Quote:

---

The parliament in Venezuela has approved a law which will tighten the rules regulating internet content.

Under the bill, online messages inciting hatred, or political and religious intolerance, are banned.

The new law also prohibits contents which is deemed to disrespect public officials.

Opposition politicians voted against the measure, which they say is a threat to freedom of speech.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says it will help protect citizens against online crimes.

Under the new rules, providers of online contents and internet portals could be fined if images or messages appearing on their sites "disrespect public authorities, incite or promote hatred or create anxiety in the citizenry or alter public order".

President Chavez says the law will shield citizens from messages promoting drug use, prostitution and other crimes.

'Fighting cybercrime'

"We aren't eliminating the internet here, or censoring it," he said during his weekly television and radio broadcast on Sunday.

"What we're doing is protecting ourselves against crimes, against cybercrimes," he added.

The Venezuelan Chamber of Electronic Commerce has criticised the measure saying that it is another step on the way to censorship and the blocking of websites.

Opposition politicians accuse President Chavez of passing a raft of restrictive laws before January, when a new parliament with more opposition delegates is sworn in.

The measure was passed just days after parliament voted to give President Chavez special powers to pass laws by decree for 18 months.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I often worry that something similar, albeit differently worded, will come to the U.S.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I often worry that something similar, albeit differently worded, will come to the U.S.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

“There are two great powers,” the man said, “and they’ve been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit.”
-Philip Pullman; The Subtle Knife

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sounds like they're trying to ban Wikileaks.

Who the hell do they think they are? AMERICA?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It HAS come to the US, multiple times, and each and every one it's eventually been shot down ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sounds like they're trying to ban Wikileaks.

Who the hell do they think they are? AMERICA?

---

No, Mike. They're trying to ban the folks in Venezuela who are like you and me and most of the folks in RWED. You know this, but don't want to admit it.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Double post. Haven't figured out the Mac trackpad yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

And the U.S. has taken strides to "ban" those same kinds of folks here in the good ol' U.S. of A. You may not like to admit it, but it's true.

---

Cites would be nice. not the Alien and Sedition Acts, but something that's actually been implemented in the last 10 or 15 years that'd make it a crime to criticize government policy or officials, perhaps.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
DT: Good call. I'm no fan of Venezuela under Chavez, but I don't think it's out of line to say that maybe we should tend to our own garden before we go rootin' around in someone else's.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer

Mike has a point.

Your recent post against wikileaks damages your position on net freedom or neutrality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


Originally posted by Geezer:
]Double post. Haven't figured out the Mac trackpad yet.
---

It gets easier.


One finger tracks you around the page. Two fingers on the pad scrolls the page up and down or side to side. Tap the arrow on the "Post My Response" button to post.

What Mac did you go with? I hated the trackpad at first - I've been on Mac desktops since '85, so trackpads have never felt "normal" to me, but now they do. I still have to finagle with the tracking speed on most of 'em to get them to track the way I like, but that will come.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Patriot Act provides all the cites you need.


http://www.kean.edu/~eslprog/accents/2006/page2006_13.html

---

Quote:

---

Also, the U.S. government has put out a "contract" for the assassination of a United States citizen, based purely on his words.

Killing someone for criticizing U.S. policy sounds like we consider such criticism to be not only a criminal act, but a capital one.

---

Quote:

---

Anwar Awlaki? If his words were, to paraphrase, "You should kill as many Americans as you can, here's how, and we'll make sure you're paid for it." and he was enabling terrorists and advising al Qaeda that's a bit different than mere criticism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

So you're not against assassinations, per se, I take it.

---

Quote:

---

What if it were a U.S. Senator saying he wanted to "Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran"? or nuke Mecca 'til it glows? Would the Saudis or the Iranians be well within their "rights" as nations to target that individual for assassination?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

So you're not against assassinations, per se, I take it.

---

Not sure when it became assassination to try and take out someone who's trying to kill people who are not involved in troubling him. Sounds more like self-defense to me. Would you approve of 'assassinating' someone trying to break into your house and murder you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Not the same, as you say. Alwaki hasn't broken into anyone's house and murdered them. He may have SPOKEN about doing so, but would you support the murder of people who merely speak of breaking into your house?

---

Quote:

---

So you'd agree that they're fair targets. U.S. soldiers at, say, Fort Hood are fair targets, since they are indeed actively planning the murders of others who aren't troubling them.

