Obama’s AG choice: Regulate Internet communication

posted at 10:34 am on November 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Danny Glover at Eyeblast reveals a nine-year-old NPR interview with Eric Holder regarding how the government needs to regulate Internet communications.  The rumored front-runner for Attorney General told NPR that the Columbine killers may have found some of their venom through Internet access, as well as a bomb recipe or two. If the government can regulate pornography, Holder insisted while serving as Deputy AG during the Clinton administration, surely the government can restrict speech in general:

My friend Kerry Picket has the transcript at Newsbusters:

The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is gonna be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at. – May 28, 1999 NPR Morning Edition

Pardon me, but I’m looking at the First Amendment (in my official Robert Byrd Pocket Constitution, natch), and I’m a bit confused. Where in this statement does it say that the government has the authority to impose “reasonable restrictions” on speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.  That appears rather clear.  It doesn’t authorize “reasonable restrictions”, or “reasonable regulations”, or what Holder really wants, “reasonable federal censorship”.

We apparently will have an incoming administration blissfully ignorant of the Constitution they will swear to defend.  Barack Obama couldn’t articulate a coherent statement on gun rights despite his supposed status as a Constitutional scholar, Joe Biden couldn’t figure out what Article I actually establishes, and now Eric Holder hasn’t read the First Amendment.  Maybe we should pass out more of those Robert Byrd Pocket Constitutions during the transition, and hold a test before Inauguration Day.

Anyone want to guess what form those “reasonable restrictions” might be?  Perhaps, say, regulating content in the blogosphere?  I’m guessing that will be Target One for the Holder-run DoJ.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Just. Try. It.

It’ll work about as well as DRM measures to stop software piracy.

MadisonConservative on November 21, 2008 at 10:37 AM

If they do regulate the internet and enough people just go ‘meh, who cares’, the Constitution will not rise up and smite the offending Government on its own.

tyrfing on November 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM

This dude looks like he should have played a dad on an 80s sitcom

joey24007 on November 21, 2008 at 10:39 AM

DISSENT MUST BE CRUSHED!

(TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, OF COURSE)

CP on November 21, 2008 at 10:39 AM

He looks like one of the cops from “Barney Miller.”

J.J. Sefton on November 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Of course, regulate the internet so people won’t know what is going on. They already poisoned the Media. Even Fox is getting there. When are we going to raise hell in getting the UN out of our Country? They will get worse also. This is what has me worried. Thugs on The One’s staff. And Thugs at the UN. Now there is no where for us to vent>? This is getting more frustrating by the day. To many Liberal minded commies. Are they going to enjoy this? Where will they get their dirt?

sheebe on November 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM

The commie hasn’t even been inaugurated and already the OVERREACH begins!

J.J. Sefton on November 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Anyone want to guess what form those “reasonable restrictions” might be?

Taxation. They really want to tax it.

Blake on November 21, 2008 at 10:42 AM

Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution! It’s a “flawed document” anyway”, says The One.

missouriyankee on November 21, 2008 at 10:42 AM

As long as you don’t shout “I beg to disagree” in a crowded theater, speech will be protected, I’m sure.

RBMN on November 21, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Following the liberal “logic”, will this lead to back-alley blogging?

AubieJon on November 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM

reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations

They will try to work this phrase, or something similar into our vocabulary like “separation of church and state”, where the majority will actually begin to think it is part of the constitution…and of course the schools will never teach anything different.

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Well just as “Right to keep and bear arms” refers only to State Militias, So “Freedom of Speech” refers to State Speech. Duh?

ronsfi on November 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM

They’ll push “Net Neutrality” first. This will be the second phase.

Techie on November 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM

This dude looks like he should have played a dad on an 80s sitcom

joey24007 on November 21, 2008 at 10:39 AM

He reminds me of the black cop on Barney Miller.

/showing my age

UltimateBob on November 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Censorship you can believe in.

SoulGlo on November 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM

The more I hear about Holder the less convinced I am that he will ever get the job. His involvement in the Marc Rich pardon alone should be of concern for Bambi’s vetting thugs. The spinelss Senate will probably ultimately give the bastard his choice but this is one nomination where the GOP should rise up and ask all the hard questions.

highhopes on November 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM

This tendency will materialize itself as net neutrality regulation. NOT in putting up firewalls on certain content. The easiest way to ensure freedom of speech on the internet is to enact net neutrality. Its the most cost effective way to preserve individual liberty, by making sure everyone has equal access to the knowledge and potential of the world’s connected intelligence.

