Kudos to Google for refusing to bow down to Joe Lieberman's attempts to censor youtube. It's a slippery slope one starts down when one starts to censor and Lieberman seems happy to grease the slide with his efforts.
The Internet is simply a means of communication, like the telephone, but that has not prevented attempts to demonize it — the latest being the ludicrous claim that the Internet promotes terrorism.
Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut is trying to pressure YouTube to pull down videos he does not like, and a recent Senate report and a bill pending in Congress also raise the specter of censorship. It is important for online speech to be protected against these assaults.
Mr. Lieberman recently demanded that YouTube take down hundreds of videos produced by Islamist terrorist organizations or their supporters. YouTube reviewed the videos to determine whether they violated its guidelines, which prohibit hate speech and graphic or gratuitous violence. It took down 80 videos, but left others up. Mr. Lieberman said that was “not enough,” and demanded that more come down.
Earlier this month, the Senate homeland security committee, which is led by Mr. Lieberman, issued a report titled “Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.” The report identified the Internet as “one of the primary drivers” of the terrorist threat to the United States.
All of this comes against the backdrop of a troubling Congressional antiterrorism bill that also focuses on the Internet. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, which passed the House last year by a 404-to-6 vote, would establish a commission to study the terrorist threat and propose legislation. The bill, which the Senate has not acted on, has a finding that the Internet promotes radicalization and terrorism.
The NY Times reports that the committee didn't call for restricting free speech, but did discuss the need for “what, if any, new laws” should be enacted. The Times concludes, "no new laws are needed — or justifiable — any more than it would be tolerable to enact laws restricting speech over the telephone, in a newspaper or a book, on a street corner, or in a church, mosque or synagogue."
Just as many right wing supporters are willing to give up their rights to privacy, usuall, with the explanation that they personally have nothing to hide, this approach to cutting into the essential right to free expression could be defended by suggesting that people who are not terrorists have nothing to worry about. This is incredibly dangerous. As the loyal opposition, in a time when opposition has been attacked as unpatriotic or even aiding the enemy, entering this slippery censorship slope could lead to the squelching of all protest.
TheTimes concludes,
Not only do these efforts contradict fundamental American values, it is not clear if they would help fight terrorism. Even if YouTube pulled down every video Mr. Lieberman did not like, radical groups could post the same videos on their own Web sites. Trying to restrain the Internet is a game of “whack-a-mole” that cannot be won, says John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Having the videos on YouTube may even be a good thing, because it makes it easier for law enforcement officials, the media and the public to monitor the groups and their messages.
Terrorism is a real concern. All Americans know that. They also know that if we give up our fundamental rights, the terrorists win. If people use speech to engage in criminal acts, they should be prosecuted. Cutting off free speech is never the right answer.
Lieberman is really going further and further in taking the place of neanderthalcon Zell Miller, the most toxic, offensive troglodyte faux "Democrat" the senate has seen in recent years. Unfortunately, there are plenty more of his type, not quite as bad, but almost equally willing to shed the values and principles of Democracy. In the house, they call themselves Bluedogs. Fortunately, there are many in the blogosphere who are taking these sellout right wing faux Dems on. Donna Edwards did it in Maryland and that should just be the beginning.
Unfortunately, the last three debacles for Republicans, where they lost long held Republican congressional seats, the Dems who won them are Bluedog types. Sure, it's an improvement, but it also changes the composition of the Democratic party, making it more conservative. It is, therefore, essential, that progressives take aggressive action to push the party to the left. Failure to do so will actually allow MORE people like Joe LIeberman gain influence in congress. That would be bad news in a year when there should be a lot of good news.
Please note: If you can't find your comment, you may have posted it on the POLL page. This is the article page. This is the first poll we've embedded in an article and we're still working out all the details to make it a seamless system. We're not quite there yet. The comments about censorship or comment removal are incorrect assumptions.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Is it possible that the majority of these videos were produced OUTSIDE the US?? (thus the authors of such propaganda may not be covered under the First Amendment.)
Is it possible that these videos are advocating crimes against US Citizens?
Should our Rights to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness be superceded by Islamic propaganda?
And Finally, is Joe Lieberman advocating censoring your right to criticize his actions?
A true Fascist would...
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 494 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 8:28:09 AM
You did exactly what I said people would do. Marginalize the rights, crimp the constitution.
Keep in mind, Google DID remove some clearly inappropriate videos. They just didn't satisfy Liebermann. The media should be the arbiters of content, not senators or legislators or police.
by
Rob Kall (749 articles, 3834 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1613 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 8:39:55 AM
I did NOT say to marginalize the rights of US Citizens, and since it is US Citizens that the First Amendment of the Constitution actually applies to, I am really struggling to figure out how you come up with the idea that I am crimping the Constitution.
However, it is your forum, you can say whatever you want....
