OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Movies News The Internet GNU is Not Unix The Almighty Buck
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 jobs
 hof

Sections
apache
Sep 30
(1 recent)

apple
Sep 30
(3 recent)

articles
Sep 30
(30 recent)

askslashdot
Sep 30
(10 recent)

books
Sep 27

bsd
Sep 27

developers
Sep 30
(3 recent)

features
Sep 28
(1 recent)

interviews
Sep 30
(1 recent)

radio
Jun 29

science
Sep 30
(7 recent)

yro
Sep 28
(1 recent)

That Link Is Illegal
EducationPosted by timothy on Thursday September 26, @02:18PM
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."

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· Declan McCullagh piece
· More on Education
· Also by timothy

Your Rights Online
· Eldred vs. Ashcroft
· Hearing on Hollywood Hacking Bill
· OnStar Nav. System Used to Track Bank Robbers
· Cringely On Civil Disobedience
· Revisiting Berman-Coble Copyright Bill
· An Introduction to GNU Privacy Guard
· That Link Is Illegal
· Hearings On Bills To "Promote" Digital TV
· Lessig On Bounties For Spamhunters
· Wayback Machine Purged of Scientology Criticism

<  Why Software Piracy is Good for Microsoft | An Introduction to GNU Privacy Guard  >
That Link Is Illegal | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 774 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
More news and background.... (Score:5, Informative)
by tiltowait (mindless@mindless.com) on Thursday September 26, @02:20PM (#4338120)
(User #306189 Info | http://bbspot.com/toys/slashtitle/)
here [dmoz.org].
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
USA Patriot (Score:5, Insightful)
by cyclist1200 on Thursday September 26, @02:20PM (#4338123)
(User #513080 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Gotta love that 1st Amendment. Now, where'd that thing go anyway?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:USA Patriot by AKnightCowboy (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @02:53PM
    • Re:USA Patriot by EvlOvrLrd (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:46PM
      • Re:USA Patriot by buswolley (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:02PM
      • Re:USA Patriot by Ntense007 (Score:1) Friday September 27, @02:53PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:USA Patriot (Score:4, Interesting)
    by FortKnox on Thursday September 26, @02:56PM (#4338508)
    (User #169099 Info | http://www.marotti.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 30, @12:36PM)
    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.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • How far from China are we with this "Patriot" Act? by MichaelPenne (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:58PM
  • Re:USA Patriot by Lux (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:13PM
  • Re:USA Patriot by The_Guv'na (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @06:17PM
    • Re:USA Patriot (Score:5, Interesting)
    by dytin on Thursday September 26, @02:34PM (#4338273)
    (User #517293 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    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.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:USA Patriot (Score:4, Insightful)
      by netphilter on Thursday September 26, @02:37PM (#4338308)
      (User #549954 Info | http://jason.whitehatorganization.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 30, @11:48AM)
      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.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:USA Patriot by Ian Wolf (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:46PM
        • Re:USA Patriot by mal3 (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:29PM
          • Re:USA Patriot by boomer_rehfield (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @05:42PM
        • Re:USA Patriot (Score:5, Informative)
        by Henry V .009 (marstrail@@@hotmail...com) on Thursday September 26, @02:47PM (#4338424)
        (User #518000 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
        I don't think that you understand our first ammendment. It is perfectly legal for a book publisher to publish a book by Hussein, or for a news organization to run bin Laden's videos. A newspaper can even run unibomber essays if it wants.

        Perhaps you can be a bit clearer about the difference between "vehicles of communication" and "speech."

        Is a "vehicle of communication" anything like a volkswagon van?
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • Re:USA Patriot by netphilter (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:58PM
          • Re:USA Patriot by Henry V .009 (Score:3) Thursday September 26, @03:12PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:USA Patriot by DaBunny (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:14PM
              Re:USA Patriot (Score:5, Insightful)
              by kallisti (rmidthun@yahoo.com) on Thursday September 26, @03:36PM (#4338824)
              (User #20737 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
              If the "PATRIOT" law attempted to forbid the media from playing or printing information, that would be a law "abridging the freedom of the press."


