Massachusetts Senator Wants the Government to Search the internet for Bad Speech

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/editorials/2014/04/editorial_markey_s_mission_creep

Editorial: Markey’s mission creep
Thursday, April 24, 2014
..U.S. Sen. Ed Markey wants to empower an obscure federal agency to begin scouring the Internet, TV and radio for speech it finds threatening — a plan met with jeers from defenders of the First Amendment. Here we add one more incredulous voice to the chorus.

The “Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014” presents a frankly chilling proposition. The spookily-named National Telecommunications and Information Administration (what, you’ve never heard of it?) would be required to submit a report to Congress on “the use of telecommunications” “to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”

Using its own judgment to determine what qualifies as impermissible speech, the new government hall monitors would then recommend steps for Congress to take that are “appropriate and necessary to address such use of telecommunications.” Now, those recs must be “consistent with the First Amendment,” the bill says — and Markey insists.

But prosecutors already have the authority to prosecute threats. And for the life of us we can’t fathom any further government limit on Internet postings or talk radio callers that could be structured to protect an American’s right to free expression. Neither can the experts.

“This proposed legislation is worse than merely silly. It is dangerous,” civil liberties lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate said. “It is not up to Sen. Markey, nor to the federal government, to define for a free people what speech is, and is not, acceptable.”

Either silly, dangerous or both — a Markey specialty. Inexplicably unchallenged in his bid for a full Senate term the state’s junior senator clearly needs something to occupy his time. Perhaps he could crack a briefing book on the crisis in Ukraine rather than looking for his own extra-constitutional methods of punishing speech he finds unacceptable.

**Ouze**

This does not seem to be a good use of limited NTIA resources.

**CptJake**

He hates roller coasters too.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340033/ed-markey-s-peculiar-crusade-charles-c-w-cooke

He'll be re-elected with no problems. Unless a state that also elects Warren considers him too conservative.

**fishy bob**

So where, if not online, will people get their daily hate speech fix?

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
This does not seem to be a good use of limited NTIA resources.

I'm not sure the NTIA is a good use of limited tax payer resources to begin with.

**LuciusAR**

Define 'threatening'.

Trouble is that some overly sensitive souls tend to consider anything that they disagree or upsets their precious feelings to be a threat.

**cincydooley**

Well, they better avoid reddit and pretty much any major websites response forum.

**LordofHats**

We're looking at this all wrong. We need to sit down and ask ourselves; How can we use this against 4chan

**Frazzled**

Step One: gather information.
Step Two: release information to friendly political organizations.
Step Three: Profit!

"Its our way. The Chicago Way. "

**squidhills**

Well, if experience has taught me anything these guys will give up after trying to arrest everyone on Xbox Live for hate speech. The internet is fuelled by hatred and racist slurs. Well, that and porn.

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:
Step One: gather information.
Step Two: release information to friendly political organizations.
Step Three: Profit!

"Its our way. The Chicago Way. "

I thought the Chicago Way was "Vote early, vote often."

**kronk**

fishy bob wrote:
So where, if not online, will people get their daily hate speech fix?

Come over! We'll have a beer. I'll fill you with all the hate you want, with a side of aggression and a sprinkling of profanity!

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Step One: gather information.
Step Two: release information to friendly political organizations.
Step Three: Profit!

"Its our way. The Chicago Way. "

I thought the Chicago Way was "Vote early, vote often."

or was it " All our deceased vote Democrat."

**kronk**

daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Step One: gather information.
Step Two: release information to friendly political organizations.
Step Three: Profit!

"Its our way. The Chicago Way. "

I thought the Chicago Way was "Vote early, vote often."

That's Louisiana!

Frazzled wrote:

or was it " All our deceased vote Democrat."

That's Chicago!

**Dreadclaw69**

cincydooley wrote:
Well, they better avoid reddit and pretty much any major websites response forum.

Their heads will explode if they go on youtube

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Step One: gather information.
Step Two: release information to friendly political organizations.
Step Three: Profit!

"Its our way. The Chicago Way. "

Are we talking about this news, or the IRS?

**Redbeard**

I'm not sure I fully understand this, but I don't see anything in the 1st amendment about not tracking people's speech. I don't think this Senator's request/proposal is intended to stop people saying things, just track some of it.

After reading reports like this one, I'm not sure it isn't in the public interest to have law enforcement monitor such sites.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Redbeard wrote:
I'm not sure I fully understand this, but I don't see anything in the 1st amendment about not tracking people's speech. I don't think this Senator's request/proposal is intended to stop people saying things, just track some of it.

After reading reports like this one, I'm not sure it isn't in the public interest to have law enforcement monitor such sites.

Using its own judgment to determine what qualifies as impermissible speech, the new government hall monitors would then recommend steps for Congress to take that are “appropriate and necessary to address such use of telecommunications.”

