Terrorists have been using the Web - most recently, Twitter - for years (see my "Dark Side" chapter of New New Media). And the FBI and other agencies should continue to do all they can to root out this and other illegal activities online. But granting the President emergency powers is not the way to do this. Think about what Richard Nixon - who tried to dictate what the New York Times and the Washington Post could publish, under the guise of national security - could have done with such power, had the Internet existed in his day.
The balance between doing our all to combat terrorism, and keeping our freedoms, is not easy to achieve. But certainly we don't want to reward terrorists by turning into the kind of society that they embody, by fulfilling their goal of killing our democracy, from the inside. Google and Comcast have given us no reason to think they would not cooperate to the utmost with any national security needs - just as no newspaper in the United States has ever published information on troop movements that endangered their security. Whether we like the President or not, giving that office the power to control the Internet would be a dangerous blow to the political and personal freedom of expression currently enjoyed to a greater or lesser degree by all media in this country, and clearly guaranteed by the First Amendment.
3 comments:
I think it's ridiculous that Lieberman would sponsor such a law, but the law itself is laughable to me.
What's the end they're trying to achieve? It's been shown time and time again that if you try to stop information from being disseminated from one part of the Internet, it'll show up somewhere else. The Internet was designed to route around disruptions.
I see this as an impossible task they've set themselves. The only way it'd work is if they shut down the whole Internet at once -- which we know isn't going to happen.
bhartman36. Better check the news a little better. Some Hollywood names have said President Chavez is a hero and we should follow his example. Some of the President's Cabinet, current and former advisors promote limiting media broadcasts, removing stations from current owners and giving them to others so there would be a level field for expression. This means censorship, suppression and elimination of the First Ammendment and communicating freely very difficult. Read what was and is done to block Radio Free Europe and Voice of America broadcasts and the consequences of being caught listening to them.
Granting emergency powers? Just reminds me of Emperor Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith! Next Obama will cry out to thunderous applause, "We will create THE FIRST AMERICAN EMPIRE! For a more safe and securer society!"
Another case of life mirroring art, and art mirroring life. I can't imagine a censored internet. Although that would be extremely good in some contexts, not so much in the grand scheme of things on the net. The whole point is to be able to freely express yourself any way you desire and the only limits or censorship incurred be the result of your own personal moral values.
Do we really want to see 1984 become reality? If the internet is censored, will the government be peering through your webcam on your laptop or desktop that almost EVERY computer is coming with lately? Seeing into your living room, monitoring your thoughts? Telling you 2+2=5? I know I don't!
My 11th grade U.S. History teacher told my class we have to be on guard to these sort of things in the future, or else 1984 will become 2010, or any other year still to come.
Post a Comment