senator Wants 'Terrorist' Label On Blogs

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the droopy-dog-on-the-hunt dept.

Google 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.'"

cancel ×

370 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167350)

Once Lieberman retires next year to be replaced by Linda McMahon, she'll put the smackdown on these terrorist jabronies.

The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-State (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167654)

It's like watching "Brazil", as reimagined through "The Simpsons".

Re:The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-St (4, Funny)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167710)

More like the Three Stooges version of 1984.

Yea... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167352)

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... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167430)

My understanding is that, by simultaneously encouraging potentially dangerous types to brush up on their secrecy skills, and by making a transparent mockery of Enlightenment Humanism's commitment to freedom of speech and expression, a censorship system clearly weakens both those interested in clandestine attacks on us, and those who argue that our civilization is immoral, corrupt, and decadent.

I'm assuming that it all makes perfect sense, if you squint hard enough...

Re:Yea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167700)

That's why Thomas Jefferson sung it on the cross. [youtube.com]

Re:Yea... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167864)

Out of sight, out of mind?

Hey, guess what! (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167360)

I've heard that the Content Policy of the United States Constitution also fails to expressly ban terrorist content...

Those 'founding fathers' must have been a bunch of rag-heads or something.

Re:Hey, guess what! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167436)

One of the rare moments I wished I had moderator points, I don't have any.

Re:Hey, guess what! (5, Informative)

IICV (652597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167450)

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! (5, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167906)

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:Hey, guess what! (5, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167464)

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:Hey, guess what! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167494)

Maybe they have better understanding than you give them credit for...

Re:Hey, guess what! (3, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167580)

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! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167668)

Mel Gibson put the fear in those fuckers. I saw the documentary. They called him The Ghost.

Re:Hey, guess what! (5, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167728)

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! (5, Informative)

MagikSlinger (259969) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167830)

They also terrorized [ashevillelist.com] Loyalists [wikipedia.org] , which is why most of them fled to Canada [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Hey, guess what! (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167838)

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:Hey, guess what! (2)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167902)

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! (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167920)

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.

You seem to be overlooking a key characteristic of terrorism which is targeting of civilians. The American Revolutionary never purposely targeted civilians in order to incite terror. Subversives targeted shipping docks to impede the supply of munitions and reinforcements from Britain not to intimidate the merchants.

You have not made your case about the origins of the United States being related to terrorism. If anything, you proven that you may need to retake some history classes.

Re:Hey, guess what! (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167586)

They know their history perfectly well they get a statement for their bank accounts every month.

Re:Hey, guess what! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167744)

There are two kinds of people who still care about the American revolutionaries:
1) Historians
2) Those who appeal to the revolutionaries as an authority in order to manipulate modern policy decisions.

Re:Hey, guess what! (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167884)

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! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167522)

Duh, they were terrorists and traitors to the crown!

Re:Hey, guess what! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167624)

Hey Joe,
I propose another content tag, "Dumbass Motherfucker" or "Ignorant AssLicker" on all congressional and senatorial sites. Oh how we have changed society, it used to be people got wiser as they got older, seems now they get mo' ign'ant.

Re:Hey, guess what! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167706)

How about "Fascist".

That's a tag they all wear.

Re:Hey, guess what! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167898)

Oh, I'm pretty sure they still get wiser. I just doubt that they use the wisdom for the good of the many anymore.

Re:Hey, guess what! (1, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167678)

Why does the US Constitution matter for the Senator R/D- from Israel?

Re:Hey, guess what! (1)

hosecoat (877680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167932)

Citizens Want 'Crackpot' Label On Politicians

Yo Joe (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167376)

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 (5, Funny)

xs650 (741277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167454)

The Senator from Israel doesn't recognize the US Constitution.

Re:Yo Joe (5, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167506)

He read and understood it. He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.

Re:Yo Joe (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167592)

He read and understood it. He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.

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:Yo Joe (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167766)

No no no.. it's not the Fatherland, it's "Papa Joe's".