              Such as...


              Sec 501: [The FBI] may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

              and the kicker:

              No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

              -----------

              This means that the FBI can ask for anything and everything and no one is allowed to even mention it, much less report it in the media. If this power is being abused, how will anyone ever find out?
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              • Re:USA Patriot by MrResistor (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:45PM
                  Careful of Overinterpretation (Score:5, Interesting)
                  by virg_mattes on Thursday September 26, @05:02PM (#4339479)
                  (User #230616 Info)
                  You have to be careful to read the section exactly as it says, so as not to overextend the idea of what it does. The section quoted says that the FBI can demand production of any or all media necessary for an investigation, and the owner of the media isn't allowed to tell any unnecessary parties about the request. In real life, this means that if you had a video of bin Laden, the FBI could demand it, and you can't tell anybody that they demanded it. This section would not, however, prevent you from copying the tape, nor would it prevent you from airing it on TV (if you were a reporter). You can't announce that the FBI has a copy of the tape, but you can announce that you have it, and you can show it. It's the request and knowledge of the investigation that the law is designed to supress, not the evidence itself.

                  Virg
                  [ Reply to This | Parent ]
                  • Re:Careful of Overinterpretation by MrResistor (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:31PM
                  • Re:Careful of Overinterpretation by pauls2272 (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @06:06PM
                  • Re:Careful of Overinterpretation by Dog and Pony (Score:2) Friday September 27, @03:18AM
                  • I can just see this.... by mark-t (Score:2) Friday September 27, @04:09PM
                    • Swing and a Miss by virg_mattes (Score:2) Friday September 27, @04:11PM
                    • Funny, but with One Big Nit by virg_mattes (Score:2) Friday September 27, @04:26PM
                    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
                  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
              • Re:USA Patriot by Ian Wolf (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:17PM
              • OT: bin Laden video by Chops (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @04:07PM
              • Re:USA Patriot by quintessent (Score:3) Thursday September 26, @04:28PM
              • Re:USA Patriot by SubtleNuance (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:08PM
            • Re:USA Patriot by jhampson (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:13PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:USA Patriot by MrResistor (Score:3) Thursday September 26, @03:35PM
          • Google also in violation? by Steve Franklin (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:37PM
            • Re:USA Patriot (Score:5, Insightful)
            by alfredw ([ac.atreblau] [ta] [wderfla]) on Thursday September 26, @03:37PM (#4338836)
            (User #318652 Info | http://www.freealf.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 11, @09:45PM)
            he 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.

            No, it doesn't. A link is free speech. I am speaking your address when I link to you. For example, I could take a stack of paper and print an address to which you could write to get a pamphlet about FARC and this would not be illegal. Indeed, it is *exactly* the same as posting a link, except for the fact that printed material enjoys a wide body of case law defending it and online media does not. In any case, whatever the USA PATRIOT Act says about the legalities of this situation is irrelevant - it is blatantly unconstitutional in this regard, and is therefore unenforceable - it is an illegal law.

