#Login Register


  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
Home 


Criminalizing your Thoughts: Government Web bots to scour Internet Searching for Hate Speech.
05-01-2014, 11:55 AM #1
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,582 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
JayRodney
kritterbox.com
May 1, 2014


Senator Edward J. Markly (D-Ma) Introduced a bill on April 8th, 2014 that, if passed, would allow government robots to scour the internet for perceived “commission of hate crimes” or any material deemed to to advocate and encourage “violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate” The full text of the bill is available here: beta.congress.gov

The proposed legislation, is cited as the ``Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014'' and would grant the government authority to “analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services, and other electronic media.”
Exactly what and who will determine the definition of these so called crimes of hate? This is the point where things get interesting.

The bill refers to The Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA) enacted in 1990 to define what exactly, thought crimes are. The HCSA defines these acts as those which "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity"

The HSCA has already stipulated the Justice Department to acquire data on perceived hate crimes, so this latest proposal essentially kicks this into high gear.

Frighteningly enough, the determinations on what actually constitutes hate crimes will be determined by a yet unnamed panel of government bureaucrats.

This grants an as of yet undefined panel of bureaucrats the ability to paint with an uncomfortably broad brush, vague in definition, as to the criteria with which to make these determinations.

We know from the recent IRS fiasco how Federal agencies can and do take actions based upon partisan politics. Emails have revealed the the DOJ was more than happy to begin working with the IRS to prosecute and criminalize tax exempt organizations that promoted ideas and education conflicting with the interests of the party in charge.

This raises concern that groups and individuals who criticize government policy or speak out against favored politicians may well spend time behind bars for speech determined to be inciting hate.

First amendment rights could well be under assault with the passage of this act, and even what I'm writing could be classified as thought crime as I've pointed out the potential for this to be used to squash political descent, or opposing views.

As a rule of thumb, if the potential for abuse exists, abuse will occur.


wonder.gif
05-01-2014, 12:41 PM #2
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,363 Threads:1,482 Joined:Feb 2011
facepalm_panda.gif

They're out of their freakin minds! gaah.gif
05-01-2014, 01:12 PM #3
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,582 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
They will not be satisfied until they have total control over the internet, similar to the stranglehold they have placed on mainstream media.
Since people have turned away from the traditional propaganda mouthpieces, they have obviously become quite frightened about giving up the illusion of control, and are attempting to legislate some form of pseudo moral authority that will criminalize whatever and whoever they feel is rocking the boat.
This brings up so many questions, will comedians like Dave Chappelle be sent to a gulag for throwing the N word around in their routine? Will reporting on Muslim rape crimes in Sweden become illegal?
Sweden recently passed legislation making it a crime to bad mouth immigration policy and multiculturalism, as they don't want their dirty little rape gang secret known to the world.
What do you expect from a country where bestiality is legal and people rot in jail for years for possession of small quantities of cannabis. Months ago, Sweden sentenced a woman to several years in prison for cultivation of herb to treat her Multiple Sclerosis.
They are running one of the most inexcusable horror shows there I've ever seen, if they had substantial oil or mineral wealth, and were located in the Mideast, the US would have boots on the ground citing human rights violations.

wonder.gif
05-01-2014, 01:18 PM #4
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,363 Threads:1,482 Joined:Feb 2011
Well on the upside I think this sort of shït only speeds up the creation of alternatives to this controlled internet bs. It's bound to happen.
05-01-2014, 01:34 PM #5
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,582 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
The US is less than pleased with the cable being laid between Brazil and the EU. patpat.gif In other related material, nationaljournal.com is reporting more revelations from the "infamous" Edward Snowden, being the NSA Spies More on Americans Than Russians.
As we should all know by now anyway, as there are no surprises left in this world. Rest assured, If it can be done legally or illegally it is being done.

wonder.gif
05-01-2014, 03:01 PM #6
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,775 Threads:1,181 Joined:Feb 2011
blink.gif Wow. This is insane. At the end of the vid they discuss the potential to be labeled an apologist for or even a proponent of hate speech if you oppose the bill.

