US Conservatives Are Trying To Kill Government's Top Cyber Security Agency (politico.com) 267
SonicSpike shares a report from Politico: An agency set up under Donald Trump to protect elections and key U.S. infrastructure from foreign hackers is now fighting off increasingly intense threats from hard-right Republicans who argue it's gone too far and are looking for ways to rein it in. These lawmakers insist work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to combat online disinformation during elections singles out conservative voices and infringes upon free speech rights -- an allegation the agency vehemently denies and the Biden administration is contesting in court. The accusations started in the wake of the 2020 election and are ramping up ahead of 2024, with lawmakers now calling for crippling cuts at the agency. "CISA has blatantly violated the First Amendment and colluded with Big Tech to censor the speech of ordinary Americans," Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which oversees CISA, said in a statement to POLITICO.
The fight over CISA underscores yet another way Trump's election fraud claims are reverberating into 2024. And though the hard right doesn't have enough votes to defund CISA today, the growing backlash against it has supporters worried that a hard-right faction could hobble the agency in the years ahead -- undermining its efforts not just to secure future elections, but also protect key U.S. and federal networks from major hacks. CISA had broad bipartisan support in Congress when lawmakers passed legislation creating the agency in 2018. At the ceremony where Trump signed it into law, he called it "very, very important legislation" to protect the U.S. against both nation-state hackers and cybercriminals. But when Chris Krebs, the then-head of CISA, debunked Trump's 2020 election fraud claims, the president fired him. And since the GOP assumed control of the House in 2022, like-minded Republicans have been ratcheting up their scrutiny of the agency. [...]
Conservatives now argue that activity has become a smokescreen for left-leaning government censorship. In Congress and within the courts, they contend that pressure from federal agencies like CISA led social media companies to limit the spread of information perceived as damaging to Joe Biden's campaign, such as stories relating to Hunter Biden. In a sign of trouble for an agency once boasting strong bipartisan support, 108 Republicans supported the failed push to cut CISA's budget last month -- a near majority within the conference. Backers of the budget cut included a swathe of increasingly influential hard-right lawmakers, like Jordan and James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the powerful House Oversight Committee. Those with direct oversight over CISA also backed the vote, such as the chief of the Homeland Security Committee, Mark Green (R-Tenn.), and another panel member, August Pfluger (R-Texas).
The fight over CISA underscores yet another way Trump's election fraud claims are reverberating into 2024. And though the hard right doesn't have enough votes to defund CISA today, the growing backlash against it has supporters worried that a hard-right faction could hobble the agency in the years ahead -- undermining its efforts not just to secure future elections, but also protect key U.S. and federal networks from major hacks. CISA had broad bipartisan support in Congress when lawmakers passed legislation creating the agency in 2018. At the ceremony where Trump signed it into law, he called it "very, very important legislation" to protect the U.S. against both nation-state hackers and cybercriminals. But when Chris Krebs, the then-head of CISA, debunked Trump's 2020 election fraud claims, the president fired him. And since the GOP assumed control of the House in 2022, like-minded Republicans have been ratcheting up their scrutiny of the agency. [...]
Conservatives now argue that activity has become a smokescreen for left-leaning government censorship. In Congress and within the courts, they contend that pressure from federal agencies like CISA led social media companies to limit the spread of information perceived as damaging to Joe Biden's campaign, such as stories relating to Hunter Biden. In a sign of trouble for an agency once boasting strong bipartisan support, 108 Republicans supported the failed push to cut CISA's budget last month -- a near majority within the conference. Backers of the budget cut included a swathe of increasingly influential hard-right lawmakers, like Jordan and James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the powerful House Oversight Committee. Those with direct oversight over CISA also backed the vote, such as the chief of the Homeland Security Committee, Mark Green (R-Tenn.), and another panel member, August Pfluger (R-Texas).
And once again, Republicans take off the mask. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And once again, Republicans take off the mask. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, wait, leopard! Not my face!