By the way, it is the Legislators who are there to write laws, (actually part of the constitution article 1 section 1) So YES, I believe Joe Lieberman actually DOES have the right to do something about this.. Maybe not precisely what it is that he is doing, but he could introduce some legislation making it illegal for companies to post videos supporting violence against US Citizens... Wait, I think there are already Laws on the books concerning that... Hmmmmm.. That being the case, ANY US Citizen has the right, as a citizen to arrest criminal activity.....
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 494 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 10:00:54 PM
I hate to disagree with my fellow libertarian, but this time Rob, et al, got it right. The Constitution applies to the US gov, not the people. It's purpose is to limit the gov's power. Since the 1st Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The 9th Amendement:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The 10th Amendment specifies that the gov has no powers that aren't enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution give the gov the power to censor anything from anywhere. I'm sorry to say it, but I think this is something any liberterian would get. (That's why I'm scratching my head about your replies.)
I hope you're enjoying your Memorial Day.
by
Darren Wolfe (3 articles, 119 quicklinks, 77 diaries, 579 comments)
on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 8:02:15 AM
With respect, Steve, I doubt you would know a true fascist
...if you had one for a boss.
Fascists are a creation of the marriage of money/power (the wealthy elite) and political power; as such, any usurpation of Constitutional Law, whether by corporations, the judiciary or the executive is serving the fascist agenda. Fascists are the creation of centuries of secret conspiracies that benefit only the "ruling class."
Now the ruling class has its lackies in power to create a world order that serves their needs and desires. Everything in their lives tells them they deserve privilege and entitlement: evolution tells them they are the "fittest"; religion tells them they have "Divine Right"; the world monetary system is their creation and their property; the MSM praises their success and ignores their criminality.
The Joe Liebermanns of the world carry their water, oblivious to the ramifications of their deeds; Joe, like most of us, also doesn't know what a fascist is, which is ironic since his ilk have been serving their kind for so long it's in his DNA.
by
Jay Farrington (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 136 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 9:10:11 AM
the Democrat and Republican Parties are both Fascist organizations, because they use their money and power to keep any third party candidates OFF of the Ballots wherever they can...
that is good to know.. Did you know that you are more than likely a member of a Fascist organization?
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 494 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 9:49:54 PM
I am sick and tired of hearing how the Constitution "only applies to Americans." It totally goes against what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence stand for in the first place.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights that every human being on the planet has. In fact, it is in the very same sentence that pronounces that all men are created equal.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
How can anyone claim to possess rights that someone else is not allowed to possess? That's as un-American as it gets.
By your reasoning, if freedom of speech belongs only to Americans, then our government can be like China and forbid American consumption of international news that they don't like. They can prevent domestic publication and distribution of books by authors of foreign countries, and films by foreign directors.
By your reasoning, it's perfectly acceptable for Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia to censor news, radio and television broadcasts, and internet traffic that criticizes their governments or promotes democracy.
There is a difference between the rights of man and the benefits of being a citizen. Rights belong to everyone, regardless of their place of citizenship. Things like free speech, assembly, and a fair trial before imprisonment are rights that belong to everyone on earth, even if their government does not acknowledge them. Rights are things that cannot legitimately be taken from someone, because they are born with them. They are not given to you by man, and even when they are violated, they still belong to you and everyone else.
Benefits of citizenship are things like voting, representation, social security, unemployment relief, and public assistance. A foreigner has no right to these benefits except to the extent provided by laws and statutes.
Laws do not give us our rights. They protect them.
The American Revolution was fought for exactly this reason. The King said that Americans did not have the same rights as people in England.
The Bill of Rights was almost not written because many of the members of the Constitutional Convention were worried that if some rights were enumerated, it could later be claimed that they were the only rights people had. They realized that it would be impossible to include all the possible rights of man. It was finally decided that they would list the rights that they considered to be the most important to sustaining a free, representative form of government, and to add a caveat that explicitly made clear that it could not be construed to exclude all the other rights belonging to the people.
From the US National Archives and Records Administration:
Q. Does the Constitution give us our rights and liberties?
A.No, it does not, it only guarantees them. The people had all their rights and liberties before they made the Constitution. The Constitution was formed, among other purposes, to make the people's liberties secure-- secure not only as against foreign attack but against oppression by their own government. They set specific limits upon their national government and upon the States, and reserved to themselves all powers that they did not grant.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Furthermore, all this talk of foreign nationals not having the right to a trial by jury or Habeas Corpus is a bunch of Bush-dung. Even illegal aliens are protected by the Constitution, and they have the same rights as you and I.
There is simply no foundation in our American history, or in basic human decency to support claims that Americans possess rights that do not belong to everyone else.
In the interest of edifying more people who might not realize this, I will do a little more work on this and post it as an article.
by
JC Garrett (33 articles, 42 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 390 comments)
on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 1:47:31 AM
Well said, and I hope that when you write more on this subject, Op-Ed News headlines the article. Being an American is believing that all peoples have an inherent right to liberty and freedom, and that all were created equal. Christianity exists in America because of our belief in freedom of religion, yet radical right-wing Christians seem intent on turning the US into a theocracy.
