Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
July 6, 2011
New legislation that would give the US government the power to seize website domains on a whim with no oversight merely for linking to sites that host copyrighted material has been labeled a hallmark of “repressive regimes” by a group of law professors who warn that the bill allows the state to “break the Internet addressing system”.
The Protect IP bill, currently stalled in the Senate, represents a death blow to Internet freedom of speech. It would turn the entire web into a clone of the YouTube model, which routinely censors and deletes material when requested to by governments or corporations and shuts down user channels without recourse.
The legislation merely codifies what Homeland Security is already practicing, seizing and shutting down websites without any form of legal proceedings and in many cases not even notifying the owner.
In an open letter penned by Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford University, David S. Levine of Elon University and David G. Post of Temple University, they warn that the bill would require Internet hosting companies and search engines to de-list entire websites on the basis of a mere copyright claim by a copyright holder, with no independent or legal process undertaken.
Even linking to a website that copyright holders claim is in violation of intellectual property laws would be grounds for the feds to seize your domain and impose criminal penalties.
“At a time when many foreign governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet communications, the [Protect IP Act] would incorporate into U.S. law — for the first time — a principle more closely associated with those repressive regimes: a right to insist on the removal of content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law,” states the letter.
Suggesting that removing websites with no oversight whatsoever is a clear violation of constitutional law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the professors add that the bill would hand government the power to “break the Internet addressing system.”
“It requires Internet service providers, and operators of Internet name servers, to refuse to recognize Internet domains that a court considers “dedicated to infringing activities.” But rather than wait until a Web site is actually judged infringing before imposing the equivalent of an Internet death penalty, the Act would allow courts to order any Internet service provider to stop recognizing the site even on a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction issued the same day the complaint is filed. Courts could issue such an order even if the owner of that domain name was never given notice that a case against it had been filed at all.”
Search engines, credit card companies and even advertisers would then be mandated to refuse to deal with the owners of the site under the proposed law, making it “extraordinarily difficult for advertisers and credit card companies to do business on the Internet.”
As we have exhaustively documented, proponents of web regulation like Senator Joe Lieberman have openly stated their intention to create a Communist Chinese-style system of Internet policing, handing Obama the power to block entire areas of the web with a figurative kill switch.
Indeed, Amazon’s Cloud network notoriously deleted the entire Wikileaks website from its servers following a phone call made by Senator Joe Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee demanding the website be axed.
Lieberman spilled the beans on the true reasons behind the move towards web censorship during a CNN interview when he stated “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”
During a more recent interview with the network, Lieberman labeled claims that he was working to create an “Internet kill switch” as “misinformation,” yet went on to repeat the same statement that the US government needs the power to “disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war.”
Of course as we have proven, China doesn’t disconnect the Internet “in case of war,” it only ever does so to censor and intimidate people who express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. This is precisely the kind of online environment western governments are trying to replicate as they attempt to put a stranglehold on the last bastion of true free speech – the world wide web.
Replies
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 6, 2011
The boss of Russia’s Federal Security Service, the main successor of the KGB during the Soviet era, told the state-owned RIA Novosti news agency that global terrorists are actively integrating with new media.
“The activity of many terrorist organizations is being carried out independently from al Qaeda and bin Laden. Their leaders actively use media and internet to publicize themselves,” Alexander Bortnikov told a meeting of security service chiefs, the Russian news agency reports.
Bortnikov said “the internet is a universal tool for terrorist to attract, recruit and teach new members as well as to plan and coordinate terrorist activity.”
According to Bortnikov, the prevention of terrorist-related activity coming from the internet is being included into the agenda of FSB meetings over the next three years.
Although details were not provided, we can assume the Russian state will take a more active role in closing down websites and internet connectivity to groups and individuals it considers terrorists.
Bortniknov’s concern was underscored by Michael Leiter, director of the National Counter-terrorism Center. Leiter said earlier this week that it is important for the government to attack and disrupt the activity of homegrown terrorists on the internet. He said views on the First Amendment and privacy will “evolve” as Americans understand the threat of terrorist propaganda transmitted over the internet.
In June, the Pentagon used the red herring of terrorist attacking subways, electrical grids, financial systems and even nuclear reactors to push its plan to actively attack hackers and others the government deems terrorists.
In 2003, the Pentagon designated the internet an enemy “weapons system.”
The Russian effort follows similar efforts in the United States by several years. In June of 2010, the Department of Homeland Security secretary, Janet Napolitano, admitted the government is actively surveilling the internet for domestic terrorists. Napolitano said the government will sacrifice civil liberties in the name of national security.
“The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet,” Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
Following the MIAC report and the Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment, the Department of Homeland Security compiled a report leaked to the media in 2009 warning that “rightwing extremism” posed a serious threat to the nation. “Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat,” the report sent to police agencies around the country claimed.
Commentators on the so-called right claimed the report was the product of leftists in the Obama administration. The DHS report, however, was initiated during the Bush years.
“In the Internet age, these extremists can communicate with thousands of their compatriots with the click of a mouse,” the ADL writes. “The Internet has provided the far-right fringe with formerly inconceivable opportunities. Online, racists, anti-Semites, and anti-government extremists can reach a much larger audience than ever before and can more easily portray themselves as legitimate.”
In 2009, Napolitano admitted the DHS works closely with the ADL.
The “rightwing extremism” report and the agency’s partnership with the ideologically driven ADL indicate the government is not strictly interested in al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization named after a database of CIA-supported Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, but also intends to monitor domestic groups and individuals considered to be terrorists by the government.
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)
The ADL considers Alex Jones, Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers, and other activists, organizers, and patriot and constitutionalist groups and individuals to be terrorists or potential terrorists.
Considering the close relationship between the ADL and the government, we can fairly assume the DHS, the FBI, Pentagon, and the federal government also believe “rightwing” Americans are a threat to the national security of the United States.