Re:Yo Joe (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167780)

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 (2)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167814)

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:Yo Joe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167784)

Yeah I think he is a shmuck, he just wants labels placed on people that he may not be fond of. Did they not just prove the guy was innocent, innocent until proven guilty or those that only work for your contributors. I liked alf but this is insane, so if you put a jewish joke out there you may be labeled, if you go against what he is claiming as truth you are labeled. How again do these people get elected, we really need some type of facebook polls for getting people into the correct positions, they also need exams before you can even apply to be a person of power like constitutional law exams, budget management, maybe even disclosure of all your afilitions both in the books and out, and then when you want to go into office your just a profile, you do not perform your gone, all your votes and what has been done are in a profile. Forums for comments like this guy is a shmuck he needs to be removed, so the people that vote for him know the who he is. I think in todays digital age we need to begin cleaning up DC.

Re:Yo Joe (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167820)

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:Yo Joe (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167912)

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 (2)

folderol (1965326) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167380)

Whenever I think they can't get any more stupid, one of them goes and proves me wrong.

Re:Politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167478)

While politicians, as a whole, are guaranteed to be a never-ending source of stupid statements and ideas, Lieberman is a class of lunacy and idiocy unto himself.

Re:Politicians (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167806)

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

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.Albert Einstein

Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.Albert Einstein

These quotes, from the man who was the progenitor of thermo-nuclear weapons.

Geez, it's already done... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167382)

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:Geez, it's already done... (2)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167646)

"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 airplane or near US customs.

This Video Has Been Removed (5, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167384)

'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:This Video Has Been Removed (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167524)

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:This Video Has Been Removed (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167860)

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 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167386)

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.)

Free speech and all that... (5, Insightful)

Macgyver7017 (629825) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167390)

Suddenly we should ban certain content? How is google supposed to know what is protected speech and what is illegal? Why should they ban anything other than outright illegal content which they don't need policy to remove?

Re:Free speech and all that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167872)

Suddenly we should ban certain content? How is google supposed to know what is protected speech and what is illegal? Why should they ban anything other than outright illegal content which they don't need policy to remove?

Not my problem. Fix it now and give me votes, four-eyes, or I'll take your lunch money.

--
Joe L.

Who decides who's a terrorist? (5, Interesting)

mozumder (178398) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167394)

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:Who decides who's a terrorist? (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167576)

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? (4, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167406)

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:What about Christian extremism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167564)

Precisely. Perhaps it is time the US wakes up and bans religion period. Religion has caused nothing but harm in this world and it is time we stop the harm from religion.

Re:What about Christian extremism? (2)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167768)

Yeah, counter extremism with extremism, good fucking plan, jackass.

Re:What about Christian extremism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167682)

Exactly, such as that Judge absolutely laying in to his daughter with a bunch of religious nonsense with a belt who then ended up getting away with it simply because of that stupid Statue of Limitations.
Worst part is he was enjoying it!

That's like letting off a rapist because it was so many years ago. They could very well rape again
Statue of limitations is a flawed concept. Certain people DO NOT CHANGE, EVER. Be it rapists or payment dodging. (the latter being the biggest reason we are in this god damn mess of a recession we are in now!)

Re:What about Christian extremism? (0)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167924)

STATUTE, nimrod

statue of limitations...you're your own fucking parody

Re:What about Christian extremism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167756)

Yeah, those Christian Extremist suicide bombers who blew up all those abortion clinics, boy, we need to put a stop to that.
And those Christian Extremists who made those death threats when South Park did an episode with Jesus in it. Man, those guys need to get real.

Congress Shall Make No Law ... (3, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167412)

... 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.

Senator Lieberman dreams of Iran (1)

drobety (2429764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167422)

Senator Lieberman's wet dream is to be at the head of a state with the power to edict fatwas in order to protect and push his dogmas, just like those ruling Iran.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign... (1)

BigDXLT (1218924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167434)

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:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167538)

Tattoo "TERRORIST" across their foreheads too.

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?

Put neon lights on their homes.

A nice big red cross on the door.

I also want a label made... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167448)

please add a moron button next to every politician's post.

