I took a look at the site referenced and followed the links listed for all
of the text in the document. No where did I find anything pertaining to
posting information about these drugs with the exception of for
Manufacturing, Trafficking, or distribution. Since all of us (I hope)
aren't Drug Lords...or stupid enough to sell drugs, there really isn't any
problems with it. granted, I don't approve of the bill, but it doesn't
seem to violate any of our rights with the exception of the rights of Drug
Lords and the idiots using and trying to sell the crap.
I also noticed that TEXAS isn't one of its supporters. (And ya wonder why.)
- Bernd
At 01:08 PM 08/13/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: AriRashkae@aol.com [mailto:AriRashkae@aol.com]
>Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 8:12 AM
>To: WADL@onelist.com
>Subject: [WADL] Congress to ban "unapproved substances" web pages
>
>
>From: AriRashkae@aol.com
>
>This one is ridiculous! Copied from the StormWilliamsIn2K list.
>
><<Here's the posting I received on the matter.
>
>
> http://www.y2knewswire.com/
>
>(I suppose discernment is needed here as well as with anything you read.)
>
>
>
> Thought Crimes! Senators Move to Criminalize Internet Content
>The latest attempt to censor free access to information on the Internet goes
>after discussions of "unapproved drugs." If these Senators have their way,
>you may land in jail for merely linking to a page that talks about colloidal
>silver. Join Y2K Newswire is taking a stand against this Orweillian
>endeavor...
>
>
>The Internet is bad for Big Government. It allows the free communication of
>ideas that can't be controlled from Washington, and it allows the low-cost
>education of the American public on ideas such as banking, economics and
>taxes. China learned this early on and put in place filters that prevent
>"unapproved" information from moving through the country's computer
>networks. (All Internet access in China is government-monopolized). This
>information, by the way, includes topics as dangerous as, say, meditation or
>Buddhism -- both of which the Communist Chinese government considers a
>threat to "state security." In fact, the Chinese government is currently
>engaged in hacking these meditation web sites, destroying their content.
>
>The United States government, as of late, seems eager to borrow as many
>Commie-style controls from China as it can... and this effort isn't limited
>only to Democrats. The latest is a proposed bill, now backed by eleven
>Senators and sponsored by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah), hopes to
>make it illegal to post or link to a web site that discusses the use of
>unapproved drugs.
>
>
>
>While the text of such a bill is not yet publicly available, it's no leap in
>thinking to suppose it might apply to all unapproved drugs, not just hard
>core ones like cocaine. Thus, if passed in such a form, the bill would give
>the FDA total control over all drug-related web content.
>
>
>
>Want to talk about colloidal silver on the web? Too bad: you'll do jail time
>if Senators Hatch and Feinstein have their way. Want to link to a site that
>talks about colloidal silver? Say hello to Ben Dover in cell number nine.
>Want to discuss the all-natural herb, Stevia? You'll be a felon.
>
>
>
>One step further and the law prevents you from bad-mouthing those substances
>approved as "safe" by the FDA. Did your aunt go blind from drinking gallons
>of aspartame-laced diet soda? You might someday go to jail for sharing that
>on the 'net. It's "unapproved."
>
>
>
>YOUR FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK
>Let's face it: If such a bill were to pass, it would crush the freedoms
>inherent in the Internet -- the very same freedoms that allow sites like Y2K
>Newswire to exist. That's how any government takes away power from its
>people, by the way: control the flow of information. Ever wonder why nearly
>every mainstream media outlet keeps telling you Y2K has been solved even
>though none of them have verified much beyond the so-called "facts" in the
>press releases? It's because they are largely controlled by the same few
>people. That way, all messages can be approved. And the message they want to
>get out right now -- to save the banks, mostly -- is that Y2K is no big
>deal.
>
>
>
>Distributed information resources scare the heck out of every power-hungry
>government. Any technology that gives individuals the power to cheaply reach
>millions of other people is "dangerous" and must be immediately attacked.
>That's exactly why this attack on "drug content" has begun. Once the bill is
>passed and the public is comfortable with the intrusion, Senators will move
>on to "guns." Should that succeed, (making it illegal to discuss guns on a
>web page) the attack can continue into other "unapproved" areas.
