Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Your Rights Online

That Link Is Illegal 779

Posted by timothy from the so-put-it-on-a-non-school-server dept.
buzzdecafe writes with a snippet from a Declan McCullagh piece on news.com today: "The University of California at San Diego has ordered a student organization to delete hyperlinks to an alleged terrorist Web site, citing the recently enacted USA Patriot Act. School administrators have told the group, called the Che Cafe Collective, that linking to a site supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) would not be permitted because it violated federal law."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

That Link Is Illegal More

That Link Is Illegal

Comments Filter:

  • More news and background.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by tiltowait ( 306189 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:20PM (#4338120) Homepage Journal
    here [dmoz.org].

    • Re:More news and background.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Bilestoad ( 60385 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:39PM (#4338332)
      Leftist dilettantes attending expensive college attain success beyond their wildest dreams, as administrators bring them more publicity than they ever believed possible. Bands are racing to book their events at the cafe, sure to be packed with students eager to show their support for their international comrades by getting very drunk and damaging their hearing. Not even the extreme flatulence of a vegan all-you-can-eat party will prevent these young activists from partying until they vomit in support of revolutionaries everywhere!

      Just don't take any pictures, OK? This kind of thing could be quite damaging when applying for jobs after college.

  • USA Patriot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cyclist1200 ( 513080 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:20PM (#4338123) Homepage
    Gotta love that 1st Amendment. Now, where'd that thing go anyway?

    • Re:USA Patriot (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:56PM (#4338508) Homepage Journal
      Is this a first Amendment issue at all?

      Who owns the machine? Even if they didn't, they are using the university ISP.
      Doesn't the University have rules on what can be put on a webpage within their domain?
      I'm sure if they put up a porno site, that it would be taken down the same way.

      Now if this 'illegal' linkage was done on their own ISP, using another domain and the university had issues, we'd have a problem. But as I see it, this has nothing to do with the 1st amendment, because they can put it on the web, just not on the university domain.
      • Yes. UCSD is (however indirectly) under the control of the state of California, and is almost certainly partially funded by the Federal government. Either of these would impose on them the restrictions imposed by the constitution on the respective government.

  • And? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:20PM (#4338124)
    What's the problem with this? Its a school computer, they get to say whats OK.
    • Because they're not saying to take the link down due to school policy.. They're telling people to take it down do the the patriot act.

      • Because they're not saying to take the link down due to school policy.. They're telling people to take it down do the the patriot act.

        Yes, but the Patriot Act is probably part of the School Policy, as is every other Federal and State law. UCSD's school policy probably says something like:

        "Blah blah blah...
        We also follow all federal and state laws."

        When I was an office worker at UC Santa Cruz, I had to sign a contract that said something like "You will obey the University Policy. You will obey State Law. You will obey Federal Law. You will not attempt to overthrow the Government. If this country comes under attack, you will defend the country."

        Note that I'm purposely excluding County and City laws in the above examples... most UC Universities aren't necessarily under the juristiction of their County or Cities, and don't necessarily have to obey the local laws.

        You'll see contriversy come to light whenever a UC Campus decides to build a new building or otherwise perform some BIG activity, and a Citizens Group or the City Councel tries to stop the action.

    • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:23PM (#4338158) Homepage
      1. It's a public school. And a world-class research institute, at that. A school that gets lots of federal money. That increases their free-speech mandate.

      2. They aren't saying "UCSD will not allow this." They are citing Federal law. They interpret the Patriot Act as making that link illegal. That's a direct first amendment issue.

      • Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Geeyzus ( 99967 ) <mark_madej@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:31PM (#4338251)
        They aren't saying "UCSD will not allow this." They are citing Federal law. They interpret the Patriot Act as making that link illegal. That's a direct first amendment issue.

        Yes, but I think they are interpreting it wrong. The article says the following about the Patriot Act:

        The law in question is one section of the USA Patriot Act, signed by President George W. Bush last October, which outlaws providing "material support or resources" to foreign terrorists who have been placed on a State Department list. Material support is defined as money, lodging, training or "communications equipment."

