Look its Oren Hatch at it again, he's been trying to censer the net for
years now. Fortunately there seem to be enough people who understand the
size of the task. And arn't willing to support his bill. There is no way he
could govern what is on the net or how you get to it. If its illegal in the
US then move the site to Mexico what's he gonna do then, put firewalls up so
the US can only surf in the US. Now you've just lost all of the power and
appeal of the net for commerce. He keeps looking for some thing to blame
problems on. Why don't he look at the real problem if parents would watch
what their kids were doing on the net then we wouldn't have all these
problems. The net isn't taking drugs or making bombs or shooting people.
People are and that is where the problem lies.
OK I'm off my soap box now.
Thank You
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shook <gary.shook@wcom.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: DML: FW: Was:[WADL] Congress to ban "unapproved
substances"webpages, Now:Big Goverment
> How would you feel if they got away with this, and next they wanted to
> control the automobile aftermarket parts industry?
> I'm for keeping the government out of people's lives whenever possible.
>
> >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 - 12:15:48 EDT