Forces within this nation have forgotten what we actually stand for and threaten to betray our constitution and Bill of Rights. Our schools are busy teaching everything except what our constitutional principles originally stood for and are now being watered-down by corrupt educators, especially in the state of Texas. Our constitution and Bill of Rights was the model for the entire world, written so well over 200 years ago that its principles are still the real model for democracy anywhere and everywhere - except in Washington, DC....
William Cormier
by
William Cormier (116 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 289 comments)
on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 7:25:17 AM
Zell Miller was always a Republican at heart. I'm not sure what induced him to run as a Democrat, perhaps vestigal Dixiecrathood, perhaps he opposed someone already on the Republican ticket and had nowhere else to go. In any event, although he is a backstabbing turncoat, he always was in his naturally conservative element, properly representing his conservative constituency.
Lieberman, whom I have heard described as a rare case of a rat swimming out to the sinking ship, is no Zell Miller. He presented himself as an "Independent Democrat" to his largely progressive constituency, mouthing the precepts and striking the pose until elected. That is when the true NeoCon Joe, smiter of brown people the world over, Senator from Tel Aviv, believer in common with fundamentalist worldviews emerged to take his place in the pantheon of murderous liars.
There is no contest. Joe Lieberman is the Supreme Slitherer.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 1020 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 9:29:58 AM
Lieberman, as I have said before, represents Israel, not America, and the extreme Right-wing in Israel at that. There are plenty of progressive Jews and Israelis who are contemptuous of Lieberman. All he promotes is fear and loathing, hatred and misunderstanding. He wants endless Jihad against Islam and constantly demonizes Moslems protesting the attacks on their countries and religion. He is polarizing the world and promulgating endless violence. He belongs in a maximum security prison.
by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 60 quicklinks, 142 diaries, 967 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 9:40:58 AM
Lieberman is a little neo Nazi troll who belongs in the dock at the Hague right along side the neocons who pulled off the coup d'etat on 9/11 and the Bushreich for their war crimes.
Very fortuitous for the PNAC'ers that a made man like Lieberman was inside the Gore campaign in 2000 wasn't it?
Lieberman is a treasonous rat and this latest attempt to censor, smear and bandy about insinuations of what constitutes 'terrorist' activity is Anti American on every level. Judas Lieberman's ass belongs in an orange jumpsuit in a 4 x 6 cell at Gitmo.
Just my two cents
EE
by
Ed Encho (6 articles, 10 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 371 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 9:54:34 AM
Joe Lieberman is and always has been a neocon. Unfortunately, unless there is a recall, he will be in the Senate until 2012.
If it is within their constitution, Connecticut should implement a Davis-Schwarzenegger style switch.
Let's hope that the Democrats achieve a 60 vote majority in the Senate in 2009, at which point Liebercon will become irrelevant, and will fade into obscurity.
by
John R Moffett (79 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 596 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 11:05:17 AM
You posted the comment on the poll page. This is on the article page. This was the first poll article and we're still working out the details of how to get them to work. It's not a flaw. We just have to fine tune things a bit. Same thing with John's comment.
by
Rob Kall (749 articles, 3834 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1613 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 8:26:25 PM
Which makes it even worse, he is representing the Great State of Connecticut.
But then look at the Representatives throughout the country, all part of the single "Money Party" doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a Democrat, the people are not represented.
by
August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 428 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 6:47:59 PM
Gee, I didn't know we were so touchy using the "Z" word at OpED.
Yes, traitor Joe is of the worst sort. And you can take this to the bank: I'm sure he'll deliver a stinging (Zell style) speech at the next Republican National Convention.
Point blank, he's a neocon through and true with many loving (Z word removed) AIPAC, etc... ties
Normal folks are taught to never be fooled or manipulated into doing anything in their heart that is against the high principles of their beliefs. I guess Joe was busy eating a bagel and missed that important lesson in life. Calling him "Loserman" is so fitting, because it fits him like a glove. Beware, it's not "mission accomplished" for him yet...Joe will attempt much, much more before he crawls back into his hole.
by
Vincent Guarisco (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 1:04:30 PM
Joe Lieberman has one allegience, and that is to Israel. He not only makes speeches and gives interviews that we must use "military force" against Iran to protect Israel, but he pens op-eds in the mainstream media, especially in the Wall Street Journal, advocating violence.
Attempting to whip up support for even more slaughter of innocents -- destroying thousands more US military -- because Iran might be thinking of someday maybe getting a nuclear weapon -- to "protect" Israel may not be Zionism, but it is definitely anti-American.
As to the removal of your comment, any editor doing so would post the reason he/she had done so. I suspect that some person who did not agree with you just hit the "delete" button.
by
Sheila Samples (50 articles, 3441 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 368 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 2:10:38 PM
