Best
91 Comments
Post
  • #24
    !
    @Tripod ...agree somewhat, but we all know the 2nd A. is the most vague and left open to interpretation Amendment in the Constitution, hardly as clear as the First, which is what this thread is about, don't make it a 2nd issue, please, we've all heard both sides and its been driven in the ground enough already, hell, "your" side won, be happy :)
  • #47
    !
    @hankf68 the second A is crystal clear. It's only vague if you don't like it.
    My point is there are lots of things that I hate that are covered under the first. I just have to deal with that. Because the good outweighs the bad. You wont ever hear me trying to restrict anyones first amendment rights. Even in this case where it covers something that can lead to people being killed. Because there are ways to combat terrorism without attacking the constitution.
    I wish you on the left could apply that same principle to the second amendment.
  • #68
    !
    @Tripod ...I am not against ANY of the 1st 10 Amendments and have never said such, I believe in the right to bear arms, just not machine guns, bazooka's, tanks, predator drones, etc. and most scholars of the constitution would say the 2nd is the most vague of the amendments no matter if you think it isn't...some of "you" (esp. 2nd amender fanatics and I'm not saying you personally are a fanatic) on here are so quick to assume too much if you think someone may believe in some form of gun restrictions, again, I support the 2nd and your rights to bear arms and have always said so, also I am not a person who defines himself with label's, I am not from the "left" or "right", or any of the current parties, by far...
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    !
    The only real way it could be done is with either extreme censorship or not allowing sites in the US from other countries. Both approaches are worse than allowing the sites. Besides the reasons given it is also a violation of the first amendment.
  • #6
    !
    I'm going to side with the First Amendment on this one without reading the story, but why doesn't this apply to everything else?
  • #5
    !
    The United States isn't going to shut down terrorist web sites because if they do that then there wouldn't be any propaganda for terrorists to recruit with and if there's no terrorist then there's no reason to be in the middle east also it allows us the ability to keep a more managed eye on terrorist activities
  • #7
    !
    interesting and probably correct to a point, but I think it has more to do with the 1st Amendment, although, nice thinking outside the box, more should be so inclined...
  • #14
    !
    @hankf68 I believe we will agree on this terrorist don't get the freedoms of being American and they Damn sure don't deserve them they want us all dead that should have to be treated like cattle leave them in the field all day to do there own thing but lock them in a fence so they can't go do dumb shit
  • #20
    !
    @hankf68 Al Qaeda is on the run, why would they be using websites to spread their word. We should turn our focus to Christians on the internet, they have a penchant for releasing awful, horrible, untrue video's about Mohammed(which happen to be true) that make the Muslims do horrible things. That seems to be the preferred narrative by this administration.
  • #33
    !
    @gregtoye ...such websites (most) are free speech, it is those who take those ideas and commit crimes and break our laws that should be punished, and I could say that includes many people of many nationalities and religions who have been influenced by many other things or sites beside Muslim extremist sites, just google extremism and you may just find something else besides the subject of focus, including, but not limited to, christianity...(ie,The Turner Diaries for example)
  • R Load more replies

  • #21
    !
    Life is full of taking the good with the bad. It's how we deal with those who abuse their knowledge that is important. If a person can not be safe on the streets of chicago, why should we expect to limit violence by deniying free speach through out the world?
  • #12
    !
    The government should monitor the websites and determine who is using the website and what the discussion are about. If they suspect terrorist activity afoot, then do the best undercover investigation possible and take the planners out. Don't infringe on personal liberties, or it will start happening to other citizens not involved in illegal acts.
  • #57
    !
    @MellowGuy
    Not if they are discussion how to commit terrorism in this country. Your personal liberties end when you threaten to commit crimes like this. And yes, search warrants should be obtained to track the users if it is believed a plot or conspiracy to harm others and a judge signs off on the warrant.
  • #10
    !
    If they are providing instructions for making a bomb, how is that different than providing instructions for printing a gun? Isn't a bomb classified as "munitions?"

    Wouldn't the same logic apply? If the information for printing a gun is already out there, what's the point of getting an ISP to take down content.

    Getting ISP's to shut down websites that provide bomb-making instructions won't make bomb-making instructions unavailable online just like getting ISP to shut down websites that provide blueprints for 3d printing a gun won't make blueprints for 3D printing a gun will.

