• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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 .
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right. Dunno.

It's just odd that regardless of administration, we seem to have these types come up. Maybe you're more of a trusting soul 😉
 
I think there are plenty of instances where free speech can be and should be regulated. For instance there was a case here in the area of St Louis or one that I heard of where some people in a chat or social interaction went after someone they knew and got people to misrepresent who they were and harassed someone that caused that person to commit suicide.

I for one think that all E-mail addresses should be required to have a way to positively identify where they come from, so we can track down some of these people on the internet running scams lying and stealing people's money and people trying to affect the price of stocks or spreading lies about people or companies. I think there are some instances like in a chatroom where maybe a person can have some level of anonymity.

Speech is not free on the internet. Even on Anandtech at any time you can be banned. It is up to who owns the server to decide how they manage the users and restrict or grant access and control of assets. The Internet is not a free speech location. No matter where you go, and what you do, you do not have free speech unless you own the server. Even if you own a server, your ISP or Network owner can restrict what you can and can not do. You better get wise if you really think you have free speech. First thing you know some off the wall person is calling you a hate monger or a racist the first time you make a comment on the subject of immigration.

 
Originally posted by: piasabird
I think there are plenty of instances where free speech can be and should be regulated. For instance there was a case here in the area of St Louis or one that I heard of where some people in a chat or social interaction went after someone they knew and got people to misrepresent who they were and harassed someone that caused that person to commit suicide.

I for one think that all E-mail addresses should be required to have a way to positively identify where they come from, so we can track down some of these people on the internet running scams lying and stealing people's money and people trying to affect the price of stocks or spreading lies about people or companies. I think there are some instances like in a chatroom where maybe a person can have some level of anonymity.

Speech is not free on the internet. Even on Anandtech at any time you can be banned. It is up to who owns the server to decide how they manage the users and restrict or grant access and control of assets. The Internet is not a free speech location. No matter where you go, and what you do, you do not have free speech unless you own the server. Even if you own a server, your ISP or Network owner can restrict what you can and can not do. You better get wise if you really think you have free speech. First thing you know some off the wall person is calling you a hate monger or a racist the first time you make a comment on the subject of immigration.
Click to expand...

Link

Eugene Volokh talks about this in his blog..


Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, criminal law, religious freedom law, and church-state relations law at UCLA Law School, where he has also often taught copyright law and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
 
Eric holder wants to lead us into the path of fascist government. Look at his agenda, disarming legal responsible citizens of their right to bear arms. It does not surprise me he would be against freedom of speech. I am sure he fully supports domestic spying on the public masses.
 
Originally posted by: nullzero
Eric holder wants to lead us into the path of fascist government. Look at his agenda, disarming legal responsible citizens of their right to bear arms. It does not surprise me he would be against freedom of speech. I am sure he fully supports domestic spying on the public masses.
Click to expand...

Can you provide links that support that Mr Holden wants to "lead us in the path of fascist government"?
 
Originally posted by: OCguy
Anyone care to defend this?
Click to expand...

Of course the Libs won't. They bitched and moaned that for 8 years that Bush would try to use his religion to clamp down on freedom of expression, free speech and freedom of the media. Of course, that never happened.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Depends. Are the "consequences" the govenment having me arrested? Then fuck no.
Are the "consequences" someone coming with a counterpoint? Then yes.
 
Originally posted by: 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.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

? How can you have free speech if there are legal consequences attached to it? You should have the right to say anything, you should not have the right to do anything. Any consequences of free speech should only be because people won't listen to/disregard the speaker for what he says.
 
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: OCguy
Anyone care to defend this?
Click to expand...

Of course the Libs won't. They bitched and moaned that for 8 years that Bush would try to use his religion to clamp down on freedom of expression, free speech and freedom of the media. Of course, that never happened.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone defend what this guy said about internet censorship? I completely disagree with what Mr Holden said 10 years ago.
 
More details needed. Seems to me that most of you think there are no "Reasonable Limits" on Free Speech. That is incorrect.
 
met a girl called lola and i took her back to my place
feelin' guilty, feelin' scared, hidden cameras everywhere
stop! hold on. stay in control

girl, i want, you here with me
but i'm really not as cool as i'd like to be
'cause there's a red, under my bed
and there's a little yellow man in my head
and there's a true, blue, inside of me
that keeps stoppin' me, touchin' ya, watchin' ya, lovin' ya

paranoia, need destroyer. paranoia, they destroy ya'

well i fell asleep, then i woke feelin' kinda' queer
lola looked at me and said ooh you look so weird
she said man, there's really something wrong with you
one day you're gonna' self-destruct
you're up, get down, i'll come work you out
you get a good thing goin' then you blow yourself out

silly boy ya' self-destroyer. silly boy ya' self-destroyer

silly boy you got so much to live for
so much to aim for, so much to try for
you blow it all with, paranoia
you're so insecure you, self-destroyer

(and it goes like this, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya
(here it goes again) paranoia, they destroy ya

dr. dr. help her please i know you'll understand
there's a time device inside of me i'm a self-destructin' man
there's a red, under my bed
and there's a little green man in my head
and said you're not goin' crazy, you're just a bit sad
'cause there's a man in ya, knawin' ya, tearin' ya, in to to

silly boy ya' self-destroyer. paranoia, they destroy ya'

self-destroyer, wreck your health
destroy friends, destroy yourself
the time device of, self-destruction
lies, confusion, start eruption

(yea, it goes like this, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya
(here's to paranoia) paranoia, they destroy ya
(hey hey, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya
(and it goes like this)

paranoia, they destroy ya
(and it goes like this)
Click to expand...
 
You have 20 seconds to comply...

6-18-2009 Vegas paper gets subpoena to ID online commenters

LAS VEGAS ? A Nevada newspaper says it has been served a federal grand jury subpoena seeking information about readers who posted comments on the paper's Web site.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Tuesday that its editor, Thomas Mitchell, plans to fight the request

Mitchell said anonymous speech is "a fundamental and historic part of this country."
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
Speech is not free on the internet. Even on Anandtech at any time you can be banned. It is up to who owns the server to decide how they manage the users and restrict or grant access and control of assets. The Internet is not a free speech location. No matter where you go, and what you do, you do not have free speech unless you own the server. Even if you own a server, your ISP or Network owner can restrict what you can and can not do. You better get wise if you really think you have free speech.
Click to expand...
...all of which are great examples of the power to regulate being left up to the people, rather than the Federal Government.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: OCguy
Anyone care to defend this?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

All of this is already covered under the general definition of "speech" or "communication." Why would we need redundant regulation to guard against these things unless you're actually trying to impose stricter controls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top