damned.gif
05-01-2014, 03:44 PM #7
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,582 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
yup.gif I saw the video yesterday on YouTube and started digging around, I felt since no major outlet is touching this, at least someone should.
These are the types of things that fly under the radar and get passed with zero fanfare, and just as bad, a public caught totally unaware.
The bill, of course, has not passed yet, but blatant disregard for the first amendment has reared it's fugly head again. gaah.gif

"They (the terrorists) never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people and neither do we."
- GW Bush

wonder.gif
05-01-2014, 03:48 PM #8
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,188 Threads:429 Joined:Jun 2012
What would be the alternatives in trying to control internet bullying and hate that causes sensitive teenagers to commit suicide?
05-01-2014, 04:05 PM #9
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,582 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
There are plenty of existing laws to cover this, you read about bullies being prosecuted all the time. This proposed law in particular, overextends in to areas it should not, like for instance, destroying the first amendment, and decisions on who is hateful and not will be made by a panel, not by courts.
These things become partisan and bam, instant problems.
Are you saying people should not have a right to speak their mind if the president says the ACA will save everyone $2,500 a year, and in reality, clearly cost more? That's what this boils down to. It relies on a panel making determinations on peoples lives without due process. You may be good with that, and that's your right, be careful what you wish for.

wonder.gif
05-01-2014, 04:12 PM #10
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,775 Threads:1,181 Joined:Feb 2011
Do it for the children!! It's what they hide behind to advance their own agendas and if you object you obviously hate children.
05-01-2014, 04:23 PM #11
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,188 Threads:429 Joined:Jun 2012
(05-01-2014, 04:05 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  There are plenty of existing laws to cover this, you read about bullies being prosecuted all the time. This proposed law in particular, overextends in to areas it should not, like for instance, destroying the first amendment, and decisions on who is hateful and not will be made by a panel, not by courts.
These things become partisan and bam, instant problems.
Are you saying people should not have a right to speak their mind if the president says the ACA will save everyone $2,500 a year, and in reality, clearly cost more? That's what this boils down to. It relies on a panel making determinations on peoples lives without due process. You may be good with that, and that's your right, be careful what you wish for.

Then perhaps we should scrutinize panel members to determine if these people fairly represent the diversity of a particular community, if not, we then have the right to petition and protest to have one or more members ousted from that panel. What other alternatives are there? And yes the bullies/haters are prosecuted, but after the fact of someone killing themselves, what good does it do then?
05-01-2014, 04:24 PM #12
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,582 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
Indeed, what about the babies Nancy Grace? coffeetime.gif It's obviously dysfunctional as hell, and most everyone sees that. Do we really need to remove peoples right to point out the OBVIOUS? wtf2.gif

wonder.gif
05-01-2014, 04:27 PM #13
yankees skier
Posts:5,889 Threads:215 Joined:Feb 2011
Time to speak in alternate languages.

Biere.
05-01-2014, 04:28 PM #14
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,363 Threads:1,482 Joined:Feb 2011
(05-01-2014, 03:48 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  What would be the alternatives in trying to control internet bullying and hate that causes sensitive teenagers to commit suicide?

Obviously there are deeper issues in our society that need addressed, on- and offline bullying, depression and anxiety being just a few of the symptoms. Most people online aren't bullies or trolls and this type of corporal punishment is just unacceptable in my book.

There are however people dealing with this type of issues:

Quote:Swedish lawyers track and charge net trolls

A Swedish team of pro bono lawyers who are fed up with net bullying want online trolls to take responsibility for their behaviour. The law firm has helped victims claim money from their aggressors.

"When people use freedom of speech to hurt other people, they have a responsibility," Schultz told The Local about the new volunteer Law and Internet Institute (Institutet för Juridik & Internet - IJI), which takes aim specifically at slander, violations, and threats made online.

http://www.thelocal.se/20140429/swedish-...net-trolls
05-01-2014, 04:31 PM #15
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,188 Threads:429 Joined:Jun 2012
In my internet travels, I come across many women haters who, when they begin to lose the argument, threaten bodily harm upon whom they believe to be women. The last time I checked threatening violence is against the law, and against my rights. As well, how do I know the person threatening me does not have the means to find out where I live?

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_po...latestnews



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com