        Since they simply link to the website, and aren't (that I'm aware of) providing any kind of support or resources to that group, they should be fine to keep the link up.

        Although I gather through the article that UCSD really just doesn't want to even have the CHANCE of violating the Patriot Act, since they would largely be responsible for dealing with the legal repercussions from it. I understand that, but I still don't think they have the right to remove the link from the student group's website.

        Mark

        • Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 )
          If they are using a proxy server, they are hosting those files on site. Interesting that anyone runnng a proxy server now may be, in fact, violating the Patriot Act, by "hosting" terrorist information on their hardware.

          Additionally, material support could be interpreted to include publicity and propaganda.

        • Re:And? (Score:2, Interesting)

          by TyZone ( 555958 )
          Since they simply link to the website, and aren't (that I'm aware of) providing any kind of support or resources to that group, they should be fine to keep the link up.

          I'm no expert on the First Amendment (IANAEOTFA?), nor have I read and understood the entire text of the USA PATRIOT act, but if the act prohibits providing support or resources to terrorists, then:

          1. It seems to me that you are right that they are not providing support by having that link.

          2. It seems that you have ignored "resources" -- maintaining that link facilitates the terrorists' efforts to spread their message, making the web page with the link in it a "resource" working for them.

          Does that seem like a stretch?

      • I'm not sure which I find worse. The fact that they translated the USA patriot act to suggest that even linking to a website that supports a terrorist organization is illegal or that they might be right in their interpretation. In either case i'm sure the supreme court would have a few choice words for them such as "unconstitutional".

    • Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by xTMFWahoo ( 470364 )
      It's a public university- i.e. they have to abide by state and federal law. If the Patriot Act prohibits linking to "dangerous" sites then to me it's in violation of the 1st amendment. So they need to decide which one is right- the 1st Amd. or the Patriot Act.

    • Public institution funded by my (and your) dollars. Its not 'their' schools .. its our schools. Who do you think owns the schools? And who do you think should have a say in what is and what is not allowed in schools?

      Gasp, it couldn't be the parents who pay for it, and the kids who are taught there, could it?
      • True, our tax dollars do go to funding for public schools, but the majority of the cash that funds a school is through tuition, books, fees ect. Furthermore, unless it's a "state" school, the tax money they get isn't very much. However, the money they receive is through the government, regardless of whether or not it comes from taxes, it is government money. So they are answerable to the government in how they use it. So yes you have a say, by choosing who you elect and what you vote for.


        Gasp, it couldn't be the parents who pay for it, and the kids who are taught there, could it?


        The answer to this is (unfortunately) no. The school is a business, the parents and students who pay for and go to the schools have no right to a say in what's allowed. They are paying for the service the school provides, not buying a share in ownership.


        Whether the Patriot Act is moral or immoral is meaningless, it's law, and it must either a) be obeyed or b) fought. Obviously it's not that black and white, you could obey it while you fight it, ect. this school chooses to obey, they do get tax money, and I'm certain grants for research from the government and obviously don't want to rock the boat. I can't say I blame them, I don't agree with them, but I don't blame them.

  • Great! (Score:5, Funny)

    by seizer ( 16950 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:21PM (#4338136) Homepage
    Let me be the first to congratulate Slashdot on their courageous stand [farc-ep.org] against the Patriot Act. ;-)
    • Also, let's put our support behind Google for standing up [google.com] to this outrageous law....

    • Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)

      by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:45PM (#4338398)
      FARC Agenda for the Week:
      • Launch preemptive strike against government troops massing near Betania.
      • Kidnap foreigners and hold for ransom to raise capital.
      • Buy more stinger missiles on the black market.
      • Bombmaking training with assistance of IRA experts.
      • Implement Slashdot filter on website

      • FARC Agenda for the Week:

        * Launch preemptive strike against government troops massing near Betania.
        * Kidnap foreigners and hold for ransom to raise capital.
        * Buy more stinger missiles on the black market.
        * Bombmaking training with assistance of IRA experts.
        * Implement Slashdot filter on website

        * PROFIT!!!!