            So this is still a free speech issue. Can I tell you where to find information? (I'd point out that both in the case of a web page and an address, the receipient of the information must initiate a request to receive it) If not, we'd better shutdown the search engines, lock up the library catalogues, tear the bibliographies out of the backs of our books, shut down the postal service and keep or children far away from schools.
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          • Re:USA Patriot by happyclam (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:40PM
          • Re:USA Patriot by scaryjohn (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:54PM
          • Isn't "Providing a Vehicle" what a Free Press by MichaelPenne (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:56PM
          • Re:USA Patriot by DunbarTheInept (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @04:11PM
          • Re:USA Patriot by xyzzy-ladder (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:33PM
            • Re:USA Patriot by Alain Raynaud (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @05:28PM
          • Re:USA Patriot by 1stmammaltowearpants (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @06:27PM
          • You're American, Aren't You? by virg_mattes (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:35PM
          • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:USA Patriot by laertes (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @04:59PM
        • Re:USA Patriot by taernim (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @07:17PM
        • Re:USA Patriot by Rasta Prefect (Score:2) Friday September 27, @12:29PM
        • Re:USA Patriot by rossy (Score:1) Saturday September 28, @03:34AM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
        Whaaat? (Score:5, Insightful)
        by cje on Thursday September 26, @02:37PM (#4338314)
        (User #33931 Info | http://kestrel.cso.uiuc.edu/~cje)
        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.)
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • For Clarification... by netphilter (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @02:41PM
          • Re:For Clarification... by Tri0de (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:53PM
              Shall Make No Law... (Score:5, Interesting)
              by RgnadKzin on Thursday September 26, @03:26PM (#4338749)
              (User #594150 Info)
              Let's see if we can reconstruct the chain of events, shall we? The US uses the CIA to overthrow the lawful government of Iran, and installs the Shah. Years later, the Shah is ousted in a coup d'etat and replaced with a regime unfriendly to the US (surprise). The US then uses the CIA to overthrow the lawful government of Iraq and installs the butcher Sodamn Insane. This was done to counter the influence of Iran (that fell because of interventionist policy). Next, the US uses the CIA to train Osama bin Laden and his ilk to fight the commies in Afghanistan. Then Klinton bombs him to wag the dog to avert attention from a certain stained blue dress.

              Now, we complain that the enemies that we trained are out to kill the masters who trained them. Pity.

              Today's issue with the USA PATRIOT (sic) Act is the fact that it is an implementation of executive authority pursuant to law martial rule of necessity in the face of a Clear and Present Danger. It does not matter that it is decades of American Hegemony and interventionist foreign policy that created the situation (or is it?)


              American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 396 (1950)               [findlaw.com]:

              The Court sustained a law barring from access to the NLRB any labor union if any of its officers failed to file annually an oath disclaiming membership in the Communist Party and belief in the violent overthrow of the government.

              For the Court, Chief Justice Vinson rejected reliance on the clear and present danger test. "Government's interest here is not in preventing the dissemination of Communist doctrine or the holding of particular beliefs because it is feared that unlawful action will result therefrom if free speech is practiced. Its interest is in protecting the free flow of commerce from what Congress considers to be substantial evils of conduct that are not the products of speech at all. Section 9(h), in other words, does not interfere with speech because Congress fears the consequences of speech; it regulates harmful conduct which Congress has determined is carried on by persons who may be identified by their political affiliations and beliefs. The Board does not contend that political strikes . . . are the present or impending products of advocacy of the doctrines of Communism or the expression of belief in overthrow of the Government by force. On the contrary, it points out that such strikes are called by persons who, so Congress has found, have the will and power to do so without advocacy."

              The test, rather, must be one of balancing of interests. "When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgement of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of these two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the particular circumstances presented." Inasmuch as the interest in the restriction, the government's right to prevent political strikes and the disruption of commerce, is much more substantial than the limited interest on the other side in view of the relative handful of persons affected in only a partial manner, the Court perceived no difficulty upholding the statute.

              So, in the current climate of a Clear and Present Danger, political speech has now been relegated to a loyalty test. A test to see if the people will blindly follow a sucession of leaders who drew us into this situation in the first place.

              So now the friends of my enemies are my enemies, and the First Amendment be damned if it questions the authority of the butchers living in the District of Criminals.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            • Re:For Clarification... by SubtleNuance (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:13PM
            • Re:For Clarification... by xyzzy-ladder (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:41PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:For Clarification... by Storm Damage (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:12PM
        • Re:Whaaat? by mattsucks (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:37PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        Nonesense (Score:4, Insightful)
        by Raul Acevedo (r a u l @ c a n t a r a . c o m) on Thursday September 26, @03:04PM (#4338575)
        (User #15878 Info | http://www.cantara.com)
        Having a link to a web site is not providing "material" support. It's not providing anything except a link to information.