Why monitor it if you don't plan to legislate it.

**LordofHats**

Redbeard wrote:
I'm not sure I fully understand this, but I don't see anything in the 1st amendment about not tracking people's speech. I don't think this Senator's request/proposal is intended to stop people saying things, just track some of it.

The argument can be made that such a law stifles free speech (who wants to talk when it ends up putting them on a watch list) but that ends up being a decision for the courts to make. Outside the courts, being booed hasn't gotten rid of the Nazi's yet, so I'm skeptical that the government reporting you're latest racist gaffe to Congress will stop anyone from saying racist gak

After reading reports like this one, I'm not sure it isn't in the public interest to have law enforcement monitor such sites.

That's kind of the thing; Law enforcement already is monitoring those sites. Sites like Stormfront have their own watch dog at the FBI who basically reads that trash for a living to make sure no one's plotting anything nefarious. The senator's proposal is to automate that system but given how many (mostly harmless) racist jokes fly around on the internet, monitoring the whole internet seems like a waste of time to me. Same issue as with PRISM.

Anyone serious enough to really want to do anything, is likely going to pop up at certain known places, or remain delegated to the backwaters of the net where this kind of program might not find them anyway.

**Dreadclaw69**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Redbeard wrote:
I'm not sure I fully understand this, but I don't see anything in the 1st amendment about not tracking people's speech. I don't think this Senator's request/proposal is intended to stop people saying things, just track some of it.

After reading reports like this one, I'm not sure it isn't in the public interest to have law enforcement monitor such sites.

Using its own judgment to determine what qualifies as impermissible speech, the new government hall monitors would then recommend steps for Congress to take that are “appropriate and necessary to address such use of telecommunications.”

Why monitor it if you don't plan to legislate it.

Because we need a new place to sink public funds?

**Frazzled**

Redbeard wrote:
I'm not sure I fully understand this, but I don't see anything in the 1st amendment about not tracking people's speech. I don't think this Senator's request/proposal is intended to stop people saying things, just track some of it.

After reading reports like this one, I'm not sure it isn't in the public interest to have law enforcement monitor such sites.

Tracking is the first step to controlling. This administration has already proven it will leak confidential material about opponents to helpful parties. What will the next one do?

**kronk**

Tracking leads to investigations, investigations lead to 11 year olds getting sued by the RIAA!

**Spacemanvic**

Redbeard wrote:
I'm not sure I fully understand this, but I don't see anything in the 1st amendment about not tracking people's speech. I don't think this Senator's request/proposal is intended to stop people saying things, just track some of it.

After reading reports like this one, I'm not sure it isn't in the public interest to have law enforcement monitor such sites.

This is what a judge signed specific warrant is for. Fishing expeditions are anti 1A.

**Ahtman**

CptJake wrote:
He hates roller coasters too.

This is all you had to say to get me to dislike him.

**Dreadclaw69**

Spacemanvic wrote:
Redbeard wrote:
I'm not sure I fully understand this, but I don't see anything in the 1st amendment about not tracking people's speech. I don't think this Senator's request/proposal is intended to stop people saying things, just track some of it.

After reading reports like this one, I'm not sure it isn't in the public interest to have law enforcement monitor such sites.

This is what a judge signed specific warrant is for. Fishing expeditions are anti 1A.

It's ok. I'm sure that the good Senator will be happy to appoint some First Amendment zone websites (hosted and monitored by the government naturally) for their subjects..... sorry - citizens

**Frazzled**

Don't we already have the CIA/NSA/Post office already doing this?

**Seaward**

Redbeard wrote:
After reading reports like this one, I'm not sure it isn't in the public interest to have law enforcement monitor such sites.

Man. It takes some major cojones for DailyKos to refer to somebody else's playground as, "A site that is populated by deluded losers who spend their days bitching about the direction this country is going." The pot-kettle jokes set themselves right up.

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:
Don't we already have the CIA/NSA/Post office already doing this?

And in Peoria, local police.

**gunslingerpro**

As someone who lives and works in the state, you have to understand, politicians in this state have, hm, skewed priorities.

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
Ouze wrote:
This does not seem to be a good use of limited NTIA resources.

I'm not sure the NTIA is a good use of limited tax payer resources to begin with.

With this, I will disagree. Congress isn't expert in information technology and I see nothing wrong with funding a public office to research and advise, and help shape policy for what is a major driver of our economy. This is asking them to step outside their purview, though.

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
With this, I will disagree. Congress isn't expert in information technology and I see nothing wrong with funding a public office to research and advise, and help shape policy for what is a major driver of our economy. This is asking them to step outside their purview, though.

Congress isn't expert in a whole host of important issues and economic sectors they've involved themselves in. My preference would be that, rather than setting up advisory boards, they simply stayed out of said issues and sectors.