        • American Agenda for FARC: (via the School of the Americas [soaw.org]

          • Train Latin Americans to follow in alumnus Manuel Noriega's footsteps and establish abusive military dictatorships (we can always "take them out" later wen we need the political capital)
          • Train Latin Americans to kill impoverished families seeking their basic human rights
          • Sell Latin American thugs stinger missiles (we know they'll use them to crush communist revolutions [though we call them Unions here in the US]. They would never resell them to "terrorists")
          • Sell Latin American thugs A-37 dragonfly jets (they won't resell these to terrorists either they'll use them to fire rockets in to "dissident" families' thatched huts)

          Since we're already pretty far off the topic of potential legal challenges to the USA PATRIOT Act, I'll carry on the topic of "terrorists." The fact is that the US has an excellent history of backing up truely vile regiems (the afforementioned Noriega) until there's political capital to be gained from going to war with them. We're doing the same thing in Iraq: when the Iraqi's were fighting the Iranians (back when they were terrorists not allies against terrorists) we had no problem with Hussein trying to take over his neighbors (we didn't like Iran then), gassing dissident groups within his country, or buying weapons of mass distruction (from Lockheed-Martin). There's two sides to every story here...

          ...we now return you to the previous conversation on freedom of speach in the digital age already in progress...

  • Wait.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by booyaka ( 563501 ) <bagerson@uvic.ca> on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:21PM (#4338138)
    Where's the link?

    just kidding ;-) although it would be fun to /. a terrorist group's server.

    yeahyeah...troll -1

  • Some illegal links (Score:2, Informative)

    by buzzdecafe ( 583889 )
    Here is the FARC site [farc-ep.org]


    And here it is in English [farc-ep.org]

  • Now it's up to the lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by netwiz ( 33291 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:23PM (#4338163) Homepage
    And that's kinda sad. Unfortunately, someone's going to have to die on this hill (perhaps literally) before we get that shred of freedom back.

    to quote Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    What's worse, is that now that someone making "subversive speech" can be labeled a terrorist, they can be treated as an enemy of the state, regardless of their citizenship or the rights therein guaranteed by the Constitution.

  • A double pointer? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:24PM (#4338172) Homepage Journal
    What if a website had a link to a anonymous website of links that has a link to a terrorist website? Wouldn't be fair to be guilty by association.

  • Lost, please return (Score:5, Funny)

    by FU_Fish ( 140910 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:25PM (#4338183) Homepage
    Lost: 1 Bill of Rights.

    If found, please return to Washington, DC, USA.

    Thank you.

    • Re:Lost, please return (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ian Wolf ( 171633 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:36PM (#4338297) Homepage
      We've come so far to go full circle. Fortunately, the following didn't last too long.

      Section 2 of the Sedition Act (July 14, 1798)

      SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

      This administration scares me.

  • You in the beret! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rbanzai ( 596355 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:25PM (#4338192)
    Put your hands up and step away from the mouse... slowly...
  • If UCSD's attorneys determine that the university is at risk of liability or non-compliance with the law, the tax-paying citizens of California should be glad that they are attempting to stay within the lines. It is the place of private citizens using private money to fight unjust or unconstitutional laws. And anyone who says UCSD is overstepping reasonable interpretation better not have "IANAL" anywhere in their comment. :-P

  • So can they do what Google did? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by billbaggins ( 156118 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:29PM (#4338230)
    I can't seem to find any of the relevant pages now, but iirc at one point Google had to remove links to certain pages at xenu.net [xenu.net] because the Church of Scientology claimed their copyrights were being violated. So instead, on any search that would have returned one of the offending pages, Google instead gave a link to a page containing the notification letter, that in turn contained the URLs of the offending pages.

    Can these people do likewise? Instead of hyperlinking directly, give a URL that can be cut-and-pasted (or an image of a URL that would then need to be retyped)? If the PATRIOT act does in fact forbid the hyperlink, does it also forbid the information?

    • I think, actually, it was because Google caches a page's content on it's local machine (for example, this is why you can take a look at /.'d pages using the Google cache). The Scientologists claimed that in order to cache the page, Google had to copy the page's contents, thus violating copyright.

      This, on the other hand, invovles a hyperlink, which contains no content other than the page's web address. I don't see the issue here.