        Following that logic, libraries should eliminate all books which discuss al Qaeda, even if they are just historical. Magazines and newspapers discussing any terrorist organization should be banned. Any articles discussing where to find more information on terrorist organizations would be banned.

        The university is being ridiculous.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • Re:Nonesense by _Swank (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:28PM
          • Re:Nonesense by Moofie (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:52PM
          • Re:Nonsense indeed by buswolley (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:59PM
          • Re:Nonesense by Darby (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:12PM
            • Re:Nonesense by rgarcia (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @06:14PM
              • Re:Nonesense by Darby (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @07:21PM
            • Re:Nonesense by No One (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @06:53PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:USA Patriot by Darby (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @04:14PM
      • Lets go after the Nazis and KKK then by HanzoSan (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @06:33PM
      • 6 replies beneath your current threshold.
      And? (Score:3, Insightful)
      by Kenja on Thursday September 26, @02:20PM (#4338124)
      (User #541830 Info | http://www.klassy.com/)
      What's the problem with this? Its a school computer, they get to say whats OK.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:And? by Sc00ter (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:22PM
        • Re:And? by Kenja (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @02:41PM
          • Re:And? by jadavis (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:05PM
            • Re:And? by chris_mahan (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:11PM
              • Re:And? by jadavis (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @05:07PM
          • Re:And? by Lemmy Caution (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @04:14PM
        • Re:And? by stefanlasiewski (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:03PM
          • Re:And? by bwt (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:43PM
      • Re:And? by cyclist1200 (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @02:22PM
        • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
        by Lemmy Caution on Thursday September 26, @02:23PM (#4338158)
        (User #8378 Info | http://localhost/)
        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.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
          by Geeyzus (mark_madej.yahoo@com) on Thursday September 26, @02:31PM (#4338251)
          (User #99967 Info)
          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
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          • Re:And? by Lemmy Caution (Score:3) Thursday September 26, @02:48PM
            • Re:And? by Doomdark (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:43PM
          • Re:And? by TyZone (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:50PM
            • Re:And? by Jaysyn (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:15PM
          • Re:And? by CapnGib (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:50PM
          • Re:And? by SamTheButcher (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @05:07PM
          • Re:And? by jaiteend (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @11:32PM
        • Which is worse? by sterno (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:31PM
        • Re:And? by bamm (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:03PM
        • Re:And? by Puk (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:39PM
        • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:And? by xTMFWahoo (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:25PM
        • Re:And? by Khaed (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @02:54PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:And? by SirSlud (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:25PM
        • Re:And? by jgerman (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:55PM
          • FYI by Lemmy Caution (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:33PM
            • Re:FYI by chris_mahan (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @08:30PM
      • Re:And? by Master Bait (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @02:29PM
        • Re:And? by Skjellifetti (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:34PM
          • Re:And? by nevershower (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:15PM
          • Re:And? by AlgUSF (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:33PM
          • Re:And? by Kwikymart (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:22PM
          • Re:And? by HP LoveJet (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:57PM
          • Re:And? by Skjellifetti (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:22PM
          • Re:And? by mOdQuArK! (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @05:26PM
          • Re:And? by Darby (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:31PM
          • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:And? by EddydaSquige (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @02:47PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:And? by dameron (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:31PM
      • Re:And? by Some Dumbass... (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @09:21PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      Great! (Score:5, Funny)
      by seizer on Thursday September 26, @02:21PM (#4338136)
      (User #16950 Info | http://xult.org/)
      Let me be the first to congratulate Slashdot on their courageous stand [farc-ep.org] against the Patriot Act. ;-)
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Go Che! (Score:1)
      by blugecko on Thursday September 26, @02:21PM (#4338137)
      (User #152079 Info)
      Good to see that Che is still riling shit up, even if it's not him personally....
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:Go Che! by TheWickedKingJeremy (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:44PM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      Wait.... (Score:4, Funny)
      by booyaka (bagerson@hotmail.com) on Thursday September 26, @02:21PM (#4338138)
      (User #563501 Info)
      Where's the link?

