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!

That Link Is Illegal

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the so-put-it-on-a-non-school-server dept.

Education 779

buzzdecafe writes with a snippet from a Declan McCullagh piece on 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."

cancel ×


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

relax.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338114)

I have the frosty pist

Re:relax.... (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338131)

this FP is illegal without this link []

More news and background.... (5, Informative)

tiltowait (306189) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338120)

here [] .

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

Bilestoad (60385) | more than 11 years ago | (#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.

News About "Even Less" Here: @# +1; Helpful #@ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338349)

George H. W. Bush - Not Much

George W. Bush - Even Less []

Be Patriotic: Smoke American Grown Marijuana

USA Patriot (5, Insightful)

cyclist1200 (513080) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338123)

Gotta love that 1st Amendment. Now, where'd that thing go anyway?

The First Amendment .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338198)

.. is not a suicide pact.

Re:USA Patriot (0, Insightful)

netphilter (549954) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338213)

Hmmm...perhaps you should have read the article. The issue is not free speech. It's the fact that by linking this site the organization is provided the terrorist's with a vehicle for communication, which is clearly in violation of the Patriot Act. Whether or not you agree with the Patriot Act is irrelevant, you cannot question the University's right to attempt to stay compliant with existing laws.

Re:USA Patriot (5, Interesting)

dytin (517293) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338273)

I believe that you are missing the point. The fact is that the Patriot Act is in direct violation of the First Amendment. The college is being forced to stifle free speeach in order to comply with the law. So yes, whether or not you agree with the Patriot Act IS relevent, and the issue IS free speech. So, while you "cannot question the University's right to attempt to stay compliant with existing laws", you can question whether the law should exist in the first place.

Re:USA Patriot (4, Insightful)

netphilter (549954) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338308)

The problem that I have with that logic in this case is that the Patriot Act does not say that you can't praise terrorists or say how wonderful you think they are or whatever you want. By linking them, the University is contending that you've provided a vehicle by which the terrorists can communicate. At that point it ceases to be about free speech. A more intelligent argument would be about whether or not linking a web site constitutes providing a vehicle of communication...and I would love to see what people think about that. But that is VASTLY different from the subject of free speech.

Whaaat? (5, Insightful)

cje (33931) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338314)

It's the fact that by linking this site the organization is provided the terrorist's with a vehicle for communication...

This is preposterous. The company or organization hosting the "terrorist's" Web site is the one that's providing the vehicle for communication, not any Web pages that link to it. By your logic, we ought to shut down Google and all other Internet search engines since I can run a search on "FARC" and end up with a web page that links to this same Web site.

Incidentally, the irony here is that if the school had left this issue alone, then virtually nobody would have seen the offending Web site. Now that they've raised a big stink about it wrapped up in the PATRIOT act, you can expect the URL to appear in countless places (as it already has done several times in replies to this story.)

For Clarification... (1)

netphilter (549954) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338348)

By your logic,...

I'm not claiming that it's my logic, but that it's the logic of the school. I defend their right to enforce the law as they interpret it, not necessarily their interpretation. I'll let the courts decide on interpretation.

And? (3, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338124)

What's the problem with this? Its a school computer, they get to say whats OK.

Re:And? (2)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338149)

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.

Re:And? (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338346)

indeed. the dumb ass patriot act makes it illigal. Why is the school to blame for wanting to follow the law? Once can argue that the law is injsut but that in no way makes the school wrong for wanting to follow it.

Re:And? (1)

cyclist1200 (513080) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338155)

If they had cited school policy that would be okay. This isn't a school policy, it's the law. That's why it's not OK.

Re:And? (5, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338158)

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? (0, Troll)

sulli (195030) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338231)

And they're wrong. So post it somewhere else, end of story.

Re:And? (5, Interesting)

Geeyzus (99967) | more than 11 years ago | (#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.


Which is worse? (2)

sterno (16320) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338256)

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? (2, Insightful)

xTMFWahoo (470364) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338181)

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.

Isn't it obvious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338363)

I'd say it's obvious that they already decided that the "Patriot" Act is right, and not Amendment 1. I'm glad I'm out of college...

Re:And? (2)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338191)

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?

Re:And? (1)

Master Bait (115103) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338237)

What should Americans expect? After all, they voted that Bush guy in, didn't they? Well, didn't they?

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338272)

And things would be orders of magnatude worse if that Gore ass had cheated his way into the hotseat.

Re:And? (2)

Skjellifetti (561341) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338279)

Umm, no we did not. Gore won more votes across the nation and lost the election due to a Supreme Court ruling that prevented a recount of Florida votes.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338356)

Actually, the number of votes that Gore led by was well within statistical error. The election was a tie and was decided by the laws of the land. If Gore would have won, who knows what would be going on...

