10 Failed Attempts by the Government to Control the Internet

Christine Kane
activistpost.com

The topic that was dangling at the forefront of most American’s minds at the end of 2011, and even seeping into the beginning of 2012, was the fate of the Internet.

The Stop Online Piracy Act, discussed further below, whipped citizens into a frenzy and led to the largest Internet-based protest to date.

In light of a slightly-reworked, renamed SOPA’s emergence, it is worth reviewing ten failed attempts by the American government to control the Internet.

1. Communications Decency Act (1996) – The portions of the Communications Decency Act that were the most controversial were the ones that attempted to regulate internet pornography; a judiciary panel stated that the bill would infringe upon First Amendment rights and the bill was squashed. 

2. Child Online Protection Act (1998) – Though the Child Online Protection Act was passed in 1998, a federal injunction claiming that the language was too broad caused the law to never take effect. 

3. Internet School Filtering Act (1998) – While many of the Internet School Filtering Act’s points were eventually enacted through other legislation that did pass, the original bill was struck down. 

4. Deleting Online Predators Act (2006) – The Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 would have prohibited the use of social networking sites on school or library computers; critics argued, however, that the bill would also limit access to educationally useful information, and as such the bill languished. 

5. Intellectual Property Enforcement Act (2007) – Proposed during the 110th session of Congress in an attempt to shore up American intellectual property laws, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act would have allowed the Department of Justice to press civil charges against those suspected of infringement. 

6. Cybersecurity Act (2009) – Though reworded versions of the Cybersecurity Act have been reintroduced each year since the original bill was drafted, public outcry over the unprecedented level of control it would grant the government with has kept any of them from passing. 

7. Protecting Cyberspace As a National Asset Act (2010) – Senator Joe Lieberman introduced the Protecting Cyberspace As a National Asset Act in 2010. He then promptly incurred the wrath of critics for citing China’s similar policies in an attempt to portray the bill as standard government procedure.

8. Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (2010) – Activist organizations launched a full-scale attack on COICA, and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden publicly announced his intention to block the bill. Though it did pass the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was killed off before it ever reached fruition. 

9. PROTECT IP Act (2011) – The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, a re-write of the failed COICA introduced by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, was one of the 2011 targets of internet activists. The protests launched by major internet players led to the postponement of the bill until the issues were resolved, granting Americans a temporary victory. 

10. Stop Online Piracy Act (2011) – Arguably the biggest rallying point for activists in 2011 and early 2012, SOPA led to full and partial protests that shutdown major websites in January of 2012. The bill was postponed until “there is wider agreement on a solution.”

Entertainment industry heavyweights have not given up on their crusade to end piracy; rather than changing their business model to adapt to the needs of a changing world, they’ve chosen to attack the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans.  Combined with cybersecurity directives such as CISPA, and a rapidly developing cyberwar arms race, Internet freedom remains under continuous attack.

The above 10 initiatives have been defeated for now, but constant vigilance and activism will be necessary to thwart the latest round of freedom-smashing legislation being ushered in the name of anti-piracy and Internet security.

Christine Kane, regularly writes for http://www.internetserviceproviders.org/. She is a graduate in English literature and currently pursuing her masters in Online Journalism. She can be reached via email at: christine.kane19@gmail.com. 

Ron Paul: War Drums for Syria?

Congressman Ron Paul

paul.house.gov

War drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of “regime change” in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration. It may be the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation — unless the truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a US attack. There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by then the US and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge. Likewise, we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the economy set back decades. An unnecessary war brought about by lies and manipulation never ends well. Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton’s bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there. The story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions. First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives. No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories. We have seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration is providing direct “non-lethal” assistance to the rebels in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don’t know much about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, “I think the military option should be considered.” And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals. We are on a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.

RT: NDAA unconstitutional: Federal judge bans Obama from indefinitely detaining Americans

RT.com

Sorry, Mr. President. A US Federal judge has clarified a decision made last month with some news sure to upset the Obama administration: the White House cannot use the NDAA to indefinitely detain American citizens.