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

      yeahyeah...troll -1

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:Wait.... by cyclist1200 (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @02:25PM
        • Re:Wait.... by sterno (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @02:35PM
        • Re:Wait.... by Anonvmous Coward (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:42PM
      • Re:Wait.... by SquadBoy (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @02:28PM
        • Re:Wait.... by stefanlasiewski (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:41PM
          • Re:Wait.... by TulioSerpio (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:01PM
          • Re:Wait.... by Henry V .009 (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:04PM
            • Re:Wait.... by jazman_777 (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:49PM
              • Re:Wait.... by Henry V .009 (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @04:02PM
                • Re:Wait.... by SubtleNuance (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @05:27PM
                  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
              • Re:Wait.... by Darby (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:56PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Wait.... by kableh (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:38PM
              • Re:Wait.... by issachar (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:24PM
            • Re:Wait.... by Darby (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:54PM
            • Oh sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
            by sterno (sterno at bigbrother dot net) on Thursday September 26, @02:42PM (#4338365)
            (User #16320 Info | http://www.bigbrother.net/sterno/)
            Fine, just go ahead and start a political debate why don't ya? :)

            It's real easy to tell that the FARC is a terrorist group. The US doesn't like them, thus they are a terrorist group. This seems to be about the only qualification to get labeled a terrorist by this government.

            Genuinely I think you can say that the FARC is a terrorist organization because they have been responsible for military attacks on civilian targets. Having said that though, so's the columbian government and the militia groups that said government backs. And you might even imply, by extension, that the US government is a terrorist organization since they back the columbian government. But now I'm splitting hairs.

            It all boils down to the fact that "terrorist" is the new version of "communist" which was itself a newer version of the term "witch". You apply it to anybody who interferes with the way you want the world to run and see how long you can get away with it.
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            • Re:Oh sure... by SquadBoy (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:30PM
              • Re:Oh sure... by Augusto (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:24PM
            • Re:Oh sure... by booyaka (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:00PM
              • Re:Oh sure... by Augusto (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:41PM
                • Re:Oh sure... by Chris Burke (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @06:11PM
                • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Oh sure... by IdahoEv (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @04:42PM
            • Re:Oh sure... by rwhamann (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @08:27PM
            • FYI by kenmtraveller (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @11:51PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Oh sure... by physicScholar (Score:1) Friday September 27, @05:22AM
            • Re:Oh sure... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @06:09PM
            • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
        Quick, someone shut down Google! (Score:1, Redundant)
        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26, @02:21PM (#4338139)
        Link [google.com]
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Some illegal links (Score:2, Informative)
        by buzzdecafe on Thursday September 26, @02:21PM (#4338141)
        (User #583889 Info)
        Here is the FARC site [farc-ep.org]


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

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Now it's up to the lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
        by netwiz (netwiz@spam.spam. ... atertower.com.spa) on Thursday September 26, @02:23PM (#4338163)
        (User #33291 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
        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.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        A double pointer? (Score:5, Insightful)
        by Joe the Lesser on Thursday September 26, @02:24PM (#4338172)
        (User #533425 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 30, @05:13PM)
        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.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Lost, please return (Score:5, Funny)
        by FU_Fish on Thursday September 26, @02:25PM (#4338183)
        (User #140910 Info | http://www.jeffsbasement.net/)
        Lost: 1 Bill of Rights.

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

        Thank you.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Lost, please return (Score:5, Insightful)
          by Ian Wolf on Thursday September 26, @02:36PM (#4338297)
          (User #171633 Info)
          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.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • Re:Lost, please return by gsfprez (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:25PM
        • vetoed by simpl3x (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:29PM
        • Found: Bill of Rights by fruity1983 (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @06:29PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
        You in the beret! (Score:5, Funny)
        by rbanzai on Thursday September 26, @02:25PM (#4338192)
        (User #596355 Info | Last Journal: Tuesday August 06, @06:52PM)
        Put your hands up and step away from the mouse... slowly...
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Compliance with a law is noteworthy? (Score:2)
        by Logic Bomb on Thursday September 26, @02:27PM (#4338212)
        (User #122875 Info)
        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
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        So can they do what Google did? (Score:5, Interesting)
        by billbaggins (jp_baggins@yahooP ... com minus painter) on Thursday September 26, @02:29PM (#4338230)
        (User #156118 Info)
        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?

