It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lieberman Demands Youtube Censorship

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
If youtube is censored, can ATS be far behind?

When will you malcontent bastards ever learn.




posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


I don't anticipate Barr to get the nod, actually.

Wayne Allyn Root

Sorry to break topic, DD.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Ladies and gentlemen, a moment of silence please for the internet. The last bastion of freedom, the last place where political, religous and ideological discussion were truly free. Here we could say what we wanted, even someting extreme, we may have been bashed, had our ideas challenged or even ridiculed but we were able to post them.

Slowly we're seeing the errosion of the internets freedom, like an ocean against a cliff, small molecules will erode, then small pebbles and when no one cares anymroe the whole cliff face will drop and we'll be left with an entirely new cliff. One where free speech will get you in trouble and present you as a terrorist.

I've grown up with the internet, from the early days of the bulliten board, i wasn't there at the very start but i was there early enough to see the 14.4k modem, when image were displayed using text, when pictures were the absolute most amazing thing to be seen online. When music online was unheard of, when i could download the tehnical manual from a phone compnay and it took 48 hours instead of 2 minutes, and i truly am upset that control is being implemented.

Again i ask everyone to take a minute, look up the history of the internet, visit the old boards that are kept up for historic sake by dedicated "white hat" hackers and give a moments pause.

*Lights a candle for the internet*

It will take a few more years, maybe 10 years and we'll finally see a full control over this fantastic resource. I'll be around to see it i hope, and yet i don't want to see it happen.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Or you can just see the tombstone now.




Rest In Peace Freedom


BTW My photoshop skills are very poor.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Whilst i think my post was more to the point and clear on what upsets me about the current developments of the internet, a picture speaks a thousand words.

I like your photoshop skills, you don't have to have a perfect fake to make your point



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The whole idea of censorship is stupid in the first place. Think about it for just about 2 seconds: When "terrorist" videos (or even those that show violent crimes being committed) get posted, they can use YouTube's computer records to trace down the originators & arrest them: They've already got all the hard evidence needed for a conviction!

Not only that, but there's also loads-n-loads of "civic-minded" Citizens flagging the damn things to help point out the criminals to Homeland Security in the first place!

Censorship only hurts the Citizens, makes the authorities' jobs harder & helps the criminals stay "underground."


[edit on 20-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


They know all this but they want to censor the Anti Fed people out there and the Anti War people you know all the reasonable thinking people.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
They know all this but they want to censor...all the reasonable thinking people.

Which is why they're stupid...The more they squeeze on any of the Citizens' Rights, the more citizens will start exercising their Second Amendment Rights...



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
The whole idea of censorship is stupid in the first place. Think about it for just about 2 seconds: When "terrorist" videos (or even those that show violent crimes being committed) get posted, they can use YouTube's computer records to trace down the originators & arrest them: They've already got all the hard evidence needed for a conviction!

Not only that, but there's also loads-n-loads of "civic-minded" Citizens flagging the damn things to help point out the criminals to Homeland Security in the first place!

Censorship only hurts the Citizens, makes the authorities' jobs harder & helps the criminals stay "underground."


[edit on 20-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]


I agree with you 100 per cent.The problem isnt the citizens but those who seek to subvert democracy either within the U.S govt(yes you fascists i know your there),or externally from groups like Hamas or Hezbollah.Hell even countries like Iran or Syria can now be a threat because of the net.

I mean theres people threaten folks with death because of their support for Israel or the Iraq war or against the war or against Israel.No joke.People are being threatened online with death because of their political or ideological views.

So just what do you expect govt to do about it?I leave this question with ATS and see what comes up.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Well the simple facts are these.

I will fight for internet freedoms for as long as breath leaves my body, i will not allow anyone to take my fingerprints or DNA unelss i have commited a crime. I will change service providers as often as is needed to find the provider who allows my freedoms and when there are none left, i will pertition the government as often as i can to make them realise that freedom is vital.

Remember, every empire that has existed to create an underclass has eventually fallen. In our modern age this may take a far grater amount of time but it will happen, people don't like being ignored, they don't like being enslaved and eventually they revolt.

I have faith in the human spirit.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Apparently, "Al-Qaeda" and "Islamist Terror" are the only two undefined, general "Terror Groups" whose video messages might be harmful to the general population of the Planet.
Ok, geez, phew..., I'm glad I don't have to worry about viewing any of the other possible "terror" groups messages, as they are obviously not deemed as harmful...What Bulls#*t is that ...?
Beside the probability that if there really was an honest investigation into this matter, the trail would only lead him right back to the "government" he so enjoys his position in.