This tendency here to cry wolf will, i sincerely hope, be proven wrong time and time again. Then again, if he does in fact plan on regulating content ill be with you all protesting. Internet freedom is serious business.

ernesto on November 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM

All the Dems have to do is trundle out a bevy of the most flagrant sorts of extreme porn and hate speech on the net they can find…and everyone will nod and grumble that something has to be done, and voila…yet another “law.”

Bad law enacted for all the most wonderful reasons is still bad law.

And the people? According to Zogby…seems most wont have any indication that something has changed until they try to log on to Hot Air or YAF websites…and nothing, nada, nechevo, zip appears. By then…it’ll be too late.

coldwarrior on November 21, 2008 at 10:47 AM

And we talk about the Great Firewall of China.

The Monster on November 21, 2008 at 10:47 AM

Welcome to China.

crazy_legs on November 21, 2008 at 10:47 AM

The Monster on November 21, 2008 at 10:47 AM

Great minds. :)

crazy_legs on November 21, 2008 at 10:48 AM

We live in the informatioin age… information is a key component in how we live our lives.

Control the information, control the people.

We saw how the MSM controled the messege last election, with Democrats help, and that outcome.

Control the Net and it not only saves the MSM, but puts them in your debt.

What I see happening is that they will use the case of the Lady who drove that poor girl to suicide on my space, as a cause celebe, to put “truth” restrictions on the net. They will make an exemption for blogs from the MSM, giving the press a pass on this restriction.

Thus will die the new media.

Romeo13 on November 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Ernesto, I am truly confused about Net Neutrality. I think a lot of folks are, actually. I have heard from both sides that this is a good and bad thing. What is the truth?? Seems like something we need to know. Forgive me if I am a bt skeptical of ANYTHING Obama is for.

Mommypundit on November 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM

No free speech, no guns, no dissent.

Can they ban our fists too, cuz I’m ready to pop someone right in the kisser.

fogw on November 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM

as well as a bomb recipe or two

So someone could own a copy of The Anarchist’s Cookbook but better not look at it on the intertubes?

(not saying that I have a copy, mind you.)

And hey, Dear Leader doesn’t care about the 2nd Amendment, why should He care about the First. Next thing you know, we’ll all be required to house members of the Civilian National Security Force (they aren’t troops, so the 3rd Amendment doesn’t matter either.)

And as neither party seems to care all that much about the Ninth & Tenth Amendments, pretty soon we’ll just do away with the Bill of Rights. After all, it’s just a bunch of negative rights that was written by a bunch of racist, slave owning white Eurocentric white men.

rbj on November 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Well just as “Right to keep and bear arms” refers only to State Militias, So “Freedom of Speech” refers to State Speech. Duh?

ronsfi on November 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Start buying pitch forks before the mandatory waiting period is established.

grapeknutz on November 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM

would the commerce cause play a factor?

DaveC on November 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM

What I see happening is that they will use the case of the Lady who drove that poor girl to suicide on my space, as a cause celebe, to put “truth” restrictions on the net. They will make an exemption for blogs from the MSM, giving the press a pass on this restriction.

Thus will die the new media.

Romeo13 on November 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM

and the kid who just killed himself online.

It always starts innocently. Kind of like tracking devices for senior citizens and kids. That is going mainstream. They are already microchipping them in the US, totally mainstream to chip pets now, too.

Mommypundit on November 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM

What Eric Holder said in 1999 and what he says in 2009 are two different things. So I’m willing to cut him a tiny bit of slack.

Candidly, I do not believe our Glorious Leader will impose a Fairness Doctrine on the Internet. That kind of restriction would burden his base supporters and would turn off young voters. But, this kind of talk does not bode well for our chances of avoiding the imposition of the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio.

Outlander on November 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM

We are witnessing the emergence of the Obama admin’s rationale for unconstitutional regulation. This is exactly the same “argument” that Schumer has been making. Elections have consequences.