Judge Katherine B. Forrest has answered a request made by US President Barack Obama last month to more carefully explain a May 16 ruling made in a Southern District of New York courtroom regarding the National Defense Authorization Act. Clarifying the meaning behind her injunction, Judge Forrest confirms in an eight-page memorandum opinion this week that the NDAA’s controversial provision that permits  indefinite detention cannot be used on any of America’s own citizens.

Last month Judge Forrest ruled in favor of a group of journalists and activists whom filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 1021 of the NDAA, a defense spending bill signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. Specifically, Judge Forrest said in her injunction that the legislation contained elements that had a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights” and ruled that no, the government cannot imprison Americans over suspected ties with terrorists.

“In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more,” said the judge.

The Obama administration responded nine days later by asking Judge Forrest to reconsider her ruling, adding that, in the interim, the government would interpret the injunction to mean that only the few plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit would be excluded from indefinite detention. One of those named, journalist Chris Hedges, had previously said, “I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists … but that does not make me one.”

Responding to the White House’s demands, Judge Forrest writes in a June 6 memo, “Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court — or by Congress. This order should eliminate any doubt as to the May 16 order’s scope.”

Judge Forrest does include in her ruling, however, that Americans can be indefinitely detained, but only providing that the government can link suspects directly to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Attorney Carl Meyer represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and told RT last month that he expected the Obama administration to challenge Judge Forrest’s ruling, but warned that “it may not be in their best interest because there are so many people from all sides of the political spectrum opposed to this law.”

Previously, state lawmakers in both Utah and Virginia have proposed legislation that would negate provisions of the NDAA on a local level.

Understanding the Propaganda War Against Syria: Rape and Torture: Weapons in the Propaganda War

Eric Draitser

StopImperalism.com

Rape and torture have become standard issue in the propaganda arsenal of Western media.  Reports from organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the UN Human Rights Council that claim to document the systematic use of rape and torture by the “enemies” of the West have become usual fair in the soft war against whomever the imperialists have chosen to attack.  We have seen these claims used to legitimize aggression against Libya, Iraq, and now Syria.

 

In an article published in The Telegraph, the author cleverly uses a quote from a Deputy Director at Human Rights Watch making a general statement about the use of rape in detention facilities in order to humiliate, degrade and instill fear.  However, he makes no direct reference to Syria, though the article clearly attempts to draw that abstract connection.  In fact, as one reads further, the claims of rape and torture at the hands of Syrian security forces come from “activists” (the usual anonymous term applied to any quotable voice parroting the Western talking points regarding Assad and the regime) who have fled Syria.  In fact, the so-called activists are, in many cases, wanted terrorists who have fled Syria not in fear of persecution but for fear of being brought to justice for their crimes.

 

It is significant to note that, even with the obvious bias from the “eyewitnesses” and the authors of the article, there is still no mention of actual Syrian forces engaging in these actions. Instead, it is all chalked up to “militias loyal to the Assad regime”, an important distinction which goes conveniently understated.  In fact, the only mention of “security forces” involved in this sort of behavior is added in brackets by the authors of the article themselves.  This shows how the Western media constantly manipulate quotes and facts in order to shape them to fit the narrative that the Western propagandists want.

 

 

The Precedent of Libya

 

In the run-up to the imperialist aggression against Libya last year, the lie that Gaddafi forces were using rape as a weapon was planted in the public mind, so as to legitimize the obvious warmongering of the West, providing NATO the human rights cover they so desperately needed for their “intervention”.  Of course, as is so often the case, the fact that these claims were later proven untrue went conveniently missing from the standard narrative.  But, by the time the myth was debunked, the PR damage was done: Gaddafi was a monster, the Benghazi “rebels” and NTC were heroic freedom fighters, and Libya was in dire need of the benevolent bombs of NATO.