It's not up to a State run school's administration to protest the laws put into effect by the government. This sucks, but the students should be the ones taking up the fight.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338326)

Yeh and Al Gore would have been better, since he invented the interenet, he would have invented an effective filter to protect America's youth from those nasty terrorists. Now if he could just invent a personality for himself as well as a pollitical position that flip flops less than a freshly caught fish.
Bush may not be all that great of a choice, but if Gore was in office we'd still be doing recounts on how many people got killed last year instead of taking care of business.

It's good to see the School is abiding by the law (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338126)

What is the news here?

confused (2, Interesting)

polakk (562391) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338188)

ok, so a student posts a link to an alleged terrorist website and he gets the boot. Now posts a url themselves. Isn't that contrary to the USA Patriot Act? aren't they an american based company?

Oh my god! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338132)

You mean Fark [] is a terrorist website?! I never knew :-(

Re:Oh my god! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338235)

Fuck you you white trash propagating redneck.

Great! (5, Funny)

seizer (16950) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338136)

Let me be the first to congratulate Slashdot on their courageous stand [] against the Patriot Act. ;-)

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338161)

hehe, and while you're at it, why not provide a link to DeCSS, and Scientology OTx documents!

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338167)

Slashdot may pretend to be a lot of things, but at the end of the day they are just a bunch of whores selling Visual Studio ads.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338217)


Re:Great! (OT) (1)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338259)

Are you joking me? /. is fucking MS here.

I don't know if it was a deliberate media placement buy, but think of MS's Return on Investment here. Low, I'm willing to wager. Real low. /. gets money from MS, MS wastes a ton of money on /. invetory where the readers are very unlikely to actually purchase or clickthru on the ad .. whats not to like? MS wastes its money, /. makes it, and we get nice pretty color schemes (which is MS products' only redeeming value.)

Re:Great! (OT) (1, Offtopic)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338339)

MS doesn't buy Visual Studio ads on /. in order to sell Visual Studio. They do it to laugh in our faces.

It's their way of saying: "Ha ha, you dirty hippies. Who's the corporate shill now? At least we're not hypocrites."

Go Che! (1)

blugecko (152079) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338137)

Good to see that Che is still riling shit up, even if it's not him personally....

Re:Go Che! (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338193)

Good to see that Che's body is still in an unmarked grave in South America; and that stupid rich kid liberal wannabe hippies still have posters of him in their private dorms. I hope to get some nice photos of the hippies looting the starbucks here in DC tomorrow.

Re:Go Che! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338347)

No offense, but both you and the UCSD "che cafe" need to actually learn more about Che before associating him with Colombia's FARC.

Che's book "Guerrilla Warfare" clearly states that guerrilla fighters are fighting for their country and its people, and that they are never to do anything to hurt the populace they are supposed to be helping. On the other hand, FARC routinely bombs/sabotages/destroys civilian areas and public utilities. The FARC is only concerned with savagery and personal profit from their drug connections--they are not and never will be a real revolutionary movement. I hate that they use Che's image to make themselves look better, and that they are able to fool probably well-meaning but naive students like the group at UCSD. Even worse, FARC gives Che and all revolutionaries a bad name!!

Wait.... (4, Funny)

booyaka (563501) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338138)

Where's the link?

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

yeahyeah...troll -1

Re:Wait.... (1)

cyclist1200 (513080) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338186)

That brings up an interesting question: would Slashdotting a terrorist group's server be considered a patriotic act?

Re:Wait.... (1)

sterno (16320) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338290)

And if so, would it thus be an act of patriotism to link to their website in the hopes of encouraging a slashdotting?

Re:Wait.... (1)

SquadBoy (167263) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338221)

By what defination is the FARC a terrorist group?

Re:Wait.... (2)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338345)

FARC kidnaps and kills Columbian civilians, has bombed public places, burned down villages, and killed [] American activists [] who were working with the U'wa indiginous people to prevent large Oil Companies from drilling on U'wa land.

FARC is one of the most disgusting revolutionary groups in S. America.

Unfortunately, the Columbian Government has also kidnapped and killed civilians, and has bombed public places ... so by what defination is the Columbian Government not a terrorist group...

Quick, someone shut down Google! (1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338139)

Link []

Re:Quick, someone shut down Google! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338210)

Quick, someone shut down the first amendment ... oops, too late!