Joe Lieberman is a Nazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167452)

And should be treated as such.

Lieberman is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167460)

Lieberman is a complete and sad joke as a senator. He's a typical politician with absolutely no respect for the Constitution.

What defines a terrorist? (1)

Foxhoundz (2015516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167462)

I smell a messy court battle if this picks up traction.

Remember, this retard was almost our VP (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167468)

Just sayin . . .

Goddammit Droopy... (2)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167472)

Just shut the fuck up

Lieberman causes terror (4, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167492)

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.

Re:Lieberman causes terror (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167762)

You have a voice, but you are really unaware of the real issues and should probably stop making yourself look uneducated. Go brush up on you general knowledge of the human condition on planet earth in the end times. Then come back to slashdot and post something that matters.

Re:Lieberman causes terror (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167862)

Please, enlighten me. But please also stop posting anonymously.

Re:Lieberman causes terror (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167946)

end times...fuck off retard. people like you are the fucking problem

Inconsistent standards? (1)

mrjb (547783) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167498)

"Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online." They're not inconsistent standards. By default, Google just index bloody everything. Mr. Liebermann says he wants to counter terrorism but continues to define that as violent Islamist extremism. Apparently other forms of violent extremism (KKK) are tolerable. Who's being inconsistent here? Also, free speech yada yada yada. Now, I don't have to agree with a viewpoint to defend people's right to express it. I do think that mr. Liebermann got one thing right- Sure, add a label to the search result, but don't block the result itself. As long as there's no tracking going on to see who's visiting labeled results, I'm fine with that. Just because I'm reading a page written by a suspected terrorist, that doesn't make me one too.

Re:Inconsistent standards? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167656)

Yeah, add the label.

And let us search with "label:terrorist", "label:piracy" and "label:porn".

Violation (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167502)

Are you kidding? The right for free speech needs to be absolute and effective for everyone or it will never work. Having to brand a blog from a terrorist violates that right. It's free speech just not free and not read with out prejudgement.

This is why we can't have nice government (2)

zephvark (1812804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167504)

What we need here is a law that politicians can be arrested for egregious stupidity. Oh, it would be a bit chaotic for the first few days, having to replace 99.5% of them, but I'm thinking we could substitute with labrador retrievers without any noticeable drop in efficiency.

Re:This is why we can't have nice government (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167616)

And a marked increase in loyalty

Re:This is why we can't have nice government (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167664)

Yeah, keep dreaming. Right after that we can start holding them to moral standards too.

Re:This is why we can't have nice government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167842)

What I want is ANY elected official that votes for something that is later ruled as unconstitutional is banned from seeking public office ever again. They can finish serving their current term but they have proven that they aren't fit for any public post.
This would put a quick end to unconstitutional law-making, but it might end up tilting the checks and balances a little too far to the Judicial.

Re:This is why we can't have nice government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167944)

As an addendum, the politician must also lose their pension, also banned from lobbying. No gravy train for life for fools.

how do you catch terrorists? (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167528)

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 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167574)

I'm starting to think that we need to make our elected representatives take the same test we force immigrants to take to become US citizens.

Re:testing our elected representatives (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167808)

That would be hilarious. I'd bet money not a one of them would pass. Imagine the news blowup on that.

Re:testing our elected representatives (3, Insightful)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167848)

This will only highlight the absurdity that is that test. I have yet to see any form of loyalty built up by making individuals feel inferior. The test itself is pointless. The ignorance displayed by those who are born here is staggering. On average, Immigrants that pass the test tend to display more knowledge about the nation and its history than those born into it. This is stupid as it diminishes opportunities for those who can contribute to the system, and increases opportunities for individuals who leach off of it. Just like "no child left behind". It's a great sound bite, until you comprehend the consequences.

Ban Leiberman from the internet! For America! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167582)

Why not take away Leiberman's webpage/blog/twitter from search results?

Seems like Senators and corporations are the only persons granted free speech anymore.