 

Almost as important as the content of the claims, was the nature of who made them.  The UN Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and countless other organizations which are dependent on funding from the US and its allies lent credence to such charges, providing an air of legitimacy to claims which, otherwise, would have been dismissed as little more than NATO propaganda.  In this way, these organizations are complicit in the instigation of war and the devastation wrought on Libya.

 

The charges of rape and the systematic distribution of Viagra to Gaddafi forces served another crucial function: they framed the conflict in the public mind to be one between good and evil, rather than between government and rebel terrorists.  This is a very significant manipulation because, in order to shape public opinion in favor of war, the forces of Western imperialism needed more than simply a justification, they required an emotional appeal: one that relied not on violence and warfare aimed at fighters, but one that was aimed at the most defenseless, women and children.

 

 

Iraq: Torture Prisons and Incubator Babies

 

 

Libya was not the first example of this sort manipulation for the purposes of legitimizing US aggression.  One of the most well-documented instances of this blatantly false propaganda was the lead-up to the first and second Iraq Wars.  George H.W. Bush utilized the completely fictional story of Iraqi soldiers barbarically killing Kuwaiti babies in incubators in order to justify the US aggression against Saddam Hussein in 1991.  This claim, now totally debunked, painted Saddam as a vicious barbarian who craved death and torture for their own sake.  This dehumanization of the enemy and the subsequent emotional and visceral response from the public, allowed Bush to launch his aggressive war.  Moreover, this episode illustrated plainly the complicity of Amnesty International and similar “watchdogs” in selling war.

 

Like his father before him, George W. Bush employed the very same tactics to unleash the death and destruction of the second Iraq War.  His administration claimed that Saddam ran a series of torture prisons, a fact that, though possibly true, was simply used to justify the aggression against Iraq for the sake of corporate profits and asserting US hegemony in the Middle East.

 

The hypocrisy of these claims should not be lost on any political observer.  Within a short time of deposing Saddam Hussein, the United States had established its own series of “black site” torture prisons, of which Abu Ghraib was only the tip of the iceberg.  Reports of US military, CIA, and Blackwater using torture on Iraqis began becoming more and more common until it had become quite clear that the United States was systematically torturing prisoners, precisely the claim that was leveled against the “barbaric” Saddam.

 

 

Syria: The Next Casualty of Propaganda War

 

The use of rape and torture lies for propaganda purposes serve a very specific function: they create a climate conducive to war-making when a government has successfully resisted all other attempts at subversion and destabilization.  Like the Gaddafi government last year, Assad’s government has managed to stay in power in the face of a multi-faceted, international war being waged against it from all sides.  Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the Washington imperialist warmongers are incensed that Assad has not yet fallen and that their terrorist proxies have been unequivocal failures.  So, they turn to their most effective weapon: lies.  As we’ve seen in recent days with the Houla massacre, the Western media, as a mouthpiece for US-NATO propaganda, has launched an all-out media campaign of lies to convince the public that Assad is a heartless, inhuman butcher.  The claims that Syrian military forces were responsible for the horrendous massacre have been refuted and debunked countless times, so much so that even the Western media has had to recast the narrative, constantly changing it in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 

Whatever claims of rape and torture that might be true are likely being committed at the hands of the armed terrorist “opposition” in Syria.  If we are to believe that there actually are eyewitnesses to these acts, as claimed in the above mentioned London Telegraph article, then it is clear these acts are being carried out by these militias who have no connection to the Syrian government or to the Syrian people and are part of the international subversion campaign.  These death squads, like their antecedents in Central America and Iraq, are trained by the West and its proxies in the Middle East because the imperialists know that they cannot otherwise execute their agenda.

 

It is necessary and, in fact, essential for the United States and its allies to wage this propaganda war.  Without it, rationality and sound political thinking might sway public opinion away from war and back to the idea that Syria belongs to Syrians.  This basic conception completely derails the entire drive for war, preventing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States from imposing their will on the people of Syria and continuing their imperialist domination of the region.

 

….

 

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst that maintains StopImperialism.com which hosts his weekly podcast. He has been a guest on Dr. Webster Tarpley’s World Crisis Radio and has provided analysis on Russia Today.