Some illegal links (2, Informative)

buzzdecafe (583889) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338141)

Here is the FARC site []

And here it is in English []

Report directly to jail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338228)

This sort of thing shan't be allowed

Shouldn't this link (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338144)

be illegal? []

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

netwiz (33291) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338163)

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.

san diego (0, Redundant)

dirvish (574948) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338164)

That is really scary that Academia is stifling a descenting voice.

Re:san diego (1)

WillyElectrix (306880) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338199)

Technically, you could link to a terrorist site under the header "These people suck" and it would be illegal. Was this student group collecting PayPal donations or something? -w.

Re:san diego (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338222)

Hey, maybe they have a secret agenda to repeal the Patriot Act and they're making a free speech issue out of it in order to discredit it?

What, it could happen? There's been a lot... uh, some... uh, a couple times when people did the right thing.

Freebom of Speech (0)

yycs (514096) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338169)

While I do not wish to start a 1st ammendment rant, This would seem like a blatant breach of one's first ammendment rights, as talking about, or linking something does not condone its action.

Thanks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338171)

I had never heard of FARC, now I have.

I'll start reading their website daily!

Censor this baby!

A double pointer? (5, Insightful)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338172)

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.

Re:A double pointer? (1)

Hobbes_ (78793) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338268)

That's how I explain all my porn links in work. ;)

Lost, please return (5, Funny)

FU_Fish (140910) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338183)

Lost: 1 Bill of Rights.

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

Thank you.

Re:Lost, please return (5, Insightful)

Ian Wolf (171633) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338297)

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! (5, Funny)

rbanzai (596355) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338192)

Put your hands up and step away from the mouse... slowly...

Compliance with a law is noteworthy? (2)

Logic Bomb (122875) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338212)

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

Re:Compliance with a law is noteworthy? (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338321)

If I was a taxpayer of CA.(and I was for a great many years) I would be upset that they didn't take a stand against this stupid law.
If the universities don't stand up for free speech, we are screwed.

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

billbaggins (156118) | more than 11 years ago | (#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 [] 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?

Re:So can they do what Google did? (2)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338335)

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.


Get some PRIORITIES! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338238)

The worst terrorist attack in recorded history occurred over a year ago, followed by a Holy War against Islam, and now Israel and the Palestinians as well as India and Pakistan are teetering on the brink of their own war, Argentina is in the midst of a financial crisis, America is considering launching attacks against Somalia and Iraq, and you people have the gall to be discussing Illegal Links???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!

The bodies of the thousands of innocent civilians who died (and will die) in these unprecedented events could give a good god damn about Illegal Links, your childish Lego models, your nerf toy guns and whining about the lack of a "fun" workplace, your Everquest/Diablo/D&D fixation, the latest Cowboy Bebop rerun, or any of the other ways you are "getting on with your life" (here's a hint: watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with your life"). The souls of the victims are watching in horror as you people squander your finite, precious time on this earth playing video games!

You people disgust me!

Re:Get some PRIORITIES! (1)

aborchers (471342) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338283)

Haven't I seen this text before with another issue in place of "Illegal Links"? Is this a /bot?

Re:Get some PRIORITIES! (1)

jhunsake (81920) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338342)

That's like saying we should be focusing on the garbage dump on the edge of town.

Re:Get some PRIORITIES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338354)

Poor troll. Too obvious.

Whatever, man... (1)

fudgefactor7 (581449) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338243)

Personally, I don't see the big deal. It's not like the FARC are going to attack the US any time soon... They have more problems to worry about then us. Besides, removing a link doesn't block the site, it just makes people wonder what the big deal is and go read it.

At any rate, I think the CoS (Church of Scientology) are terrorists as well, threatening people and all that, but I bet the students could link to them without problem because the CoS is in the US--and as we all know, Americans can't be terrorists, right?... ;)

so nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338245)

of our dog shit president and company

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

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338246)

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 ? It's asking for trouble...

Close call! (1)

back_pages (600753) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338247)

I thought they were going declare this [] site illegal! We Americans wouldn't stand for that!

You can screw up our votes, censor us, lie to us, and treat us like criminals, but you can't take away our liberty to be apathetic lazy morons. What is with all this rabble rousing these days, anyway? Isn't it easier to just shut up and go along with whatever the government says? That's the American way... [disengage bitter cynicism]

This is only going to make UCSD look terrible. Whatever happened to empowering young people to think critically?

Who owns the box? (2)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338255)

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.

Re:Who owns the box? (1)

Ichoran (106539) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338310)

As I recall, UCSD does not own the box. It's a
private machine hooked up to the university's

Re:Who owns the box? (2)

WildBeast (189336) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338312)

Absolutely. But the problem is that the school removed it only because of the Patriot Act, otherwise they where okay with it.