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Whatever, man... (Score:1)
        by fudgefactor7 on Thursday September 26, @02:30PM (#4338243)
        (User #581449 Info)
        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?... ;)
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        It's a university computer... (Score:3, Insightful)
        by stefanlasiewski (flarg@@@flarg...org) on Thursday September 26, @02:30PM (#4338246)
        (User #63134 Info | http://www.flarg.org/)
        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...
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Close call! (Score:1)
        by back_pages on Thursday September 26, @02:30PM (#4338247)
        (User #600753 Info)
        I thought they were going declare this [fark.com] 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?

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Who owns the box? (Score:2)
        by southpolesammy (imes@CHEETAHinsight.rr.com minus cat) on Thursday September 26, @02:31PM (#4338255)
        (User #150094 Info | http://www.comprank.com/)
        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.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        At some point you have to draw the line... (Score:2)
        by raehl on Thursday September 26, @02:32PM (#4338263)
        (User #609729 Info | http://www.college-paintball.com/)
        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.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Easy solution (Score:1)
        by crawdaddy on Thursday September 26, @02:32PM (#4338264)
        (User #344241 Info)
        "If you'd like to know more about FARC, feel free to search for it on Google."

        -Craw
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        1st Amendment Problem (Score:1)
        by LoRider on Thursday September 26, @02:33PM (#4338269)
        (User #16327 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
        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.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Well Bush is the guy (Score:2)
        by SquadBoy on Thursday September 26, @02:34PM (#4338278)
        (User #167263 Info | http://www.unixnetworking.net/)
        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.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        Good! (Score:2)
        by American AC in Paris on Thursday September 26, @02:35PM (#4338284)
        (User #230456 Info | http://www.snowplow.org/tom/)
        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?

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • Re:Good! by Tired_Blood (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @07:33PM
        Since it on the school's server... (Score:2, Insightful)
        by Shant3030 on Thursday September 26, @02:36PM (#4338304)
        (User #414048 Info)
        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.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        If the 60's were like today... (Score:2, Funny)
        by tekrat on Thursday September 26, @02:37PM (#4338311)
        (User #242117 Info | http://www.obsolyte.com/)
        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...

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Breakin' the law! Breakin' the law! (Score:1)
        by Theologian on Thursday September 26, @02:37PM (#4338315)
        (User #583625 Info)

        And if they can't get the criminal charges to stick, they will probably charge them with civil [com.com] crimes for using hyperlinks.....
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Grr (Score:2, Insightful)
        by Hamster Of Death on Thursday September 26, @02:38PM (#4338317)
        (User #413544 Info)
        The part of this article that I will rememeber and that annoyed me the most at first glance, was the incorrect spelling of Colombia.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • Re:Grr by Theologian (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:03PM
        That Think is Illegal (Score:1)
        by second class skygod on Thursday September 26, @02:38PM (#4338325)
        (User #242575 Info)
        Orwell was right.  He just missed the date by 20 years or so.

        -scsg
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
        by scheming daemons on Thursday September 26, @02:38PM (#4338327)
        (User #101928 Info | http://www.dtfb.org/rush)
        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.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        illegal linking (Score:1)
        by squarefish (james.kindnet@com) on Thursday September 26, @02:40PM (#4338340)
        (User #561836 Info | http://www.kindnet.com/)
        this sounds similar to the DeCSS [2600.com] 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?
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        culture of fear (Score:1)
        by 3583 Bytes Free on Thursday September 26, @02:40PM (#4338341)
        (User #599675 Info)
        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.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Armchair lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
        by dschuetz (slash&david,dasnet,org) on Thursday September 26, @02:41PM (#4338352)
        (User #10924 Info | http://www.dasnet.org/)
        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.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • moot by geek (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:51PM
          • Re:moot by dschuetz (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @02:57PM
            • Re:moot by geek (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:02PM
            • Re:moot by woodsma (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:08PM
        • Re:Armchair lawyers by jgerman (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @03:14PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        The King (Score:5, Insightful)
        by sdjunky on Thursday September 26, @02:42PM (#4338361)
        (User #586961 Info)
        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
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Internet Unconstitutional. (Score:2, Interesting)
        by _Sambo (ender@waldenpond.uk) on Thursday September 26, @02:42PM (#4338362)
        (User #153114 Info)
        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.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Thoughtcrime is death (Score:5, Insightful)
        by RockyJSquirel on Thursday September 26, @02:43PM (#4338381)
        (User #412960 Info)
        Thoughtcrimes are double plus ungood.

        Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.

        Rocky J. Squirrel
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        huh? (Score:1)
        by BigBir3d (chris at malkavian dot ORG) on Thursday September 26, @02:43PM (#4338382)
        (User #454486 Info | http://www.yzedf.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 27, @02:07PM)
        How is a hyperlink interpreted as"communications equipment"?

        Equipment implies something physical (radio, satellite phone etc). A hyperlink is not physical. That would be the same as saying AT&T should stop providing telephone service because they are providing "communications equipment" to "terrorists" the world over.

        And since when does UCSD get to usurp the authority of the FBI?
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Wait a minute... (Score:3, Funny)
        by Washizu (bengarvey@NOsPaM.comcast.net) on Thursday September 26, @02:44PM (#4338394)
        (User #220337 Info | http://www.bengarvey.com/)
        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.

         
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Breaking the law! (Score:1)
        by mustangdavis on Thursday September 26, @02:45PM (#4338399)
        (User #583344 Info | http://www.coldfirestudios.com/)
        http://www.terrorist.com [terrorist.com]

        Come and get me!

        * j/k*
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        UCSD (Score:5, Insightful)
        by br00tus on Thursday September 26, @02:48PM (#4338426)
        (User #528477 Info)
        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

        Read the rest of this comment...

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • Re:UCSD by Obfuscant (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @03:38PM
          • Re:UCSD by br00tus (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @04:08PM
            • Re:UCSD by UdoKeir (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @04:41PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:UCSD by Eric Smith (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:19PM
            • Al Qaeda Personal Ads? by commodoresloat (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @09:49PM
            • Re:UCSD by Eric Smith (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @07:58PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:UCSD by crawling_chaos (Score:3) Thursday September 26, @04:17PM
          • Re:UCSD by hoytt (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @06:18PM
        • Re:UCSD by skelf (Score:2) Thursday September 26, @05:32PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        different from China's policy toward Falun Gong? (Score:1)
        by victorvodka on Thursday September 26, @02:48PM (#4338429)
        (User #597971 Info)
        It's illegal in China to link to Falun Gong websites because FG is regarded as a "terrorist organization." I don't see this policy as very different. The question is: should we be happy that our laws are stomping out dissent in a manner similar to that of the Chinese? I'm sure it's still perfectly legal for UCSD students to link to organizations that advocate the violent overthrow (and commercial airplane bombing) of Cuba - there are members of such organizations in high places in the Bush administration. Otto Reich [globalexchange.org] comes immediately to mind.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Books Banned (Score:2, Funny)
        by m0rph3us0 on Thursday September 26, @02:50PM (#4338449)
        (User #549631 Info)
        In other news books are now banned, Film at 11
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Books Banned (Score:4, Interesting)
          by josepha48 on Thursday September 26, @03:03PM (#4338574)
          (User #13953 Info)
          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.

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        "communications equipment" (Score:1)
        by the bluebrain on Thursday September 26, @02:53PM (#4338473)
        (User #443451 Info)
        As far as I can tell, this is a veeeery broad interpretation of the most awfully-named act ever.
         
        I have a more deserving focus though: anyone else notice how on the FARC [farc-ep.org] page they give their email address as tematicosfarcep@hotmail.com [mailto]?
         
