Welcome to Gaia! ::

So it begins. The internet is such a powerful medium for free speech that it was only a matter of time before governments started messing with it. Let's hope it doesn't get any worse than this.

They aren't inhibiting terrorism at all. Any wannabe terrorist with a bit of computer knowledge could get escape government detection. Besides, terrorists managed to do their work quite effectively before the internet even existed; what makes you think this will stop them?

I'm not helping terrorism at all by standing up for freedom of expression. I could easily turn your argument around and say that you are helping dictatorships and totalitarianism spread by supporting this legislation.

And I'm not making it any easier for them, either. The legislation does nothing but set a precedent for controlling free expression on the Internet.


So you wouldn't mind living under a totalitarian, corrupt regime that would kill or torture you for whatever reason they see fit?

I am completly opposed to such legislation. Terrorist propaganda is speech, too, and could provide valuable insight to their motives and goals. And just because somebody views information on how to make a bomb, doesn't mean they are going to use that information to attack innocent people. They could merly be interested, or even be a self starter who wants to lern how to disarm bombs, and thus, he needs to know how bombs are made.

But the #1 reason I am opposed is because of the precedent it sets. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so the saying goes. Oppresive and restictive laws always start out as being something reasonable. Elliminating Terrorist propoganda and instructions on how to build weapons might seem like a good thing, but its only the first step. Then there will be legislation to restict racists speech and sites. Seems like that would be good, right? Then religious speech, probably starting with muslims. Does this seem like a good thing? Then it goes on to Innapropriate content, and so on and so on, until we wind up with an IICC, International Internet Communications Committee, which exists specifically to censor everything on the web, and the last place for unrestricted, uncensored freedom of speech dissapers forever.

It might SEEM like a good idea now, but once it starts rolling, the snowball of internet regulation will keep growing and growing. And the terrorist will not go away just because we shut down their sites. They spread propaganda and bomb instruction through word of mouth, an avenue we cannot possibly stop. Suporters of this legislation say it will reduce terrorism. I doubt it will. They will simply move on to other avenues of recruitment, and we'll be left with governments that have gotten a taste of regulating the only place thats outside their control.

I'm saying thats how it starts. And yes, I am saying that we shouldn't make laws just because they seem reasonable. The FBI admits that it used Patriot Act powers to gather personal information on americans, and that it used them in the course of normal crimminal investigations which had nothing to do with terrorism. A law to fight terrorist became a tool for the government to spy on its own citizens. Patriot Act abuses prove laws with good intentions are not always limited in the fashion that was promised when legislators were trying to pass it. ((This information came from the ACLU homepage, back when the patriot act was still a major issue.)) If I could be garanteed that this new law would only be used to fight terrorist, I might feel differently. But since politicians are notoriously dishonest, and have proven time and again that they will expand upon any law which gives them more power, I'm against them passing it at all. It's true that Prohobition was repealed, and the Patriot act was allowed to sunset, but those are, unfortunatly, rare exceptions.

As for the streets being a place for uncensored and unrestricted freedom of speech, try this. Go around saying you dislike black people, making sure to use the "N" word. Also, tell people how much you would love to bomb a police station after you get a speeding ticket. You may get away with isolated incidents, but if you continually do this, expect to be arrested and/or sued. The streets are NOT unrestricted or uncensored. You can, however, say these things on the web, and reasonbly expect to get away with it, because the internet IS unrestricted and uncensored.

As for no fly list and other anti-terror laws, its all too easy for the government to say that so and so, or that such and such groups, may be terrorists, and restrict their freedom of travel. Think what the Burmese government would do with anti-terror laws. If you have paid in cash for an airline ticket recently, you probably know that this automatically red flags your ticket, and your instantly suspected of being a terrorist. Anti terror laws can restrict the movement of terrorist and non-terrorist alike. The war on terror is somewhat about terrorism, but it is also a large part about government expansion.

Think about this for a second. The U.S. had been accusing Saddam of having WMD's ever since the Gulf war ended, but didn't invade till after 9/11. That was because an invasion of Iraq before then wouldn't have increased government power. By combining Iraq with the war on terror, though, the US could expand its anti-terror laws, and everything happening in Iraq right now convinces the Americans that the laws are necessary. If Iraq was about WMD's, why didn't we do something about it before? We'd always insited he had them, why wait till 2003 to deal with this? It was about neither terrorism nor the supposed WMD's, both of which were nothing new to Iraq, but about providing a solid base for new government regulation, "to protect America from another terrorist attack."

Note: I'm just clarifying my position here, and explaining why I think what I do. In other words, I'm pulling out of this debate, since if I haven't changed your mind by now, I doubt I will.