      --trb
      • The Google issue was that they were linking to copyright-violating content at xenu.net, which linking is apparently illegal (ObIANAL). The DMCA cease-and-desist letter was an order to remove these links. So instead of links Google gave a copy of the letter, which helpfully contained the exact URLs of the offending content.

        Now that I read the article more thoroughly, I see that the college's problem with the page was that it might be providing "material support" to FARC by sending people to their page. To answer my own question, then, they probably can't pull that trick, because any action to send people to that page would (I presume) still be "material support". Probably. At least, until a case like this ends up in court.

  • It's a university computer... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stefanlasiewski ( 63134 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMstefanco.com> on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:30PM (#4338246) Homepage Journal
    If I understand the story correctly, the Contraversal Website resides on a UC-owned computer, and uses a UC-owned domain. UC has the right to restrict content on it's own computers... for years, they've maintained the right to restrict content on student flyers on the campus. This is similar...

    Solution? Get your own computer, and get your own domain name.

    Or am I missing something...

    Now, another question I have is: Why does UC San Diego allow student organizations use a subdomain under ucsd.edu ? It's asking for trouble...
    • I think the thing you are missing is that UC aren't the bad guys in this story. They are the messenger.

      UC didn't say "we don't want you to link to that .org from our computers because we find its content distasteful". They said "as we interpret the USA Patriot act, the act of linking to that .org is a federal offense, so you must stop".

      The implication is that it would be illegal even if it was done from your own private webserver. Hence the stifling of free speech, at least hypothetically. BTW, IANAL (FWIW).
  • If the school owns it, then they're within their right to do with it as they please. If the individual owns it, then the rules are different.

    UCSD has done nothing wrong.
    • Absolutely. But the problem is that the school removed it only because of the Patriot Act, otherwise they where okay with it.
      • "But the problem is that the school removed it only because of the Patriot Act, otherwise they where okay with it."

        I disagree, I believe it was brought to their attention due to the Patriot Act. I find it hard to believe they new about it before hand. It obviously offended someones fragile sensabilities and got reported. UC's don't keep track of every link of every page of every students websites. They have a enough to do.

        Regardless, it's their system, they dont need to justify it to anyone. Those students are free to get a geocities account if they like.
    • If the school owns it, then they're within their right to do with it as they please. If the individual owns it, then the rules are different.

      I question whether or not what they did was legal at all. By citing federal law, they are providing a very clear Constitutional challenge to the PATRIOT Act. Censoring political speech based on content is a clear 1st Amendment violation. This kind of behavior will have a "chilling effect" on free speech among students. The idea that the government can list a group as a terrorist and ban all information on the groups views and supporting arguments for them is a defilement of what our nation was founded on. It discourages rational discussion and questioning of the motives of the government.

      Futhermore, public universities are quasi-government entities in most states. It may be flatly illegal for them to censor content on their servers as their servers may be considered a public resource. Even so, perhaps legally they have done nothing wrong, but one should question whether or not what they've done is ethically reprehensible as a place of learning and as Americans.
  • Between bad laws, and bad applications of laws.

    Granted, I'm not familiar with every provision of the Patriot Act, or even saying I like it, but it would seem that this is a case of the school misreading and overapplying what they think the law might say instead of taking the time to actually know what the law says. Ye Ole "Covering our ass is more important than letting you speak your mind" overreaction.

    Once again, common sense and reason has taken a back seat to administrative hyper-reaction.
  • who said during the campaign "There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this [web] site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is." I mean the man clearly has always wanted to be in complete control and the whole 9/11 deal just gave him an excuse and convinced many other people to go along with him. Hopefully we will be able to get rid of him shotrly. But this is just going to be more and more common till then.
  • Enforce it, and enforce it hard!

    That way, there's some chance it'll be repealed. How are we to go about fixing this thing if we don't make it painfully obvious that it's a bad law?

  • Doesn't the school have the right to restrict the content on their servers??? If you set up a web site that is against your company/college/school's policy or beliefs, I think they have the right to ask you to take down the objective material.

  • Would student protests against the Vietnam war have been illegal? Would the school sue their own students for *daring* to change societal issues?