Re: (Score:3)
TFA subject is wrong. Conservatives aren't doing this, Trumpers are.
Conservatives don't cheat on their wives, or mail-order them from eastern Europe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was never about election integrity. It was only about pushing the big lie to gain power. Nothing more.
In every single court case, not a single attorney claimed there was fraud in the election. In fact, when asked if they were claiming fraud, all said no.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, the 2020 election is LONG OVER. LEAVE IT.
If you believe there was fraud, work now to prevent it in the future. If you do not believe that, at least watch for good and honest election reform and support it.
If you are neither, it would probably not hurt to sit on your hands and let someone else have a chance.
Re: (Score:3)
Their becoming a minority and they know it. Rather than accept that in democracy that you can lose and should do so gracefully while trying to do better in the future, they are doing whatever it takes to ensure they keep their minority rule. If it means passing laws to entrench unbalanced election districts, or to ignore court orders to fix the districts, then they will do that. If it means outright lying, despite avocating to put up monuments to the ten commandments that forbids lying, they will do that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not "long over" when a sizable minority of Americans believe against all objective evidence that it was stolen. Don't "both sides" this. If you're an American, that implies a commitment to small 'd' democracy. However you feel about your options in the voting booth, the results matter, otherwise the whole enterprise comes crashing down.
And don't compare Government agency efforts to fight disinformation with an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. It's not Orwellian to call out lies, particularly lies en
Re:And once again, Republicans take off the mask. (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't compare Government agency efforts to fight disinformation with an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. It's not Orwellian to call out lies, particularly lies engineered by hostile foreign actors that seek to divide our body politic for their own ends, ends that will be to our collective detriment regardless of how you identity politically.
Unfortunately, the US government and its agents have proven over and over that they should not enjoy the trust of the American people to decide what is disinformation. Anyone with a longer memory than a goldfish should recognize this. Everyone wants to point to Hunter's laptop as a prime example of government agents lying to voters to shape elections, but you should also remember the lies uncovered by Edward Snowden, Iraqi WMD, Watergate and the bombing of Cambodia, COINTELPRO, or even the Tuskegee experiments.
Never cede to the government the ability to decide what it disinformation. They cannot be trusted. That is exactly why the First Amendment was enacted.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not a First Amendment issue bro. The US Government isn't censoring anything. The US Government is trying to point out that it is disinformation and that much of it is coming from hostile actors abroad. It's not even (yet) taking steps to rein in the platforms that are profiting from the spread of disinformation.
If you're intellectually honest, you can surely see the difference between /. deleting a post, vs. /. allowing a post to be modded down such that only people at -1 see it, .vs. /. activel
Re:And once again, Republicans take off the mask. (Score:5, Informative)
This is not a First Amendment issue bro. The US Government isn't censoring anything. The US Government is trying to point out that it is disinformation and that much of it is coming from hostile actors abroad. It's not even (yet) taking steps to rein in the platforms that are profiting from the spread of disinformation.
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.
That most certainly is a First Amendment issue, bro.
You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that although the government has abused its position in the past, to wit, lying to the American people, it'll surely work this time. Let them present any misinformation proof or conjecture they want on their own sites. They can stay away from other sites in any capacity, advisory or coercive unless illegal. If they get a track record for truthfulness, over time they will become more credible. However, the damage to the government's reputation and credibility over last eight years will be difficult to overcome.
Re: (Score:3)
"The ruling was upheld on appeal, though the supreme temporarily stayed the order while the appeal plays out."
Bit redundant wouldn't you say? They got a stay not a victory and even that was a split court. It is highly unlikely the administration wins here, the evidence is cut and dry and the appeals court ruled against the administration unanimously. More likely the court wants to issue a ruling that clarifies rules around this nonsense.
Re:Lol (Score:3, Insightful)
Move on and forget about all the bullshit the party of law and order tried to pull.