The scariest thing about Obama and his fellow travelers is that they consider the Constitution to be essentially meaningless. Liberals in general have a dim view of adherence to the rule of law and it goes all the way up to the Constitution. They have “no controlling legal authority” beyond themselves.

inmypajamas on November 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Cass Sunstein is another Obama advisor who wants to regulate the internet…

ninjapirate on November 21, 2008 at 10:55 AM

<blockquoteinmypajamas on November 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Right. Add to that there reliance on judicial fiat and his court appointees and whether or not all this goes down in 4-8 years, we will still have insane court battles to wage.

These are lawless days.

Mommypundit on November 21, 2008 at 10:56 AM

And exactly what did the enlightened idiot voters expect when they elected this Marxist and his court of thugs?

rplat on November 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM

So someone could own a copy of The Anarchist’s Cookbook but better not look at it on the intertubes?

(not saying that I have a copy, mind you.)

rbj on November 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM

I do. Better than a Chem textbook.

I like the chapter: “Fun with Thermite”.

MadisonConservative on November 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Don’t forget, Holder’s president considers the Constitution America’s “fundamental flaw.”

Kalapana on November 21, 2008 at 10:58 AM

When I post “they’re busting down my front door and taking my guns away” will that be considered “restricted speech”?

What part about “Congress shall make no law” don’t these morons understand?

Rovin on November 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Part of the Fairness Doctrine

drjohn on November 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM

I agree that the “reasonable” restrictions jargon is code for imposing federal control over certain “kinds” of political speech (read: Right Wing Radio) and gun ownership. But let’s be a little more focused on making this point. As Justice Scilia will readily admit, the constitution does not protect all forms of “speech.” You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater to cause a stampede that could kill people, and you can’t slander someone’s reputation without being liable for damages. Indeed, certain categories of speech are given more protection than others. Political speech, for instance, is generally given the highest protection under the first amendment. So, the key issue here is whether Holder’s “reasonable” restrictions will intrude on political speech in the same way the campaign finance reform intruded on political speech. We can’t allow them to use the “fire in the thether” argument to explain why the federal government has the right to make “reasonable” restrictions. Yelling fire in the thether has nothing to do with protecting political speech; broad regulations over the Internet does…

RedSoxNation on November 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM

What Eric Holder said in 1999 and what he says in 2009 are two different things. So I’m willing to cut him a tiny bit of slack.

Think his beliefs changed since then?

Why? If someone feels they can suppress the first Amendment at all it’s hard to imagine such a bizarre position changing.

drjohn on November 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

This will make Stalin look like a nice guy!

grapeknutz on November 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

dKoss and DU will be exempted I’m sure

jp on November 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Hmm… I submitted this to Slashdot, a place generally full of Obamabots who are hard-core freedom-of-speech / Internet junkies (I agree with them on the freedom-of-speech / Internet points). I’m wondering how many heads will explode.

ErikTheRed on November 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Of course, regulate the internet so people won’t know what is going on. They already poisoned the Media. Even Fox is getting there. When are we going to raise hell in getting the UN out of our Country? They will get worse also. This is what has me worried. Thugs on The One’s staff. And Thugs at the UN. Now there is no where for us to vent>? This is getting more frustrating by the day. To many Liberal minded commies. Are they going to enjoy this? Where will they get their dirt?

sheebe on November 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM

The dirt has been purchased. Dems bought it with the bailout; Obama with campaign funds. If they have their way, we will walk a line while they wallow in their pigpen and point at us and laugh.
I’ll be happy to pass out Pocket Constitutions.

Elektra on November 21, 2008 at 11:08 AM

It would be run like Youtube.

tomas on November 21, 2008 at 11:10 AM

You can have my gun keyboard when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers…

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Way to set about healing a divided nation, Liar-elect.

hillbillyjim on November 21, 2008 at 11:11 AM

From my cold dead keyboard!!

christene on November 21, 2008 at 11:11 AM

in addition to the stuff on myspace and kid suicide, they can easily site all these free streaming video porn sites out there, that kids can easily find. Many of them are from overseas sites as well, and of course the Gambling sites.

If you think about it, in ALOT of ways the Internet is completely changing things. It violates the hell out of State’s Rights. Use to be for example, a State simply outlawed Gambling, now they simply get on the internet and piss their savings away.