    It's nice to see that the former hippies of the Baby boom are now more conservative, and have screwed up the world more than their predecessors have. They have *become* extactly what they were protesting against. There's an irony there that just makes me smile.

    It's going to take a social revolution like the 60's to change the wacky way things are now. It'll probably take the death of 4 in Ohio over filesharing to spark that revolution however.

    Oops, can I say the word revolution anymore? I think that's illegal...

  • Grr (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hamster Of Death ( 413544 )
    The part of this article that I will rememeber and that annoyed me the most at first glance, was the incorrect spelling of Colombia.

  • Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scheming daemons ( 101928 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:38PM (#4338327)
    The current regime in Washington has effectively eliminated the 1st, 4th, and 10th ammendments of our constitution.

    1. In a Pittsburgh campaign stop last month, the Bush people made local law enforcement herd sign-carrying protestors into a fenced off, "designated free speech zone" (that's what they called it! I'm not joking...) more than 1/2 mile from the event. One protestor, carrying a sign saying "Bush must love the poor, he's created so many of us", decided that a "designated free speech zone" is a contradiction in terms (and unconstitutional). He decided to hop the fence and stand next to the people carrying pro-Bush signs. He was arrested. He violated no law, but was considered a "threat" because he had the nerve to carry an anti-Bush sign where Bush might see it.

    2. The voters of California decided, through ballot initiative, that medical use of marijuana was legal. The Ashcroft justice department, deciding that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply anymore, decided to arrest Marijuana growers in California who were growing it with the expressed permission of the California government. "States' Rights" Republicans are apparently only worried about those rights when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and abortion laws, apparently.

    3. And finally, the U.S. Patriot Act. Practically authored by Ashcroft, and passed overwhelmingly by a fearful and gutless congress (only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate), the Patriot Act effectively eliminates all remaining protections of the 4th ammendment... The "drug war" weakened it, and the Patriot act killed it.

    With the current group in charge, you can bet that every ammendment in the Bill of Rights, save for the 2nd, is in danger.

    Wait until some alleged terrorist tries to "plead the 5th". Then we'll be down to 6.

    • With the current group in charge, you can bet that every ammendment in the Bill of Rights, save for the 2nd, is in danger.

      Nope, even that amendment is in danger. When things get bad enough those in charge won't want the public to have weapons they could rebel with.

    • 1. In a Pittsburgh campaign stop last month, the Bush people made local law enforcement herd sign-carrying protestors into a fenced off, "designated free speech zone" (that's what they called it! I'm not joking...) more than 1/2 mile from the event. One protestor, carrying a sign saying "Bush must love the poor, he's created so many of us", decided that a "designated free speech zone" is a contradiction in terms (and unconstitutional). He decided to hop the fence and stand next to the people carrying pro-Bush signs. He was arrested. He violated no law, but was considered a "threat" because he had the nerve to carry an anti-Bush sign where Bush might see it.

      Abortion protesters have had to deal with this for some time. They are called "buffer zones."

      2. The voters of California decided, through ballot initiative, that medical use of marijuana was legal. The Ashcroft justice department, deciding that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply anymore, decided to arrest Marijuana growers in California who were growing it with the expressed permission of the California government. "States' Rights" Republicans are apparently only worried about those rights when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and abortion laws, apparently.

      You mentioned abortion laws and the second amendment, but the courts have already said the 10th doesn't apply. Bush's judicial apointments get asked about it all the time and if they don't agree it is "settled law" then they don't get confirmed. And the "state's rights" republicans basically have no voice in the Republican Party. They would be "paleo-conservatives" and have been ousted since Reagan by the "neo-conservatives". Neocons are really just New Deal democrats.

      3. And finally, the U.S. Patriot Act. Practically authored by Ashcroft, and passed overwhelmingly by a fearful and gutless congress (only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate), the Patriot Act effectively eliminates all remaining protections of the 4th ammendment... The "drug war" weakened it, and the Patriot act killed it.

      You can blame Bush for appointing Ashcroft. But who can we blame for Congress? The American people.

      • Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rw2 ( 17419 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @03:44PM (#4338896) Homepage
        Abortion protesters have had to deal with this for some time

        Woah, slow down there a second. Abortion protestors are removed from private property regularly, which is fine. They are told they cannot bar entry to a facility regularly, which is fine. They are told they must provide a walkway regularly (typically in the range of a few to a few dozen feet), which is fine.

        In no case have they been penned up in a cage 1/2 a mile away from the clinic in a 'free speech zone'.

        Let's keep a sense of scale about this.
    • (only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate)

      This is a little off-topic, but I listen to C-Span streamed [c-span.org] every day over the web, and DAMN Russ Feingold has his shit together. He consistently impresses me with his eloquence and grasp of the issues. Why can't we get the really good people running for President? Who are we going to have next time, Bush v. Gore again?

      Why can't we get a win-win choice for once?!? Feingold v. John McCain, or Feingold v. Colin Powell? I'd be proud to have any of those men leading the U.S.

      Okay, okay... I'm done now. :)

  • Armchair lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dschuetz ( 10924 ) <.gro.tensad. .ta. .divad.> on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:41PM (#4338352)
    Okay, before we all predictably get up-in-arms about how this violates the 1st amendment and all that, let's take a moment to review what we actually know about the situation:

    1) The article cites the portion of the PATRIOT act regarding "providing material support to terrorists." It's not clear to me from that snippet what "material support" means. So there might be something to fight on these grounds -- but I'd bet that 90% of us aren't familiar enough with the act or pertinent case law to answer the question.

    2) They're not actually providing FARC info, just a link. So they're at least not "acting" as a terrorist group, they're just telling people where you can find 'em. Which might or might not constitute some kind of support -- if the link said "can you believe these jerks?", you might be able to argue that it's actually anti-FARC, but I doubt the context of the link was such as that.

    3) We'd all like to think that there is some kind of due process available here. The group should be able to appeal to someone who can make a review of whether the information being linked to is truly covered by the act. Of course, this being on (to my understanding) institutionally-owned hardware, the school's own internet policies may trump that kind of review, even though it's a public institution.

    and, MOST IMPORTANTLY,

    4) We have not yet established that linking is protected. At least as far as I can recall, some people won in the "linking to DeCSS" case, and some people lost, in different districts, and it hasn't hit the Supreme Court. So, everyone who is so damned sure that this is an illegal restriction of free speech, well, you can't really say that, 'cause it hasn't been decided yet. (though I think that one of the pro-"linking-as-speech" decisions was in California, so they'd be bound by that decision). Morally, I'd agree that it should be protected, but legally, nobody can say for certain.

    Anyway, I just thought I'd point these things out up front, before everyone starts posting their own defiant links to FARC and complaining about the bill of rights being trampled and armchair lawyers trying to sound smart by summarizing the whole complex issue in four bullet points.

    Oops. Too late.

    • moot (Score:2)

      by geek ( 5680 )
      The UC can remove whatever they like on their system. they don't even need a reason. Citing the Patriot Act or no, they didn't want it on their system so it's gone. They need not justify it in court in any way. Those students can get a geocities account and host it there if they like. Or get a domain from he.net or something. The school is within their rights regardless of anything some armchair lawyer says.

      Just because i invite you in my house doesn't mean you can spray paint "FARC ROOLz" on my walls.
      • -- If it was so, it might be; and it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic. - Lewis Carrol

        What is, was. What was, will be. What will be, was, but will be again. -- Arnold Horshack.

        • Re:moot (Score:2)

          by geek ( 5680 )
          You'll find a similar variation in "Alice in wonderland"

          Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb :)

  • The King (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sdjunky ( 586961 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:42PM (#4338361)
    Also in news today the British Empire has arrested several Colonial presses because they printed material that references those who would "revolt" against the empire.

    Now that we have the Revolutionary Eradication and Destruction Covert Operations and Threat (REDCOAT) ACT we can further supress these threats to colonial safety and stability
  • For immediate disperesment:
    Federal Circuit Judge A. Lottabull declared the Internet to be "Unconstitutional". He was further quoted as saying "If the founding fathers were alive today, they would be completely offended at what the Internet allows into the homes of US citizens."
    Judge A. Lottabull also said,"Yeah, it's almost as bad as mentioning God when pledging allegiance to the United States of America. The framers of the Constitution would have freaked at that."