---

Quote:

---

The phrase “material support for terrorism” brings to mind money and weapons, or other goods and services that directly support a terrorist organization’s violent objectives or actions. But in June, the Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project upheld a much broader definition of material support—one that criminalizes speech advocating peace and human rights if it is “coordinated” with an official terrorist organization. It is this ruling that sets the stage for September’s raids.

“For the first time, [the court] actually says it’s criminal to speak out, to associate,” says Michael Deutsch, an attorney with the Chicago-based People’s Law Office and one of the National Lawyers Guild members working with the activists. “The ruling criminalizes First Amendment activity. It’s quite ominous.”

Material support for terrorism was first criminalized by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The 2001 PATRIOT Act broadened the definition of “material support” to include “expert advice or assistance” and provided a maximum sentence of 15 years. (The American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh was charged with, but not convicted of, providing material support to al Qaeda.) In 1998 the Humanitarian Law Project went to federal court to challenge the material support statute. The nonprofit group wanted to assist the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) with conflict resolution and human rights monitoring. It was later joined in the lawsuit by Tamil-American organizations wishing to provide medical assistance to victims of the 2004 South Asian tsunami, which would have required working with the now-defeated Tamil Tigers, which, like the PKK, is a State Department-listed terrorist group.

The Humanitarian Law Project argued that the material support law violated the First Amendment’s right to free speech. But a majority of the Supreme Court accepted the government’s argument—made by then-Solicitor General and current Justice Elena Kagan—that all nonviolent aid is properly illegal because it “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends” and “legitimates” foreign terrorist groups. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts clarified that the law only criminalizes speech “under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups,” leaving “independent advocacy” on the right side of the law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
When counselling and sympathy becomes a crime, when humanitarian aid is terrorism...

Then we're all fucking terrorists, aren't we?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Not the same, as you say. Alwaki hasn't broken into anyone's house and murdered them. He may have SPOKEN about doing so, but would you support the murder of people who merely speak of breaking into your house?

---

Not merely SPOKEN. He's planned, hired or recruited folks, advised or consulted with the leaders of the folks, and encouraged and supported the folks who have killed or tried to kill scores of innocents. You know this, and continue to play dumb.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Speakin of...

Terrorist by Association
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6745/terrorist_by_association

Quote:

---

The phrase “material support for terrorism” brings to mind money and weapons, or other goods and services that directly support a terrorist organization’s violent objectives or actions. But in June, the Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project upheld a much broader definition of material support—one that criminalizes speech advocating peace and human rights if it is “coordinated” with an official terrorist organization. It is this ruling that sets the stage for September’s raids.

“For the first time, [the court] actually says it’s criminal to speak out, to associate,” says Michael Deutsch, an attorney with the Chicago-based People’s Law Office and one of the National Lawyers Guild members working with the activists. “The ruling criminalizes First Amendment activity. It’s quite ominous.”

Material support for terrorism was first criminalized by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The 2001 PATRIOT Act broadened the definition of “material support” to include “expert advice or assistance” and provided a maximum sentence of 15 years. (The American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh was charged with, but not convicted of, providing material support to al Qaeda.) In 1998 the Humanitarian Law Project went to federal court to challenge the material support statute. The nonprofit group wanted to assist the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) with conflict resolution and human rights monitoring. It was later joined in the lawsuit by Tamil-American organizations wishing to provide medical assistance to victims of the 2004 South Asian tsunami, which would have required working with the now-defeated Tamil Tigers, which, like the PKK, is a State Department-listed terrorist group.

The Humanitarian Law Project argued that the material support law violated the First Amendment’s right to free speech. But a majority of the Supreme Court accepted the government’s argument—made by then-Solicitor General and current Justice Elena Kagan—that all nonviolent aid is properly illegal because it “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends” and “legitimates” foreign terrorist groups. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts clarified that the law only criminalizes speech “under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups,” leaving “independent advocacy” on the right side of the law.

---

In short, if the State Dept doesn't like the organisation you decide to help, merely being on speaking terms with them is entirely sufficient, much less being disparaging of our leadership and/or actions - and this is very personal and grating to me since RAWA is very likely going to wind up on that list eventually as a sop to Kharazi and his fundamentalist goons.

When counselling and sympathy becomes a crime, when humanitarian aid is terrorism...

Then we're all fucking terrorists, aren't we ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

---