There’s also examples of known American enemies targeting Message Boards and blogs, to pose as Americans and push Anti-American propaganda. I think CNS News had an article about it….that is something they can cite as a National Security angle.

jp on November 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

I wonder if Marc Rich used the internet to compile info to beg for his pardon.

Buy Danish on November 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM

What Eric Holder said in 1999 and what he says in 2009 are two different things. So I’m willing to cut him a tiny bit of slack.

Outlander on November 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Gonzales, Rich, FALN…it isn’t just one thing, it is his litany of poor decisions.
This just further supports what he is; a very dangerous man that does not use the legal system to do anything but further the political aspirations of his bosses.

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM

From my cold dead keyboard!!

christene on November 21, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Beat you by 10 seconds…

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 11:15 AM

jp on November 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

…and your point is?

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Liberals in general have a dim view of adherence to the rule of law and it goes all the way up to the Constitution.

Which is ironic since they screamed the loudest and longest over the alleged abuses of their constitutional rights during the Bush administration.

Sue on November 21, 2008 at 11:17 AM

just pointing out things they can cite to sell this, and many americans will agree. see Bill O’Reily, he’ll love this

jp on November 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Candidly, I do not believe our Glorious Leader will impose a Fairness Doctrine on the Internet. That kind of restriction would burden his base supporters and would turn off young voters. But, this kind of talk does not bode well for our chances of avoiding the imposition of the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio.

Outlander on November 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Yes, but they are only speaking the Truth, and are about our collectiveness, so that won’t count. It’s only those sites which are divisive and filled with (rightwing) hatred and racism and homophobia and put the individual above society which are to be targeted.

MadisonConservative on November 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM

I wonder if we’ll be getting adjoining cells rooms at the reeducation center in Gitmo.

rbj on November 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

But… I thought Obama was a Constitutional Scholar!

/boggle

Lehosh on November 21, 2008 at 11:19 AM

There are already is a reasonable restriction placed on free speech in America.

So there is absolutely precedent for restricting speech that may raise a threat to others in this country.

Tom_Shipley on November 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM

The more I hear about Holder the less convinced I am that he will ever get the job.
highhopes on November 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM

That’s what I kept telling myself everytime a new scandal, radical association, his own words, etc…kept popping up with Obama.

Also, we keep talking about the ‘fairness’ doctrine. We really need to stop using that term. It is the Censorship Doctrine. Liberals use words to push their agenda as something it isn’t all the time, ie, pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, fetus instead of human life, gay instead of homosexual, hate speech instead of the truth… We shouldn’t let them get away with it by following along.

pannw on November 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM

If you thought Jazz was bad with the troll gun … wait ’til someone on the internet crosses the shibboleths and sacred cows of the left. Canada, here we come. Meet the enforcer of internet hate speech rules, Eric Holder.

Paul-Cincy on November 21, 2008 at 11:27 AM

The government will be able to control Google, Yahoo, etc. and keep US citizens from finding what they’re looking for on the web. It would be a piece of cake for the feds to cancel internet service for anyone suspected of searching for “dangerous” info on the net. A world to Comcast, TimeWarner Cable, Cox Communications, et al., and you’re looking at a “Cannot connect” screen.

A keyboard can’t compete with guns. We’ll be back to secret knocks, coded messages on paper printed on tiny presses hidden in basements.

Think I’m paranoid? Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean they’re not out to get us.

Sloan Morganstern on November 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Kinda OT… but did anyone else find those Dividedwefall.org commercials that were AFTER the election disturbing?

The ones that played day and night, saying Bambi had won a historic victory, and now we needed to support him?

There used to be pro government “propoganda” up until the 60s. Bond drives, cartoons, Posters at the post office, all kinds of pro government messeges were around… but they went away in the 60s due to a distrust of the government giving us our news, and telling us what to believe.

IMO these Divided commercials were the first, civilian, step, into a Pro Bambi Propoganda movement…

Romeo13 on November 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM

This guy is going to get destroyed in the nomination process.

WisCon on November 21, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Romeo13 on November 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Those ads were from the A.A.R.P.- another left-leaning organization whose Senior members help keep Dems in power.

Buy Danish on November 21, 2008 at 11:37 AM

So there is absolutely precedent for restricting speech that may raise a threat to others in this country.