    When informed of the decision, most users of the Internet were quoted as saying (in the general direction of the Judge)"Bugger off you Shut-in Luddite SOB"

    Judge A. Lottabull is one of the most overturned judges in the Union, and should not be taken seriously.
    ---Some News agency or other.

  • Thoughtcrime is death (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RockyJSquirel ( 412960 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:43PM (#4338381)
    Thoughtcrimes are double plus ungood.

    Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.

    Rocky J. Squirrel

  • Wait a minute... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Washizu ( 220337 ) <bengarvey@nosPAM.comcast.net> on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:44PM (#4338394) Homepage
    Before anyone jumps to conclusions, does anyone know what the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia's linking policy is? Maybe they don't allow deep links.

  • UCSD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by br00tus ( 528477 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @02:48PM (#4338426)
    I've been reading the UCSD site for a long time. It has been very informative for me, it has information that you can't find elsewhere easily.

    I find it distressing that this has happened. The Patriot Act seems to violate the first amendment. They don't even host the FARC material, they just link to them.

    And as far as FARC - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who are the terrorists who have killed hundreds of union leaders over the past few years in Colombia, it certainly wasn't FARC. The government is pretty bad, but made much worse with their close ties to drug traffickers and right-wing paramilitaries.

    The US has been messing with Colombia for over a century. Ever since Teddy Roosevelt decided he wanted Northern Colombia for the Panama Canal, and bankrolled a revolution in Northern Colombia, now called Panama. Then they called Colombia's leaders (or rebels, depending on who was in charge) Russian proxies, then they became drug couriers, now they're terrorists. Ironic since FARC had a ban on drug growing for years, with the right-wing paramilitaries making money from the drug growing. The US army's top anti-drug guy in Colombia, James Hiett, was arrested (in the US) because he was trafficking drugs into the US from Colombia. These are the people stopping drug flow from Colombia into the US? That's accepting the premise that the US has a right to go into Colombia militarily because they're shipping deadly drugs to US consumers trying to procure them. Imagine if Thailand invaded North Carolina for shipping the deadly tobacco drug to them. Thailand doesn't want to import US tobacco for health reasons, but the US used GATT to force them to import it.

    This is an attempt to censor political opinions, pure and simple. The White House, which via the FCC has a lot of leverage over the media, called in TV stations and major newspapers and told them they didn't want Bin Laden's statements printed or broadcast. Only the New York Times refused. The powers-that-be in the US want only one side and one side only of the story to be put out - theirs. Not that Bin Laden's side is right, but when his statement's are censored a priori, I begin to wonder what he had to say. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, and the US has had a massive military presence there for over a decade, Bin Laden and the hijackers were almost all from Saudi Arabia, is there a connection there? From Bin Laden's statements there seems to be. Bush would rather say the US military guarding ExxonMobil's oil supplies has nothing to do with the attacks, and they're just fanatics who hate America for no reason. That might make sense to the As someone once said, government's do not desire to shut down magazines like PC world. They start with views they do not want you to here, like FARC's, or whomever's. If the Colombian rebels are so ridiculous, and every American would automatically side against them, why is there the rush to silence them? To me it's almost a clear sign that the one source we've been hearing it from (the State Department) hasn't been totally honest and they do not want people to hear any other view. Why have hundreds of union organizers been killed in Colombia? Who was shipping cocaine to the US when FARC had a ban on coca growing in areas they controlled? And I'm not suggesting a "conspiracy", but is James Hiett the only American military or intelligence officer involved in shipping drugs from Colombia to the US? Hiett is significant because the billions we send down there every year to fight drugs seems to wind up bringing even more drugs in. There are many Americans who sympathize with FARC, the dead (and living) union organizers, the indigenous tribes liek the U'wa and so forth, but it seems not only is our tax money going billions a year down there in guns so as to protect a non-Middle East oil supply, we can't even hear what's going on down there do to US Patriot Act censorship. The people controlling the US aren't satisfied with just the billions in arms going down there, now we can't even have free speech in the US about it, that my tax money is funding all of this death can't even be discussed.

