FBI director blames the internet

[BenNatuf]

Should those who post on the net not be responsible for their posts? To prove their validity?

This nation was founded on the idea of free speech which many of its founders chose to do annonymously under pseudonyms. Unless you somehow have a better idea than they did


HELL NO!!!!!!!!

Free speech has limits. Yelling fire in a crowded theater for example. You also can't threaten public figures, promote hate speech, launch an insurrection, commit crimes, conspiracies etc.

last I checked yelling fire was a public safety issue that endanged other peoples lives and had no polital value, not political speech which is protected. Rhetoric is a tool of speech thats been used in this country since its founding, and to be honest is rather mild compared to whats it been in the past. Shame the people are becoming so wussified that they cry at being offended and look to mommy government to protect them from the big bad words instead of growing the fuck up and acting like an adult that can think and act for themselves. Insurection is not speech and neither is committing a crime or conspiracy and hate speech is an agravating factor in the commission of another crime, not a crime unto ityself (this nation is not completely ruled by pansy assed eurotrash socialist elites yet).

And people of all ages and abilities participate, so anything above a PG 13 rating is somewhat questionable.

I'm not responsible for parenting other peoples kids. Neither should I be made responsible for it, niether should my liberty be curtailed because some people are lousy parents.

 

[loosecannon]

We cannot control every persons mental issues, however we can work to reduce those influences that aggrevate those mental issues.

too bad the pharmaceutical industry is so opposed to doing so

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

he's probably right, and yes you were wrong. What he is saying is that some of us are unable to handle the vitriolic banter on the internet. Without wigging out and killing people.

That's a sad testament that we have devolved into a mush brain society, unable to decipher or incapable of handling alternative viewpoints, or heaven forbid...a criticism.

"some of us" being the operative phrase

as long as we consider one 9/11 intolerable and consider one stray assassination intolerable then we have to manage our risks to account for that .001% of folks who might go on a killing spree over unusually free speech

If we are willing to tolerate an occasional 9/11, abortion doc murder or Oklahoma city bombing then the current internet is probably just fine.

A big fan of the PAtriot Act and wireless wiretapping too I suppose?

 

[whitehall]

I kid you not. The top law-enforcement head thinks that hate-speech on the internet was a primary cause of the shooting in Arizona. In other words (correct me if I'm wrong) the federal government thinks that Americans are unable to deal with the flood of information on the internet.

he's probably right, and yes you were wrong. What he is saying is that some of us are unable to handle the vitriolic banter on the internet. Without wigging out and killing people.

Speak for yourself cannon. Maybe some of us aren't able to handle violent video games or NY Times editorials or the 1st Amendment either. It isn't up to the head of the top federal investigative agency to make that judgement.

 

[loosecannon]

This nation was founded on the idea of free speech which many of its founders chose to do annonymously under pseudonyms. Unless you somehow have a better idea than they did


HELL NO!!!!!!!!

last I checked yelling fire was a public safety issue that endanged other peoples lives and had no polital value, not political speech which is protected. Rhetoric is a tool of speech thats been used in this country since its founding, and to be honest is rather mild compared to whats it been in the past. Shame the people are becoming so wussified that they cry at being offended and look to mommy government to protect them from the big bad words instead of growing the fuck up and acting like an adult that can think and act for themselves. Insurection is not speech and neither is committing a crime or conspiracy and hate speech is an agravating factor in the commission of another crime, not a crime unto ityself (this nation is not completely ruled by pansy assed eurotrash socialist elites yet).

And people of all ages and abilities participate, so anything above a PG 13 rating is somewhat questionable.

I'm not responsible for parenting other peoples kids. Neither should I be made responsible for it, niether should my liberty be curtailed because some people are lousy parents.

Insurrection can be aggravated by speech, that's what happened in our revolution

crimes, conspiracies and hate speech can all be speech

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is also speech.

Yet all of those are prohibited.

And you are responsible for what you do on a public media that kids may participate in. Which is why you can be nabbed by the FBI for child sex violations if you think you are speaking to a 12 yo girl who is in fact a 46 yo FBI agent.

 

[loosecannon]

That's a sad testament that we have devolved into a mush brain society, unable to decipher or incapable of handling alternative viewpoints, or heaven forbid...a criticism.

"some of us" being the operative phrase

as long as we consider one 9/11 intolerable and consider one stray assassination intolerable then we have to manage our risks to account for that .001% of folks who might go on a killing spree over unusually free speech

If we are willing to tolerate an occasional 9/11, abortion doc murder or Oklahoma city bombing then the current internet is probably just fine.

A big fan of the PAtriot Act and wireless wiretapping too I suppose?

you clearly have difficulty understanding basic ideas. Try reading really slowly.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

People have been wigging out and killing people since the dawn of man This is just a ruse to further control the flow of information.

If this were the Bush Admin you guys would have shat yourselves twenty times over by now over such propositions and statements.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"some of us" being the operative phrase

as long as we consider one 9/11 intolerable and consider one stray assassination intolerable then we have to manage our risks to account for that .001% of folks who might go on a killing spree over unusually free speech

If we are willing to tolerate an occasional 9/11, abortion doc murder or Oklahoma city bombing then the current internet is probably just fine.