Link (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338262)

link []

At some point you have to draw the line... (2)

raehl (609729) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338263)

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.

Easy solution (1)

crawdaddy (344241) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338264)

"If you'd like to know more about FARC, feel free to search for it on Google."


1st Amendment Problem (1)

LoRider (16327) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338269)

Yeah the first amendment is stupid and should only apply to the subjects that the Bushies like.

Free speach means that people are going to say shit you don't like - tough. If you don't like what someone is saying, say something against. We, the US, need to protect everyone's freedom even the freedom of people we don't like.

I recently heard the results of a poll that suggested 50% of all Americans feel the first amendment provides too much freedom. How is that possible, "Too much freedom". That's like "Too much fun", "Too much sex", "Too much happiness", "Too much peace". How can you have Too Much Freedom? There is nothing more sacred then protecting every humanbeing freedom - at all costs.

Re:1st Amendment Problem (2)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338364)

Freedom does not occurr in a vacuum. See: Freedom to kill other people and make them Unfree.

Any Freedom you enjoy will have ramifications on other people. For that reason, Freedom of Speech does not permit you to run hatemail campaigns. There are instances in which freedom invades the freedom of other people to live .. well .. free lives.

As for Too Much Sex, they have a condition for that: nymphomania. People lose their friends, family, jobs over this stuff.

Every single thing can be overdone, because nothing occurrs in a vacuum. When you overdo one thing, it has implications on the other things you and we need to survive and progress.

So please, don't wrap yourself up in the flag and dream of ideals. I agree that we must work to protect each others freedoms, but the trick is in figuring out when granting people a certain freedom impedes others' freedom more than it benifits those you grant it to.

That being said, if the Patriot Act has these implications, thats crazy. I like the idea of the 1st amendment (so long as it doesn't excuses abusing it, a la hate campaigns or manipulation .. for instance, freedom of speech doesn't grant you the freedom to lie on your taxes.)

Well Bush is the guy (2)

SquadBoy (167263) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338278)

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.

Good! (2)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338284)

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?

classic 1) 2) ??? 3) Profit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338287)

You knew it had to happen
1) Link to a terrorist web site
2) ???
3) PROFIT!!!

1) Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338331)


3) Sig!

This link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338298)

Is illegal []

Since it on the school's server... (2, Insightful)

Shant3030 (414048) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338304)

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.

If the 60's were like today... (2, Funny)

tekrat (242117) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338311)

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...

Breakin' the law! Breakin' the law! (1)

Theologian (583625) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338315)

And if they can't get the criminal charges to stick, they will probably charge them with civil [] crimes for using hyperlinks.....

Grr (2, Insightful)

Hamster Of Death (413544) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338317)

The part of this article that I will rememeber and that annoyed me the most at first glance, was the incorrect spelling of Colombia.

More trashy articles by a trash journalist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338323)

When will Slashdot's editors finally realize that Declan is a sleazeball who invents attention-grabbing stories around loosely related events to draw attention to himself?

The rest of the world has known for years...

What'sa terrorist organization? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4338324)

One man's terrorist organization is another man's freedom fighters.

That Think is Illegal (1)

second class skygod (242575) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338325)

Orwell was right. He just missed the date by 20 years or so.


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

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 11 years ago | (#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.

illegal linking (1)

squarefish (561836) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338340)

this sounds similar to the DeCSS [] case with 2600, but as stupid as it sounds they were still allowed to have the url posted afterwards. I wonder if these guys be able to get away with that?

culture of fear (1)

3583 Bytes Free (599675) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338341)

The effect of the Patriot act and similar freedom-crushings is that people don't even make the government do its own dirty work anymore. The uni says "remove that info because the government *might* have a problem with it." We're on our way to a self-policing state in which unorthodox opinions are quelled with "shh...someone might hear you." It's sad that a university isn't willing to at least let the authorities decide what they don't like, never mind fight them when they come knocking.

I find it ironic that commericals are running on US TV right now which celebrate freedom. In one, a few guys in a diner are talking and one starts complaining about how the gummint takes a lot of money in taxes. The other guys start getting nervous and tell him to keep quiet or else someone will come after him. Essentially they are propaganda to get people to support the government's war, yet the very instruments of that war are having the exact effect of limiting freedom shown in that commercial.

Armchair lawyers (5, Insightful)

dschuetz (10924) | more than 11 years ago | (#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.


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.

The King (5, Insightful)

sdjunky (586961) | more than 11 years ago | (#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

Internet Unconstitutional. (2, Interesting)

_Sambo (153114) | more than 11 years ago | (#4338362)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>