FBI director blames the internet

[bigrebnc1775]

How many from the media are speaking out aginst this?

speaking out against what, a homeland security director expressing his opinion?

oh I see so it's fine when the media speaks out against lets say Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin, but it's not ok when the FBI director says Americans should have thier rights taken away? That just desn't sound fine to me.

 

[loosecannon]

How many from the media are speaking out aginst this?

speaking out against what, a homeland security director expressing his opinion?

oh I see so it's fine when the media speaks out against lets say Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin, but it's not ok when the FBI director says Americans should have thier rights taken away? That just desn't sound fine to me.

You know he didn't say that.

He said that the internet contributed to this event.

And it really is his job to keep you safe. It is his job to do risk management for your safety.

He didn't propose doing anything, he just expressed his opinion.

So you are suddenly opposed to free speech?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

speaking out against what, a homeland security director expressing his opinion?

oh I see so it's fine when the media speaks out against lets say Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin, but it's not ok when the FBI director says Americans should have thier rights taken away? That just desn't sound fine to me.

You know he didn't say that.

He said that the internet contributed to this event.

And it really is his job to keep you safe. It is his job to do risk management for your safety.

He didn't propose doing anything, he just expressed his opinion.

So you are suddenly opposed to free speech?

Thats ok I do not want his safety. I can protect myself

Oh he did say some web site should be shut down

FBI — FBI Says Web "Spoofing" Scams are a Growing Problem

What web site will he dictate to be a scam?

 

[BenNatuf]

Given that, does the irony of your position occur to you?

Speech is not insurrection.

When you find the speech crime thats illegal... let us know. Crimes are criminal activities, conspiracies are plans of action, and hate crime laws are agrivating factors for sentencing, not crimes in and of themself.

no its not, it's public endangerment (unless of course there really is a fire)

thats because they're not speech

Attempting to solicit sex from a minor is illeagl in any medium, it's not speech. And I am not responsible for parenting other peoples kids.

You really seemed confused about what "speech" is.

First of all you have no idea what my "position" is. You operate on assumptions which always mislead you.

I have assumed nothing, I have responded to the inane posts you've made describing what "speech" is

Second of all speech can be insurrection, hate crimes, child abuse, public endangerment, conspiracy, criminal activity etc.

like that one. Which has already been answered and for some reason you seem to think repeating ad nauseum somehow makes relevant.

Which is the point, not everything you say, print or write is free speech, there are myriad exceptions.

there are exceedingly few exceptions

Even the SCOTUS ruled that they can't define free speech, but they know it when they see it.

Correcting you is becoming habit forming. What the judge said in the case you refer to was that he couldn't describe obscenity but knew what it was when he saw it. Obscenity is not (or rarely ever could be) political speech. And the instances of its limittation are few.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How would eliminating the current internet prevent any of that?

who was talking about eliminating the internet?

It is just one risk we need to manage as long as we find terror events unacceptable collateral damages we pay for freedom.

That would be you.

"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.

Or are you going to try and say that you did not mean you wanted to change the rules for the internet here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do all crazy people launch attacks on public figures in crowds? Oh wait, they almost never do.

And the internet is responsible for that in what way?

It isn't, you just said something crazy and I corrected you.

You are the one that said something crazy, because people launch attacks on public figures in crowds all the time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

speaking out against what, a homeland security director expressing his opinion?

oh I see so it's fine when the media speaks out against lets say Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin, but it's not ok when the FBI director says Americans should have thier rights taken away? That just desn't sound fine to me.

You know he didn't say that.

He said that the internet contributed to this event.

And it really is his job to keep you safe. It is his job to do risk management for your safety.

He didn't propose doing anything, he just expressed his opinion.

So you are suddenly opposed to free speech?

His job is not to keep me safe, his job is investigate crimes and arrest criminals. I keep me safe, and if I fail I pay the price.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

oh I see so it's fine when the media speaks out against lets say Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin, but it's not ok when the FBI director says Americans should have thier rights taken away? That just desn't sound fine to me.

You know he didn't say that.

He said that the internet contributed to this event.

And it really is his job to keep you safe. It is his job to do risk management for your safety.

He didn't propose doing anything, he just expressed his opinion.

So you are suddenly opposed to free speech?

His job is not to keep me safe, his job is investigate crimes and arrest criminals. I keep me safe, and if I fail I pay the price.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[loosecannon]

I have assumed nothing, I have responded to the inane posts you've made describing what "speech" is

like that one. Which has already been answered and for some reason you seem to think repeating ad nauseum somehow makes relevant.

there are exceedingly few exceptions

Correcting you is becoming habit forming. What the judge said in the case you refer to was that he couldn't describe obscenity but knew what it was when he saw it. Obscenity is not (or rarely ever could be) political speech. And the instances of its limittation are few.

The SCOTUS was ruling in a case wherein they needed to determine if a particular example of "free speech" was pornography. They ruled that they could tell the difference when they saw it but they could not define it.

And you aren't correcting me, you have no idea what you are talking about, and no idea what my "position" is.

Like I said speech can take the form of insurrection, conspiracy, pornography, child abuse, slander, criminal acts, incitement to riot etc.

All of which are prohibited, there are MANY exceptions to free speech.