        Now *that* is providing communications.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        I really, really hate the Che Cafe (Score:1)
        by sideshow (nickATtrendwhore.com) on Thursday September 26, @02:54PM (#4338482)
        (User #99249 Info | http://www.trendwhore.com/)
        I went to a hardcore music show there a year ago and the only drinks they had were vegan "cokes". I might as well been drinking brine water because my alleged cherry cola tasted like complete ass. I asked for a Red Bull and I swear the snack bar guy almost punch me in the face. He said they didn't serve drinks with bull semen, and he said through clenched teeth. What a bunch of fuckers.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Can someone define "terrorist"? (Score:1)
        by tekrat on Thursday September 26, @02:54PM (#4338487)
        (User #242117 Info | http://www.obsolyte.com/)
        Who's a terrorist seems to depend entirely upon your point of view.

        If someone slams an airplane into a building to blow it up, yep, that's terrorism.

        If someone drops bombs on your buildings without provocation, isn't that also terrorism?

        Now the USA (or rather Duyba) wants to drop bombs on Iraq, without provocation.... Who's the terrorist now?

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        History is just doing that cyclic thing it does (Score:1)
        by zurmikopa on Thursday September 26, @02:55PM (#4338496)
        (User #460568 Info | http://www.kalling.net/)
        *cough*McCarthyism*cough*
        *cough*Salem*cough*
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Someone call Yahoo. (Score:1)
        by Jaywalk (jaywalk@techie.com) on Thursday September 26, @02:56PM (#4338509)
        (User #94910 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
        By this definition, every search engine that points to that web site in respose to a search for "FARC" would be guilty. It's also assuming that providing information is the same as providing material support. By that logic, every news organization that tried to explain the mindset of a terrorist (including NPR [npr.org] which read a terrorist's statement on the air last week) would be guilty as well.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Censorship or opening minds (Score:1)
        by RCO on Thursday September 26, @02:57PM (#4338519)
        (User #597148 Info)
        I thought that one of the things you were supposed to get out of a college education was a broader understanding, as opposed to an understanding of broads. Before this can happen, you have to have an open mind and you need to be receptive to the ideas of others. Unless I'm mistaken, censorship does not accomplish this goal. Granted, according to the article, there was nothing at the website that was fact which means, I assume, that it was all propoganda, but even propoganda allows you to come to some sort of understanding about the person that is spreading it. Censoring this information doesn't make these poeple go away, it just makes it so that nobody understands why they end up doing some of the things they do. So, in the end, whether this is a 1st Amendment issue or not, it seems to go against the entire idea of Universities broadening the minds of its students.

        Just my 2c

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        "providing support to support terrorists" (Score:2)
        by gentlewizard (gentleNOwizardSPAM@hotmail.com) on Thursday September 26, @02:58PM (#4338527)
        (User #300741 Info)
        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!
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        FUCK - this really pisses me off (Score:1)
        by asscroft on Thursday September 26, @03:01PM (#4338553)
        (User #610290 Info | http://www.law.corne...on.billofrights.html)

        Now all Microsoft has to do is get /. labeled a terrorist network and no one will be allowed to read any open source news.

        It's that easy. The link for FARC is somewhere on here, many of us support the che cafe - if not the FARC.

        The FBI could label /. terrorist if MS helped by greasing the wheels of "justice" with some cash and BAM

        no more wasting time reading news for nerds. I'll have to settle for news for sheep [cnn.com].

        Your second ammendment is there to protect your first ammendment.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • HAHA. by asscroft (Score:1) Thursday September 26, @06:02PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        Isn't it amusing (Score:1)
        by mike449 (mike449_at_mail_dot_ru) on Thursday September 26, @03:02PM (#4338562)
        (User #238450 Info)
        that the Cnet article itself has links to FARC and PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) websites?
        This clearly shows CNET position on the issue, even though they don't express it explicitly in the article.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • 20 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • (1) | 2 | 3 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
        		 
                 		  Never try to outstubborn a cat. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
        All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
        [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]