    So why the selective reasoning?
  • #11
    !
    The "whackamole" argument also doesn't make any sense. We know that taking a drug dealer off the streets will result into someone else stepping in to fill the demand. But that doesn't stop law enforcement from doing so.

    When I was in the Army, my unit was responsible for jamming enemy radio communications in the battlefield. The countermeasure to jamming is to change frequencies. When that happened we had to find the new frequency and resume jamming. Ultimately, the effectiveness of our jamming mission was measured by how much we confused, delayed and otherwise disrupted enemy communications.
  • #18
    !
    That is a good question. It is probably do to the selective reasoning of the Administration. The 1st Amendment is good, but the 2nd Amendment needs to be reigned in. They know that they can not stop the design that is on the internet. That is not how the internet works. But they can say to donors, that they tried. It isn't about what works. It is about what looks good.
  • #41
    !
    @wild_turkey6-- Exactly. Just another reason for the democrats to keep guns in the headlines and stoke fear.
  • #46
    !
    @Bobolinsky I remember about 20 years ago when Glocks were in the news. The same crowd said that they were dangerous because they were "made of plastic" and could be smuggled onto air planes. Now they are standard issue for just about every law enforcement agency.
  • #56
    !
    @Bobolinsky I don't disagree with you often so to take this wrong. Maybe I am saying the same thing in another way
    But the state dept was wrong to force the 3D plans off the Internet. And I would rather err on the side of the first amendment than to jump to restrict it.
    Simply because this could be a very bad precedent to set.
    Just like dealing with gun crime there are ways to fight this without infringing on the constitution. I suspect quite a few of those sites are ours anyway. Just to gather intel.
  • R Load more replies

  • #77
    !
    Hit the wrong Button. First and foremost the government won't shut the terrorist websites
    Because they are oObama's buddies. They shut down the 3d gum sight because it was American. But it boild down to free speach
  • #75
    !
    You can't violate the 1st Amendment right to free speech just because the government doesn't like what is being said. Considering that, where did the State Department think they got the authority to shut down the You-tube design of a 3D plastic gun? Sounds like a civil rights violation to me.
  • #73
    !
    Anyone could be labeled a terrorist at any time by anyone. At least by leaving the web site up it gives us insight into their attitudes and possible actions.
  • #70
    !
    The Bill of Rights! Freedom trumps security. If we tear apart the Bill of Rights to "protect" ourselves from terrorists, then the terrorists win.
  • #53
    !
    They don't because it would be very ignorant to shutdown a website just because it doesn't support your view point or you don't like it.
    Also the government doesn't own the Internet, the people do.
    (Not just from the United States but everywhere around the world)
    What part of the first amendment do you guys not get?
  • #27
    !
    The day will likely come when the government will find itself facing a popular shared philosophy that opposes the goal of the government in whatever form it exists at that time. Assuming the current constitution is still is use, the government could choose to shut down all sites associated with that philosophy in an effort to stifle it's spread and continuance. The scenario could happen at any time. I believe the justice department classified Occupy as a terrorist organization despite it's peaceful nature. Terrorism is the use of violence to affect political change. They don't meet that definition. I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm concerned that the government would shut down sites of people and organizations with opposing political and philosophical beliefs that represent no violent threat simply to stifle the spread of it.
  • #43
    !
    well spoken (or written :)...the term "terrorist" is truly an arbitrary term used for whatever the state in power deems to be in its interest...
  • #26
    !
    It seems that the 1st Amendment is sacred when protecting sites that share information from terrorists, but not sites that share songs or movies. Do we need to copyright all those bomb making plans to legally prevent them from being made available?
  • #90
    !
    It is all up to Eric Holder. He will enforce the Will of The Obama. Didn't you see the IRS hearings this morning?
    There is no higher law than the whim of the Obama Machine in Obama Nation.
  • #88
    !
    Our government has no power shut down foreign websites. We could prevent them from being viewed like China does, but we cant shut them down. Even going after Megaupload was a questionable move.
  • #87
    !
    @hankf68. So, if the First Amendment is so clear, why the the state department, headed by a former soldier that lied to congress, shut down the website about 3D printing? Please explain the difference to me.
  • #89
    !
    I never made a comment about 3D printing and don't know much about the case, but seems to me to fall under the "its clear" also category... I am a firm believer in 1st, as I am all of them, they should have let that site stand also, but again, I know little of the particulars...
  • R Load more comments...
Post