Just ask Julian Assange.

 

[loosecannon]

Or are you going to try and say that you did not mean you wanted to change the rules for the internet here.

that's right, I said nothing of the sort, you stupidly assumed as much. Please grow up, seriously.

How would eliminating the current internet prevent any of that?

who was talking about eliminating the internet?

It is just one risk we need to manage as long as we find terror events unacceptable collateral damages we pay for freedom.

That would be you.

sorry wrong as usual. That would be YOU.

I stopped reading there since you bore me with your stupidity.

 

[loosecannon]

And the internet is responsible for that in what way?

It isn't, you just said something crazy and I corrected you.

You are the one that said something crazy, because people launch attacks on public figures in crowds all the time.

Not in the USA they don't. But if crazy people did it half the time there wouldn't be any public figures left in the country.

 

[loosecannon]

oh I see so it's fine when the media speaks out against lets say Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin, but it's not ok when the FBI director says Americans should have thier rights taken away? That just desn't sound fine to me.

You know he didn't say that.

He said that the internet contributed to this event.

And it really is his job to keep you safe. It is his job to do risk management for your safety.

He didn't propose doing anything, he just expressed his opinion.

So you are suddenly opposed to free speech?

His job is not to keep me safe, his job is investigate crimes and arrest criminals. I keep me safe, and if I fail I pay the price.

What does the title director of the FBI/Homeland security mean to you?

 

[loosecannon]

You know he didn't say that.

He said that the internet contributed to this event.

And it really is his job to keep you safe. It is his job to do risk management for your safety.

He didn't propose doing anything, he just expressed his opinion.

So you are suddenly opposed to free speech?

His job is not to keep me safe, his job is investigate crimes and arrest criminals. I keep me safe, and if I fail I pay the price.

Couldn't agree more.

which explains why you are serially wrong.

The truth of the matter is that when the director of the FBI practices free speech YOU CAN'T STAND IT.

When somebody on the internet practices free speech YOU CAN'T STAND IT.

YOU CAN'T STAND free speech and you try your best to shout down, shut up and launch all manner of ugly against folks merely because they practice free speech.

If you had the clarity of mind to recognize what a complete hypocrite you are you would probably explode.

 

[Richard-H]

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

They've already made the move for control via Net Neutrality and the recent Federally Controlled ID initiative.

Wow, you seriously don't know what the term 'Net Neutrality' means.

It means that internet service sproviders are not allowed to classify internet traffic and charge customers based on the type of usage. They provide connectivity and bandwidth and have to keep their noses out of their customers business.

It's a law to protect freedom on the internet.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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

They've already made the move for control via Net Neutrality and the recent Federally Controlled ID initiative.

Wow, you seriously don't know what the term 'Net Neutrality' means.

It means that internet service sproviders are not allowed to classify internet traffic and charge customers based on the type of usage. They provide connectivity and bandwidth and have to keep their noses out of their customers business.

It's a law to protect freedom on the internet.

Yeah thats what you think, You will find out soon enough that it is something else completely.

 

[jillian]

child abuse is not 'speech'. pornography is speech if there is any redeeming social value. slander is not protected speech. criminal acts and incitement to riot are not speech.

how do you define insurrection? do you mean treason? no. that would not be protected speech. on the other hand, protest of government action is protected speech.

btw... the comment about knowing obscenity when you see it was made by Justice Potter Stewart in the case Jacobellis v. Ohio and was not the 'holding' of the case but merely dicta (meaning it said what the justice was thinking but had no value as precedent). essentially, what he was saying was that there are no brightline rules for what is obscene.

 

[jillian]

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

They've already made the move for control via Net Neutrality and the recent Federally Controlled ID initiative.

Wow, you seriously don't know what the term 'Net Neutrality' means.

It means that internet service sproviders are not allowed to classify internet traffic and charge customers based on the type of usage. They provide connectivity and bandwidth and have to keep their noses out of their customers business.

It's a law to protect freedom on the internet.

they're not really interested in what it really is.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

So those that post things that contrirbute to or trigger an episode bear no responsibility and therefore should not modify their actions?

 

[uscitizen]

They've already made the move for control via Net Neutrality and the recent Federally Controlled ID initiative.

Wow, you seriously don't know what the term 'Net Neutrality' means.

It means that internet service sproviders are not allowed to classify internet traffic and charge customers based on the type of usage. They provide connectivity and bandwidth and have to keep their noses out of their customers business.

It's a law to protect freedom on the internet.

they're not really interested in what it really is.

They are just doing what they are told to do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The SCOTUS was ruling in a case wherein they needed to determine if a particular example of "free speech" was pornography. They ruled that they could tell the difference when they saw it but they could not define it.

And you aren't correcting me, you have no idea what you are talking about, and no idea what my "position" is.

Like I said speech can take the form of insurrection, conspiracy, pornography, child abuse, slander, criminal acts, incitement to riot etc.

All of which are prohibited, there are MANY exceptions to free speech.

Just ask Julian Assange.

What a perfect example to destroy your argument. Assange has not been charged with anything under US law, despite the fact that the entire DoJ has been trying to find something to charge him with. How exactly does using him as an example prove that you have any idea of what you are trying to prove?