Tom_Shipley on November 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Once again, you are caught not stating the accurate facts…man you are a mess. This was overturned, making your statement utterly (and not surprising) false.
This is famous in the annals of law. Forget the Wiki def. move on from that.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s argued differently, and eventually Brandenburg v. Ohio…read what the justice William O. Douglas says about this decision.
It was overturned, she was pardoned because of Brandeis arguments, and Brandenburg v. Ohio resolved this (1969).
re:
Schenck v. United States
Frohwerk v. United States
Schaefer v. United States
Pierce v. United States

The dissents in Abrams, Schaefer, and Pierce show how easily “clear and present danger” is manipulated to crush what Brandeis called “[t]he fundamental right of free men to strive for better conditions through new legislation and new institutions”

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 11:39 AM

And people wonder why gun sales are going through the roof right now…

newton on November 21, 2008 at 11:39 AM

The dirt has been purchased. Dems bought it with the bailout; Obama with campaign funds. If they have their way, we will walk a line while they wallow in their pigpen and point at us and laugh.
I’ll be happy to pass out Pocket Constitutions.

Elektra on November 21, 2008 at 11:08 AM

I hear you there!

sheebe on November 21, 2008 at 11:42 AM

ok,can’t have a gun to be on his staff, must support free speech censorship, uh… what other rights, which our forefathers died to give us, can we put out to pasture?
Thanks LibDems for putting this clown in office. Thanks a hell of a lot.

Corruption x1000. They just never learn.

johnnyU on November 21, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Interesting….isn’t regulating pornography the same rationale offered by UpChuck Schumer as a precedent for The Fairness Doctrine?

AmericanUnderground on November 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM

I hope some of these choices are just trial balloons to give the Zero an idea of what people are saying (and to what extent people would go to fight these ridiculous, overreaching regulations).

Wasn’t that a Clinton tactic?

tru2tx on November 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 11:39 AM

Yes, the case was overturned, but my statement is not false. Re: wikipedia:

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

This could potentially cover instructions as to how to create pipe bombs, etc… or other Columbine type plans that Holder was reacting to in 1999.

Tom_Shipley on November 21, 2008 at 11:46 AM

He looks like one of the cops from “Barney Miller.”

J.J. Sefton on November 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM

…or Venus Flytrap from WKRP in Cincinnati…

docob on November 21, 2008 at 11:47 AM

He looks like Oprah’s husband.

Tom_Shipley on November 21, 2008 at 11:57 AM

The frontal assult on The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and Principled American Values has been going on for several years, but mostly “hidden” from the general populace. Conservatives have seen this comming, we are the ones who can not say Merry Christmas, disciple OUR children, complain about OUR Schools or Teachers. We are the ones who have sounded the alarm bells of warning about the “internal enemy” of Liberalisam.

Now, it comes out of the closet, the far left radical agenda is revealed, and yet most of America does NOT see it, nor understand it’s implications.

Look at the recent Zogby poll of Obama voters to see the affects of horrid NEA controled schools, the brainwashing and warping of opinion of “young skulls full of mush” in our Universities. The mystery of “families” and “values” in our Urban centers. We have a Pres. Elect who’s own wife calls him “My babies Daddy”… /sad

If we do not get off our butts, send e-mails, organize grassroots phone banks, send letters to Editors of local papers, talk to friends and co-workers, talk about WTF is going on and the implications, THEN WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET!

Places like HotAir / PJM / Newsmax will be the first on the hit list, followed by Talk Radio… and then, PC Police?

I remember when I fought HARD and LOUD against a gigarette smoking ban in public buildings in Houston, TX. I told anyone who would listen that it was a very slippery slope we were headed down, I even fought with a very Consevative radio talk show host on air… I talked about how if we allowed one step into personal liberties for the “good of society” others would follow… People said folks like me were wrong, the bans would NOT evolve iton more regulations. They LIED, but I lost the fight. Now there are laws banning smoking in bars, bowling alleys, resturants, cars (with kids under 18)… In New York City same thing… Smoking Ban followed by Trans-Fat Ban followed by Salt-Content Ban… So NEVER try to tell me that “it’s just a small step, or it’s just a minor change”! I know better…

We must FIGHT NOW, we can NOT wait… Stop the FIRST STEPS or lose the WAR, and it is a WAR for the very fabric of America as we have know it…

Mark Garnett on November 21, 2008 at 12:01 PM

Change you betta believe in – or else!

n0doz on November 21, 2008 at 12:01 PM

Mommypundit on November 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM

It’s pretty simple really. In fact, its a regulation that requires no cost to comply to, as no ISP’s have taken any steps that would conflict with the regulation.