Here’s that “both sides” talking point again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Having a federal office deciding what is misinformation is WAAAAY to close to the metaphorical "Ministry of Truth" for my comfort.
If you are drawing parallels between Ministry of Truth and CISA it means you either don't understand CISA or have never actually read 1984 and are resorting only to shock quotes you read on the internet.
Hint: The Ministry of Truth was supposed be read satirically since they had more in common with "Truth Social" than they do with any legitimate attempt to find and fight disinformation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Hint: The Ministry of Truth was supposed be read satirically since they had more in common with "Truth Social" than they do with any legitimate attempt to find and fight disinformation."
Right... everything the other guys say, THAT is the disinformation occifer.
Re: And once again, Republicans take off the mask. (Score:4, Insightful)
They only thing that has actually worked, tell the truth. The answer to bad speech isn't censorship, it's better speech. If you've learned nothing from the COVID response, it should be that don't start lying to people for they're own good, b/c when they found out you lied, they'll never trust you.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to believe that better speech would always defeat bad speech, but then we invented social media. For the first time in human history (that I'm aware of), we now have a tool that allows people to fabricate an alternate reality, and they don't even need glasses or a helmet to live within it. These people can find other like-minded people and spread whatever lies they need to protect the image they have of their demagogues and tarnish the r
Re:And once again, Republicans take off the mask. (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't amazing how lying about something a million times in a loud way convinces so many idiots in a hurry to believe the lie? And now the GOP is once again asking the regulators within our government to give them a free pass, by destroying another [npr.org], Federal Agency [cisa.gov] who works to secure and certify our elections from thieves hell bent on destroying American democracy.
"We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated. [youtube.com]" -DJ Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is everyone posting in Borat voice?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And once again, Republicans take off the mask. (Score:5, Interesting)
I loves me a false dichotomy.
Anyhow, nobody is preventing anybody from making decisions. There is, as there should be, a concerted effort to ensure the information they have available to them isn't factually incorrect, particularly information made available for malicious intent. To suggest otherwise is to deny why nation states and bad faith actors engage in disinformation in the first place: it changes the decisions people make.
Saying "people will figure out what's true or not if everything is out there" isn't true in theory (all truth builds upon other truths, there needs to be stable ground to build upon) or in practice (as evidenced by bad actors knowing and acting on it).
Re: (Score:3)
This is an age where ignorance is celebrated and education is downplayed, is it no wonder that ignorance has become a major political force?
Re: (Score:3)
The information is already being "filtered and curated" for you. It's being done by social media companies whose sole objective is to keep you engaged with their platform to sell more ads. Outrage accomplishes that goal and they don't give a rats ass about the downstream effects. ./ has disinformation on it too, nobody cares, because ./ doesn’t have hundreds of millions of daily users, nor does it use algorithms that purposefully promote the disinformation because the corporate overlords figured out
Re:And once again, Republicans take off the mask. (Score:5, Insightful)
"lying about something a million times "
Trump colluded with Russia.
The Steele Dossier was genuine.
Russia offered bounties to kill US Soldiers in Afghanistan.
Trump called Neo-Nazis 'fine people'.
Trump recommended drinking bleach to cure Covid.
Trump overfed koi in Japan (ha, caught you there!).
Trump had tear gas used to clear protestors for a bible photo op.
The publicized contents of Hunter Biden's laptop were Russian disinformation.
The 2020 elections were not fraudulent because the courts found no major (or minor) fraud.
The January 6th demonstrations were an insurrection intended to overthrown the government.
Trump tired to grab the steering wheel of the Presidential limousine from an Secret Service agent.
Border Patrol agents whipped border crossers from horseback.
The plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer was a creation of far-right activists.
Trump mocked a reporters' disability.
Mock me, mod me down, unfriend/make enemy of me, but please, if you would, do me the service or refuting any of these with facts. Source, not mere citations, would be necessary for the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2020 elections were not fraudulent because the courts found no major (or minor) fraud.