A big fan of the PAtriot Act and wireless wiretapping too I suppose?

you clearly have difficulty understanding basic ideas. Try reading really slowly.

I'll take that as a "no" prior to 1/20/2009, now.. big fan.

Thanks.

 

[loosecannon]

I kid you not. The top law-enforcement head thinks that hate-speech on the internet was a primary cause of the shooting in Arizona. In other words (correct me if I'm wrong) the federal government thinks that Americans are unable to deal with the flood of information on the internet.

he's probably right, and yes you were wrong. What he is saying is that some of us are unable to handle the vitriolic banter on the internet. Without wigging out and killing people.

Speak for yourself cannon. Maybe some of us aren't able to handle violent video games or NY Times editorials or the 1st Amendment either. It isn't up to the head of the top federal investigative agency to make that judgement.

He offered an opinion. He didn't make a ruling, policy decision, or a "judgement". Should he be prohibited from offering that opinion? Should his opinion be banned from the press and the internet?

So what are you bitching about?

 

[Bill Angel]

You don't need an Internet to facilitate the promotion of hate speech.

"Abraham Lincoln was frequently compared to a monkey, an ape, and an "ape baboon" if such a thing is possible. Harper's also described him as "despot, liar, thief, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, ignoramus."

I don't believe that Harper's Magazine was put under Government regulation in the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I foresee a bunch of hysterical lefties calling for 'control' of the net.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...partment-authority-to-create-internet-id.html

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Can I post more amusing "internets" pics?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

there was a potential presidential candidate who said 'kill bush'? or said there were 'pro america parts of the country;? or said 'don't retreat, reload?' or put cross hatches over people faces to take *aim* at? or told people the government was going to kill their grandma or sick children? really?

there were democratic members of congress telling people to 'use their second amendment remedies'?

i'm afraid that the fringe in the case of the repubs is the mainstream....

Obama is repub?

Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’ - Washington Wire - WSJ

Does this support your theory that it is only Republican right wing gun nuts who say things like this, or does it mean that I am right in saying that people have the right to say whatever they want?

Holy fuck! wait for it.. wait for it.

Wait for what? The outrage on the left?

 

[loosecannon]

I'll take that as a "no" prior to 1/20/2009, now.. big fan.

Thanks.

I have always opposed it.

If you didn't have a reading disability you would probably know that.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Not for nothing, but by definition hate speech cannot be called "information".

And we all know how you are the final arbiter of what is and isnt hate speech.
Here is the definition incase you were not aware .

Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.

 

[Ravi]

I kid you not. The top law-enforcement head thinks that hate-speech on the internet was a primary cause of the shooting in Arizona. In other words (correct me if I'm wrong) the federal government thinks that Americans are unable to deal with the flood of information on the internet. What's the solution? Control information. It's a good time to control the internet and next the print media and hollywood and talk radio. Who do we blame for JFK's assassinatoin or Bobby's or the attempted assassination of Jerry Ford and Ronald Reagan? Hollywood promoted a foreign made movie depicting the assassination of a sitting president, George Bush a couple of years ago. The NY Times often quoted the radical left wing hate speech from Cindy Sheehan's anti-war group and printed hate speech by Al-Jazzera as if it was real news. The FBI director should be fired if his investivative abilities are limited to blaming the internet.

I looked for something that backs up your assertion and found nothing.

Provide a link.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One fact I do know is that many mentally unstable people do much better without the net.

It feeds their delusions, they seek out those who agree with their delusional views and it reinforces their delusions to the point it become their reality.

I think you might have a point there, but we cannot cut off the internet because some people are crazy.

So what to do?
The only other option seems to be to make the net safe for crazy people?

there is actually a third alternative. We accept that some people are crazy, and stop trying to blame other people for what they do. Crazy people will always find something that will trigger them, or feed their delusions.

 

[loosecannon]

You don't need an Internet to facilitate the promotion of hate speech.

"Abraham Lincoln was frequently compared to a monkey, an ape, and an "ape baboon" if such a thing is possible. Harper's also described him as "despot, liar, thief, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, ignoramus."

I don't believe that Harper's Magazine was put under Government regulation in the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination.

But it sure helps to have a cheap anonymous outlet that reaches the whole world instantaneously.

 

[boedicca]

Obama is repub?

Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’ - Washington Wire - WSJ

Does this support your theory that it is only Republican right wing gun nuts who say things like this, or does it mean that I am right in saying that people have the right to say whatever they want?

Holy fuck! wait for it.. wait for it.

Wait for what? The outrage on the left?

The left is outraged that the shooter was a pot smoking metal head and not a tea partier.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Not for nothing, but by definition hate speech cannot be called "information".

And we all know how you are the final arbiter of what is and isnt hate speech.
Here is the definition incase you were not aware .
.

Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.

Which could be deemed anything since the human mindset is subjective. This is exactly why the founders placed no limitations on free speech.