Consistent flagging feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167596)

Even if there really were one, it would be better to have it client-side anyway. If Google has a role to play in giving users a good way to tag content, the Chome project, not Google's websites, are the right place for it.

Until then, we have stuff like the WOT plugin [mywot.com] , though which not ideal, are at least a step in the right direction and popular/used enough to be useful.

Easily Explained (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167620)

Senator Joe Lieberman is not running for re-election.

This should be interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167630)

Members of Congress usually have absolute immunity from damages for legislative activities (passing laws, resolutions, etc.). But I wonder if they can be held liable if they do something outside their legislative duties, like writing a letter on official letterhead. It would certainly make for an interesting argument: Can a member of Congress be held financially liable for publicly pressuring a private entity, outside of the legislative process, to censor a customer's protected speech? I'd certainly be wiling to try if it was me that they did it to.

BTW, for those who say general advocacy of violent activities, complete with links to bomb-making materials, isn't protected speech:

"[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. As we said in Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 297-298 (1961), 'the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.' See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242, 259-261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control."

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Note that this was a unanimous decision.

For some more cases holding that the First Amendment does not permit the government to engage in viewpoint-based regulation of speech absent a compelling governmental interest, such as averting a clear and present danger of immediate (not speculative it-might-happen-soon violence), see R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992); Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991); Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988); Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684 (1959).

Woot, Evil Bit! (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167658)

Sounds like someone's trying to backdoor the evil bit into existence!

I still don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167660)

How US people can be THAT STUPID.

A few days ago, while reading the paper, i've readed an article about how most USA people would approve to take military actions against Iran.

After seeing what happened in Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, why is it always so easy for the US goverment to confuse people and make them believe that they are the good guys?, don't you realize that you're the world's bully?, don't you know that most of the world already hate the US?.

We are all waiting for the US to find at least one sign that Iraq has "weapons of mass distruction", you know, because that is what the US said was the reason to invade (again) Iraq.

Useless to us all. (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167718)

counter violent Islamist extremism online

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? (2)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167758)

Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.

So their standards are not affecting your ability to counter violent Jewish, Christian, or other religious extremism online?

the definition of "terrorism" (1)

Suchetha (609968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167794)

... 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 defined as "that guy over there that we don't agree with"..

unfortunately, "terrorist" has become a new witch-hunt word - equal in power (or a VERY close second to "pedo")

i think it is time that we ALL start identifying ourselves as terrorists.. because close to every political statement we make - including "seriously.. can you imagine life with THAT guy in office" while standing at the water cooler - can be construed as terrorism..

this is one of the reasons that the UN has yet to define terrorism.. because if they were to do so, many - in fact, most - governments would fall under the "terrorist" definition.

my advice; call, email, write a letter, send a pigeon [faqs.org] to senator leiberman (and any others supporting this bill and tell them "you are not with us. you are not with the terrorists. you ARE a terrorist".. maybe they will get the clue

Suchetha "why yes, i am a terrorist" Wijenayake

Guess the Party (-1, Flamebait)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167796)

Lieberman is a Democrat. Just saying, if he was a Republican, all the trolls woulld be out about "OMG Republicans are teh evil." But God forbid we point out anything that would upset the apple cart that is Slashdot groupthink.

Trois-Rivières banned stoning (1)

static416 (1002522) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167798)

In 2007 a medium sized town in Quebec, with a muslim population of 0, explicitly banned stoning people to death.

Because apparently the existing laws against murder and capital punishment didn't send the right message.

It's the same concept here. Of course terrorism is already illegal, but that's not the point. Few politicians can resist any opportunity to publicly hate-monger and generate faux-controversy.

O but think of the children .... (1)

Coeurderoy (717228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167800)

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 can get a nice "tagging" law 'to save the children' there is no reason we can not also have a global "tag the content" law...
do not forget that lieberman is a "Hollywood Democrat"

Who are the fools who voted for him? (2)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38167824)

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.

Youtube blocks porn and Blogger doesnt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167888)

Just my 2 cents. Debate.

I know what the Senator wants: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38167940)

What the Senator wants is a 'Snow' job

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?