>
>
>
>In barely a generation, the Internet is 100% government-controlled, and you
>have -- guess what? -- China! Courtesy of Republican and Democratic Senators
>alike. The only politicians fighting this will be Libertarians. Congressman
>Ron Paul, namely.
>
>
>
>(This web site, by the way, is banned in China.)
>
>
>
>If you want America to become Communist China, just sit back and do nothing.
>On the other hand...
>
>
>
>YOUR CALL TO (EASY) ACTION HAS ARRIVED
>It is now time for you to do your part and blast these Senators for backing
>this bill. Hit them with such a massive protest that they will never again
>consider the censorship of the Internet.
>
>
>
>Look at the list below, and if you find a Senator from your state, call them
>and register your complaint.
>
>
>Here are the resources:
>
>
>Click here for the bill summary
>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:s.01428:
>
>
>
>
>SENATORS BACKING THE BILL
>
>
>Sponsor: Orrin Hatch (Utah)
>(202) 224-5251
>senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov
>
>Sen Dianne Feinstein (California)
>Phone: 202/224-3841
>Fax: 202/228-3954
>senator@feinstein.senate.gov
>
>Sen Joseph Biden (Delaware)
>Phone: 202-224-5042
>Fax: 202-224-0139
>
>Sen Christopher Bond (Missouri)
>Phone: (202) 224-5721
>e-mail: kit_bond@bond.senate.gov
>
>Sen Jesse Helms (N. Carolina)
>(202) 224-6342
>(202) 228-1339(FAX)
>jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov
>
>Sen Richard Bryan
>(202) 224-6244
>senator@bryan.senate.gov
>
>Sen Michael DeWine
>(202) 224-2315
>http://www.senate.gov/~dewine/forms1.html
>
>Sen Strom Thurmond
>202) 224-5972
>senator@thurmond.senate.gov
>
>Sen Gordon Smith
>202) 224-3753
>http://www.senate.gov/~gsmith/webform.html
>
>Sen Harry Reid
>202) 224-3542
>senator_reid@reid.senate.gov
>
>Sen Herb Kohl
>(202) 224-5653
>senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov
>
>
>
>THEY WANT TO CLAIM THEY'RE FIGHTING DRUGS
>The temptation for any politician to back this bill is tremendous. By
>censoring drug-related content on the Internet, they can claim to be
>"fighting drugs" -- always a fruitful campaign slogan. Of course, it's
>always easy to fight crime by taking away freedom. It's called a Police
>State. That's no challenge at all. A true leader will figure out how to
>fight crime while conserving freedom.
>
>SAMPLE LETTER
>If you're wondering what to write to your Senator, here's a sample letter,
>courtesy of Y2K Newswire (but it's always better to use your own words --
>don't be like the electric utilities copying NERC template documents...):
>
>
>Dear Senator X,
>
>I am seriously concerned about the potential impact of the proposed
>Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act which, I understand, you are backing.
>This bill would not only criminalize every major search engine company on
>the Internet (such as Yahoo) and literally millions of independent web page
>operators, it would also set a dangerous precedent. To begin banning on-line
>discussions that are not "approved" smacks of Communism and clearly
>infringes on the First Amendment. What's next: thought crimes?
>
>I urge you to withdraw your support for this bill or any bill that denies
>the American people their God (or Goddess. my note) -given freedom to
>discuss
>any topic they want.
>
> >>
>
>Having read the bill (and it's confusing leagaleese), I come to this
>conclusion:
>
>The bill title attacks one type of drug. The content allows it to attack all
>"controlled substances" and "anapporved drugs".
>
>However, I don't talk Legal-Speak. If somone can come up with a clear
>translation, that isn't biased, please do so. (unless the above article is
>accurate).
>
>Why am I not surprised that Strom Thurmond is backing this?
>
>Suzanne
>Theme Parties in Box, delivered to your door!
>How much easier can it get?
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ONElist: your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>May Our Lady And Our Lord Lead Us As We Move Toward The Millenium.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:15:47 EDT