This is asking everyone else to prove a negative for you. You are making the claim of "election fraudulent" so it's on you to to bring some evidence. If your evidence doesn't hold up in a court of law, or like Giualiani, you talk a real big game to the media but simper in front of a judge [nytimes.com] then maybe your evidence is not as strong as you think it is.
Or let's ask Trump's Chief of Staff how secure the election was when lying actually has consequences:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/chie... [go.com]
But, as described to ABC
Re: (Score:2)
For the theory to hold up, we are expected to believe the President of the United States had all this evidence and gave it to the FBI, who said, no, we will ignore this solid evidence, hee hee.
The President, then, instead of addressing the nation to explain and present this evidence, expressed butthurt and conspiracy inside the agency he controls to ignore this mountain of solid evidence.
Well, you see where these lies are going.
Re: (Score:3)
then found they had no standing, or they stated that the results could not be overturned by the court.
If your evidence is legitimate and sound then that's as simple as re-filing in a court where you do have standing or getting a plaintiff that has standing in that court.
Evidence is evidence and the court throwing out a case due to lack of standing (like the Texas case) does not mean that Texas has legitimate evidence.
Even if that is the case where is the presented evidence for the public to see that the courts are denying. Where can i find it if no one is bringing to court at all?
Again, not every case was
Remember the Patriot Act Days on this Site. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember the Patriot Act Days on this Site. (Score:5, Informative)
"Obama authorized the CIA to psyop Americans in 2012..." said nobody sane ever. Weirdly, the conspiracy nut can't even get his claimed conspiracy theory right.
Fact Check [apnews.com] Says:
CLAIM: Former President Barack Obama signed a law in 2012 allowing government propaganda in the U.S., and making it “perfectly legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people.”
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. In 2013, Obama signed legislation that changed the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, also known as the Smith-Mundt Act. The amendment made it possible for some materials created by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the nation’s foreign broadcasting agency, to be disseminated in the U.S.
THE FACTS: A post circulating on Facebook with a photo of Obama falsely states he repealed a ban on government propaganda in the U.S. when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act in 2013. The amendment did not repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, but rather lifted some restrictions on the domestic dissemination of government-funded media.
The change essentially eased restrictions for Americans who want to access government-funded media content, allowing media produced by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, to be made available to Americans “upon request.”
That was not possible before the law was changed. “Even upon request, if I wanted to get it through FOIA, for instance, they couldn’t do it. The amendment changed that,” said Gabe Rottman, director of the Reporters Committee’s Technology and Press Freedom Project.
Under the previous law, the agency’s content, including radio broadcasts from Voice of America, were banned from dissemination in the U.S. However, Americans were still able to access much of the content online.
“There was essentially a de facto ban on the domestic dissemination of materials originating from the State Department,” said Weston Sager, an attorney who published a paper on the change in law.
Under the new law, it is still against the law for government-funded media to create programming and market their content to U.S. audiences.
There is a large difference here. (Score:2)
You lump all government operations into a "Ministry of Truth", but in reality the Patriot Act and CISA have very different goals.
The Patriot Act existed to spy on Americans for possible "terrorist" activities, of which there were virtually none. CISA exists to find obvious disinformation planted by foreign powers such as Putin, Iran, China, etc. This disinformation is plentiful, and unfortunately oft-repeated by the ignorant among us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only for the abuses, both the Patriot Act and CISA should be repealed an, if necessary, remade with proper missions and restrictions. The Patriot Act has been so roundly abused it must be remade. CISA needs to be more limited, in law, to avoid further abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody got psyop'd but ... the twist is that it's you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really disappointing to see how far you have fallen from the person I remember in the early days of /. bill_mcgonigle
The person I remember was an effective and occasionally snarky spokesperson for the Conservative point of view, along with pudge (who just seems to be gone, I guess he had enough) and it was a breath of fresh air on a site with a disproportionate number of Liberals. I frequently agreed with you and where I didn't you still made me THINK. I never thought you were arguing in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really arguing in favor of the Ministry of Truth?