Net neutrality is the idea that a) Internet service providers cannot charge different rates for different internet access ($15 a month for email, $25 a month for myspace and facebook, $50 a month for the “full package” minus whatever content deemed unacceptable.) b) Internet service providers cannot charge one group less for the same connectivity as another (Corporation A pays x, Person A pays x+$5000).

As i said earlier, there is no cost of compliance, as no ISP has ventured into this area…although the per gigabyte bandwith charges veer in that direction. I would prefer to avoid those as well, as just about any digital phone provider has proven that there is no extra cost in providing an unlimited call volume.

ernesto on November 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM

It’s time to start making a loud fuss about this. This man is a thug just like his boss. About 3 weeks before the election Rush played a taped radio interview with Obama not happy about the Constitution because it laid out what the government could not do to you. He wants another Constitution laying out what the government can do to you. This man is dangerous and it looks as if he has found another thug who is sympatico to his every thug-like whim. Who can forget the picture of a terrified Elian Gonzolas with an automatic weapon shoved in his face? I never thought I would see that in my country. Saw that pix on Hannity and Combs last night with an interview of Holder by Judge Napolitano. Hannity is warning you, pay attention.

BetseyRoss on November 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Tom_Shipley on November 21, 2008 at 11:46 AM

Here we go again, facts won’t deter you from just saying your assumption of “clear and present danger” is wrong.
It was overturned by a 9-0 decision. You can’t say something was law, when it wasn’t law.
Just say you made an error, you took the first paragraph from Wiki, and you didn’t read through.
This case was landmark because it ended up being the exact opposite of what you cite.
Please, don’t embarrass yourself anymore…you are way out of your league on this.
Have you read the other cases I cited? Do you know who Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s really is? Do you even now understand why this case was cited…here is a hint, to exactly state the opposite of what you stated, the exact opposite…it never became law. Justice Brandeis brilliant arguments forever put that to rest…
Man, if only you were as tenacious with facts…as I said yesterday or whenever with you…facts confuse and confound you.
Drop this, say you made a mistake, you are way, way over your head on this…this is a landmark case.
The legal statement to what you did is this: You goofed up.

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM

He looks like Oprah’s husband.

Tom_Shipley on November 21, 2008 at 11:57 AM

That statement right there is why I skip over anything you have to offer. Oprah is not married to anyone male or female. That information is available at the grocery store checkout line by reading the headlines on any recent tabloid publication.

thomasaur on November 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM

This desire to rein in free speech should come as no surprise to anyone who paid attention to Obama’s comment’s. In his own words, he referred to the US Constitution as “..a deeply flawed document.

The time for revolution is very close, and if the leftists think they have a clue as to how that will play out, and what it will look like, they are in for a very great shock.

AW1 Tim on November 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM

I sense new “hate crimes” legislation.

TheUnrepentantGeek on November 21, 2008 at 12:06 PM

This could potentially cover instructions as to how to create pipe bombs, etc… or other Columbine type plans that Holder was reacting to in 1999.

Tom_Shipley on November 21, 2008 at 11:46 AM

Read the Brandenburg v Ohio…clear and present danger is fully disclosed…read it through, you will find it educational.
This is some friendly advice, which will help you learn to do some research. And teach you a little about how judicial law is created.

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Although we have a first amendment right under the Constitution to free speech it is not a free pass to say whatever we want. We all know the old saying you can’t scream “fire” in a movie theater. Since we are dealing with free speech, the government will have to overcome the strict scrutiny standard of review in order to place restrictions on the internet. Many of the points that JP cites could be argued to overcome strict scrutiny which says the government has use to least restrictive means to further a compelling interest. I see two points in our favor regarding the Obama administration’s attempt to regulate the internet: (1) in practical terms, it is just hard to regulate what is out there and (2) the majority of the SCOTUS Justices just don’t understand the internet as it was before their time.