    • Re:UCSD (Score:3, Informative)

      by crawling_chaos ( 23007 )
      FARC had a ban on drug growing for years, with the right-wing paramilitaries making money from the drug growing.

      Puh-lease. And I bet you think their shit doesn't stink, either:

      • But then the FARC discovered drugs, not consuming them, which is prohibited in the rebel ranks, but taxing them BBC News [bbc.co.uk]
      • "The narcos brought the paramilitary because they didn't like the FARC controlling the market," Salon link [salon.com]

      And that's leaving out links from obviously biased sites like the DEA or the Washington Times. Both sides in Columbia are inextricably tied up in the drug trade. They have to be, it's the only way they can fund their fighters. War crimes are expensive.

  • In other news books are now banned, Film at 11

    • Re:Books Banned (Score:4, Interesting)

      by josepha48 ( 13953 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @03:03PM (#4338574) Journal
      no kidding... I guess I am amazed at what is going on in CA theses days.

      In SF where a woman was killed in the hallway exiting her apartment, BY A DOG that was on a leash, there is now (today) a proposal to make ALL parks in SF off leash areas for owners of dogs. These are parks where almost all have signs now that say that they are NOT off leash areas. People do not obey the signs now, and kids have been bitten by dogs off leash. The law would be if you can control your dog by voice. How vague is that? What about health codes. Dogs urinating and defecating on the fields where children play. Hmm I'd have to wonder if that would spread some new diseases, like discentary.

      In CA, gov GD is or has signed a bill that would make stem cell research leagal in CA from ANY source even though this is against the fed gov. Hmm how does that one work?

      In CA there are places where it is legal to grow pot, even though it is against fed law. So the state says its okay, but the feds will come in and arrest you. So much for state laws.

      So they pick linking to a web site the time to obey fed law.

      Does any one else see a problem with the way the CA is acting in all these cases?

      Personally I am worried about the US being so scared about loosing our freedoms that we let our federal and state goverments take them away from us one by one.

  • I've seen those guys. They're the ones who lurk around the IS department in black T-shirts, usually with computer vendor logos on them. Every once in while, they attack a helpless user's desktop PC and install new releases on it, thereby breaking everything else on the system. Then they chortle and run down the hall to the Jolt Cola machine.

    Yes, we must do something about these support terrorists!

  • The Che Cafe (Score:5, Funny)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @03:50PM (#4338949) Homepage Journal
    I'm a former student of UCSD, and a former occasional patron of the Che Cafe.

    The primary service provided by the Che Cafe is not sproutburgers or macrobiotic bean chili. No, the primary service provided by the Che Cafe is to be a living example of the effects of bad parenting.

    You see, current and future parents, when you do not instill a minimum level of moral values in your child, then send them off to UCSD, they will fall prey to the Che Cafe. Empty heads are their fertile soil, for only in empty heads can the contradictory values of the Che Cafe thrive. They claim to be anarchists, yet named their cafe after Che Guevara, a confirmed totalitarian statist. They claim to be anarchists yet are in favor of participatory democracy and progressive taxation. They are what you get when you cross whiny brats with Bakunin.

    Should UCSD force the Che Cafe to remove that particular link? Heck no! They're so much more hilarious when their antics are unfettered.

  • ICANN and Network Solutions break Patriot Act! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EJB ( 9167 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @04:04PM (#4339072) Homepage
    Hey, if linking is illegal, then providing a domain name (farc-ep.org) is surely also illegal! If they didn't have a domain name, then everyone would have to type their IP address. That's a lot of hassle, so providing the domain name is supportive of that group.

    ICANN oversees domain registration, and Network Solutions administers the root nameservers and the delegation of the .org domain to the registrar.

    If this student collective is breaking the law, then ICANN and NS are. If ICANN and NS aren't, then the student collective should go free.

    And I don't see the government suddenly making demands on ICANN and NS after so many years of letting them run rampant in all kinds of areas.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close