Eric Holder wants "reasonable restrictions" on free speech on the internet

[GeezerMan]

Link

Eric Holder wants "reasonable restrictions" on free speech on the internet. This guy keeps on getting better and better. I want Alberto Gonzales back, almost.


"The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is gonna be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at." - Eric Holder , May 28, 1999 NPR Morning Edition

 

[OCGuy]

Anyone care to defend this?

 

[BoberFett]

Bu bu but Bush!

 

[her209]

While there shouldn't be any restrictions on free speech ever, it doesn't mean you should be free from the consequences of exercising said free speech.

 

[JSt0rm]

wait he said that in 1999? 10 years ago?

 

[JSt0rm]

Lol Geezer I'm glad to see you changed your edit back to 1999. I was gonna bust your balls

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: her209
While there shouldn't be any restrictions on free speech ever, it doesn't mean you should be free from the consequences of exercising said free speech.

:thumbsup:

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Lol Geezer I'm glad to see you changed your edit back to 1999. I was gonna bust your balls

I thought it was a typo, then I checked again I found it was back in 1999. It shows where this guy is coming from. The Alberto Gonzales School of Fascist Government.


Whhooppsss..just got a call from the DoJ. They said I can't say that. damn....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm sure that since he holds the AOG spot, he won't say this now.

 

[senseamp]

I don't think he's gonna party like it's 1999.

 

[Red Dawn]

Looks like he was wrong which is cool as long as he doesn't try to restrict free speech now.

 

[GeezerMan]

Since he said that before 9/11, I bet he is chomping at the bit to do it now.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Lol Geezer I'm glad to see you changed your edit back to 1999. I was gonna bust your balls

I thought it was a typo, then I checked again I found it was back in 1999. It shows where this guy is coming from. The Alberto Gonzales School of Fascist Government.


Whhooppsss..just got a call from the DoJ. They said I can't say that. damn....

rofl

 

[WHAMPOM]

Well, I would approve of porn sites getting a .xxx designation and a simple blocking setup to go with it. Other than keeping porn off kids' computers I see no use of restrictions on the internet.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Since he said that before 9/11, I bet he is chomping at the bit to do it now.

Or not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Anyone care to defend this?

What's to defend? There are already 'reasonable restrictions' on free speech as it is, like death threats, slander, libel, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, kiddie porn, and so forth. I see no reason why such restrictions should not apply to the internet as well, do you? Well, that is, unless you're taking the statement 'reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet' to construe some kind of attempt to restrict the 1st amendment right to speak freely against the govt.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Looks like he was wrong which is cool as long as he doesn't try to restrict free speech now.

The problem is that if this is what he believed, it's an incredible stretch that his entire philosophy has changed.

Hypothetical- Suppose that there was a candidate who ten years ago said that he believed that all students in school should be required to pray. Not just sit there, but participate.

Would he be an OK with you as long as he doesn't try to make it happen?


It wouldn't be for me, and this doesn't wash either.

The idea of government restriction of free speech isn't something done on a lark.

 

[ElFenix]

if keeping people from flaming each other is a reasonable restriction, then half the internet will be dead.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
if keeping people from flaming each other is a reasonable restriction, then half the internet will be dead.

And the other half is porn.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Looks like he was wrong which is cool as long as he doesn't try to restrict free speech now.

The problem is that if this is what he believed, it's an incredible stretch that his entire philosophy has changed.

Hypothetical- Suppose that there was a candidate who ten years ago said that he believed that all students in school should be required to pray. Not just sit there, but participate.

Would he be an OK with you as long as he doesn't try to make it happen?


It wouldn't be for me, and this doesn't wash either.

The idea of government restriction of free speech isn't something done on a lark.

He can't make it happen, only the legislators can do that and then it would end up in the SC which would shoot it down.

BTW the attack on free speech has been going on strong by the Right since 9/11 and though they've been able to cost people their jobs and careers they haven't really stifled it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Looks like he was wrong which is cool as long as he doesn't try to restrict free speech now.

The problem is that if this is what he believed, it's an incredible stretch that his entire philosophy has changed.

Hypothetical- Suppose that there was a candidate who ten years ago said that he believed that all students in school should be required to pray. Not just sit there, but participate.

Would he be an OK with you as long as he doesn't try to make it happen?


It wouldn't be for me, and this doesn't wash either.

The idea of government restriction of free speech isn't something done on a lark.

He can't make it happen, only the legislators can do that and then it would end up in the SC which would shoot it down.

BTW the attack on free speech has been going on strong by the Right since 9/11 and though they've been able to cost people their jobs and careers they haven't really stifled it.

Likewise I suspect this fellow could do the same. I'm no fan of Bush or the Republican party, but I understand the mentality of political power first hand. This isn't the only life I've lived so to speak, and the concept of benign government administered by someone who once spoke against free speech troubles me.

As with Bush, I can't do much, but I won't accept the "good faith" of those who have said quite the opposite.

I will not trust them.

 

[Balt]

Both Clinton/Reno and Bush/Ashcroft wanted the same, with no real success except for library computers because they attached it to funding legislation.

As long as the Supreme Court feels that government regulation of free speech on the internet is subject to strict scrutiny, I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: Balt
Both Clinton/Reno and Bush/Ashcroft wanted the same, with no real success except for library computers because they attached it to funding legislation.

As long as the Supreme Court feels that government regulation of free speech on the internet is subject to strict scrutiny, I wouldn't worry about it.

Don't give them any ideas. I can see it now. Congress approves a California bailout as long as their two senators approve the energy bill, reasonable free speech restrictions, gun control, etc.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
He can't make it happen, only the legislators can do that and then it would end up in the SC which would shoot it down.

BTW the attack on free speech has been going on strong by the Right since 9/11 and though they've been able to cost people their jobs and careers they haven't really stifled it.

Likewise I suspect this fellow could do the same. I'm no fan of Bush or the Republican party, but I understand the mentality of political power first hand. This isn't the only life I've lived so to speak, and the concept of benign government administered by someone who once spoke against free speech troubles me.

As with Bush, I can't do much, but I won't accept the "good faith" of those who have said quite the opposite.

I will not trust them.

Well because he did say that, albeit over 10 years ago, it would be prudent to keep a watchful eye on him regarding this and similar matters if not all matters. We don't want another Albert Gonzales on our hands.

That said I don't believe this is a imminent problem, just another thing Wingnuts can grind their teeth over .

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
We don't want another Albert Gonzales on our hands.

I'll give this guy enough credit to not follow Albert into the unemployment lines.