Southernbelle07 on November 21, 2008 at 12:08 PM

thomasaur on November 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM

He will claim that he saw it on Wiki…that she has lived with someone so long that it is now considered “common law” therefore they are legally married…blah, blah,blah, you are wrong, blah, blah, blah, wiki, blah, blah, blah.

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 12:11 PM

What is “Reasonable” today can be abridged or ammended tomorrow. This is known as a Creeping Dictatorship; just creep on in, one small step at a time…:(

DL13 on November 21, 2008 at 12:18 PM

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 12:08 PM

I know plenty about judicial law and plenty about research, dude. I will not claim to be an expert on this case and I am relying on wikipedia. But, do you have reason to believe what I have said is wrong, if so please enlighten me.

thomasaur on November 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Glad to hear you keep up with the tabloids.

Tom_Shipley on November 21, 2008 at 12:19 PM

We apparently will have an incoming administration blissfully ignorant of the Constitution they will swear to defend. Barack Obama couldn’t articulate a coherent statement on gun rights despite his supposed status as a Constitutional scholar, Joe Biden couldn’t figure out what Article I actually establishes, and now Eric Holder hasn’t read the First Amendment. Maybe we should pass out more of those Robert Byrd Pocket Constitutions during the transition, and hold a test before Inauguration Day.

Ed Morrissey

Now wait just a damn minute here, Ed. David Brooks is actually peeing himself, he’s so excited about this group of Obama appointments. He thinks that the hype is actually being understated, that Obama may, in fact, be the Messiah.

How could you fail to see this?

Jaibones on November 21, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Funny how our Obamatrons like Shipley were up in arms about BusHitler but start making excuses when potential Obama cabinet members show a disdain for free speech. In their minds Al Qaeda terrorists have more constitutional rights then actual americans

jerryofva on November 21, 2008 at 12:25 PM

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, if my memory serves me correctly, the defendant was protesting the Vietnam war on the courthouse steps and called someone a “racketeer.” Obviously we have come a long way in our society to where calling a person a “racketeer” is no longer a slur. The problem I see with relying on the older First Amendment cases is the internet is a new medium and unchartered territory in the eyes of the law. I would argue that after a person reads how to make a bomb on the internet, he has a period to cool off from what he had read; therefore, simply reading a violent passage on the internet does not lead to an incitement of unlawful activity. I believe the older First amendment cases are easily distinguishable from the internet.

Southernbelle07 on November 21, 2008 at 12:27 PM

And, again from wikipedia, Brandenberg overturns “clear and present danger” and establishes the “imminent lawless action” test, which is:

Speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned.

Now, this was written in regard to things like yelling fire in a crowded theater. If someone did such a thing, cops couldn’t stop the riot.

But, this was obviously written prior to the Internet age. If someone post information as to how to make a bomb and blue-prints to a federal building, cops have no idea who could be reacting to that. Anyone could be.

Something like would be an obvious attempt to incite violence. And it could be argued that cops could not be reasonably summoned to stop people being incited by the page.

Tom_Shipley on November 21, 2008 at 12:27 PM

if so please enlighten me.
Tom_Shipley on November 21, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Read my posts, and look at the references, they are all there.

Want more? There are dozens of cases, based on Whitney v. California (which was overturned if you had read more then the first sentence). Which BTW was not based on the first amendment but the fourteenth…it was overturned using the first amendment (once again the opposite of what you stated)…and, once again showing you had no grasp of what you were quoting, but merely cut and pasting.
If you keep posting you will just look more foolish…just read the Brandenburg v. Ohio…then come back and apologize.
Trust me, people are beginning to laugh at how desperate your posts are…especially people with an just an inkling of law.
Quit while you are behind…

right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 12:28 PM

This guy IS an 80′s sitcom.

Griz on November 21, 2008 at 12:28 PM

I hope all of those Silicon Valley hipsters who thought they were being cool by supporting Obama take a look at this.

thirteen28 on November 21, 2008 at 12:29 PM

This desire to rein in free speech should come as no surprise to anyone who paid attention to Obama’s comment’s. In his own words, he referred to the US Constitution as “..a deeply flawed document.”

The time for revolution is very close, and if the leftists think they have a clue as to how that will play out, and what it will look like, they are in for a very great shock.

AW1 Tim on November 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM

BINGO! We have a winner!

Nahanni on November 21, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2