Edit for spelling...

[edit on 21-5-2008 by FewWorldOrder]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Maybe a differnt angle is needed here .

Should any responseible website allow terrorist clips , video from school shooters e.t.c to remain on there site ?

Aside from the fact the enemy is likely to try and conceal there real IP address or use a public place there is the notion that free speech can be abused . Free Speech wasn't used to excuse the actions of Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw Haw . The fact that this topic even exists tells us that we the people have failed in our duty to responsible manage free speech .



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Maybe a differnt angle is needed here .

Should any responseible website allow terrorist clips , video from school shooters e.t.c to remain on there site ?

Aside from the fact the enemy is likely to try and conceal there real IP address or use a public place there is the notion that free speech can be abused . Free Speech wasn't used to excuse the actions of Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw Haw . The fact that this topic even exists tells us that we the people have failed in our duty to responsible manage free speech .


The problem is the definition of "terrorist" and who gets to define who or what a "terrorist" is.

One day it can be some Arab guy with AK

The next day it will be a violent anti-war protester with a gun

Then next day it will be a anti war protester

Then the next day it will be a guy who owns a gun

Then it will be a guy who believes and cites the U.S. Constitution.......oh wait that is already happening.

You start taking one freedom away for a "good" reason and that sets a precedent for taking other freedoms.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by wutone
The problem is the definition of "terrorist" and who gets to define who or what a "terrorist" is.


Well in this case that would be up to the owners of You Tube .
Let me put it another way should material related to the sexual abuse of children be given a free reign in the name of free speech ?

I certainly don't think so . If the enemy wants to broadcast propaganda on the internet let them do it else where .



You start taking one freedom away for a "good" reason and that sets a precedent for taking other freedoms.


Not really clamping down on enemy propaganda didn't result in the loss of democracy during WW2 . Those who preach criminal or terrorist activity's should not have the right to abuse free speech in such a way .

Say for arguments sake if web sites made a choice not to show videos made by school shooters then there may be less cases of such shootings . If people were able to manage free speech in a responsible way there would be no need for any government to even consider interfering in such manners . Outside of the internet Slander exists as a way keeping in check those who have abused free speech .




[edit on 20-5-2008 by xpert11]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
I love the hypocrisy of these son of guns. Sensor youtube the voice of the common man but they can have their main stream media to get their agendas going. Liberman is a neocon in an independent disguise anyways. Hes been for this nation building the whole time. I wonder what ties to Israel he has.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by mybigunit]


How did we get from censoring youtube to Lieberman having nefarious secret ties with Israel?? A bit of a leap if you ask me. You throw around Neocon pretty loosely, care to define Neocon to me? And please, not the wiki entry. Also, could you please highlight what I assume must be a great many points which have lead you to believe that Lieberman is a neocon?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
This, ladies & gentlemen, is the kind of behavior that we identify as that of a TRAITOR.

Censorship of communication is an act against the civil liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution... specifically, free speech.

Anyone working against that is a traitor to country and constitution, and not an honorable member of our government.


The reason we must include videos, websites, newspapers, or any other manner of communication... no matter how much we may dislike them personally... is that once the government gets its foot in the door toward censorship of speech or the press, then there is no limit to how far they may take it given enough time.


To prevent tyranny from making a touchdown, you must keep it completely off the field.


All ideas will be given their due attention by the public. If you're a crazed murdering loon, then people will know what to think of you when they see what you have to say.

Since most people are good and have some common sense, there is little danger in allowing a nutbag to have a rant in some video on some site.

The danger comes when it is permitted to deny a person the right to speak publicly... because this ability is, without fail, always eventually abused by those with the power to enforce it.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ianr5741]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Child sex abuse is so much easier to define than terrorism.

And once again, who gets to define what terrorism is?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wutone
 


The victims. I'd say a large majority of Americans could agree on one definition of terrorism.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppskylight
reply to post by wutone
 


The victims. I'd say a large majority of Americans could agree on one definition of terrorism.


Be careful what you say there, a lot of the victims blame the government.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Youtube isn't and won't be censored. It may be pressured to filter it's content more carefully to avoid spreading hatefull messages that contribute to the infringing of upon others rights to exist peacefully, but Youtube and open discussion forums like this will remain open. Conspiracy theorists give themselves too much credit when it comes to the likelyhood of attracting any sort of real, harmful attention upon yourself. I like the word disinformation.




top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join