No. Because if you had actually ever read 1984 you'd realise that the Ministry of Truth and CISA couldn't be larger. But as usual the one who claims is way smarter than everyone else shows once again he's too dumb to even read the things he quotes.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I take that back and apologise. I shouldn't accuse you of not having read 1984. By all accounts it's likely you did read it and yet were too dumb to understand what it was about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The thing with Azov is context, not every member of Azov was some sort of neo-nazi, Azov is just a sea and a location. While the battalion absolutely had some far right and nazi people it was not homogenous and also a lot of that was when it was a paramilitary organization. After 2014 Ukraine reformed it's military and part of that was folding these outside groups into the formal Ukraine Army. Once Azov was absorbed a lot of it's far right leadership was replaced and they are not some rogue group anymore
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! I guess I'm a troll by today's Slashdot standards! I think it says more about the mods than it does about me.
The whole Azov thing is a distraction.
Maybe. But nobody was trying to "distract" from anything before the war started, when Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch wanted to tell us all about the Azov battalion.
Your very sincere, very verbose denials of things I didn't say certainly make me today's troll . . .
Re: (Score:3)
the MSM told everyone to think exactly the same thing about the Azov battalion. But only the liberals were likely consuming that news. And libs are trying their best to rewrite that history.
It's probably this line which reads very partisan and suggests that liberals are just a bunch of MSM parrots. Sounds now like you dind't mean it that way but what did you mean then if that's not the case? Also just saying "democrats favor thought police" is something of a thought destroying statement, it doesnt mean anything.
But nobody was trying to "distract" from anything before the war started,
Which war? 2014 or 2022? I don't think anybody, and I mean anybody in the US knew what Azov was before 2014 when a civil war broke out which put Azov on the front lines.
Also I have n
I have choice words for these people... (Score:2)
Ya know (Score:5, Insightful)
to combat online disinformation during elections singles out conservative voices
If you consider it a personal attack that lies are countered, you might want to reevaluate your stance.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lies are countered." And who decides what are "lies?"
I swear to fuck, you people have no sense whatsoever.
The authority explicitly empowered to do so? It's not a new concept either as not all "lies" are a matter of personal opinion. As example, in a defamation lawsuit your personal opinion of what is a "lie" is irrelevant: there is an authority which decides on the matter which is the jury and their opinion is what matters.
The question here is whether such a governmental authority is necessary and which processes are or need to be implemented to ensure that the "finder of facts" role they play is fair and unbia
Re: (Score:3)
The First Amendment assumes no authority may be trusted with the power of abridging the freedom of speech.
Courts appointed by Congress, or Agencies serving under the President, are equally bad in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is abridging your right to lie. All that's being done is calling out that lie.
Try harder.
Re:Ya know (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the left has in a few short decades gone from "I may not agree with your opinion, but I'll fight to the death for your right to express it!" to "Respect my authoritaiii!"
Which "left"? The authority in question was established during Trump's presidency as far as I understand.
Re: (Score:2)
The one currently backing Trump to defend this.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the left has in a few short decades gone from "I may not agree with your opinion, but I'll fight to the death for your right to express it!" to "Respect my authoritaiii!"
Which "left"? The authority in question was established during Trump's presidency as far as I understand.
Methinks you need to learn more about how Presidential Administrations work, particularly when the President is replaced.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lies are countered." And who decides what are "lies?"
When utterances you present as fact conflict with reality you are a liar. The ones who decide what lies are is a pair of guys named Dosome D. Research and Common F. Sense.
I swear to fuck...
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
And that determination is often subjective. Are you aware of that,
I think that the idea that verifiable facts are ‘subjective’ is the most amazingly stupid idea that the collective brain rot that passes for a modern conservative movement has so far come up with.
you ignorant fuck
Good luck with that line of argumentation, you are going to need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you define “you people”?
Re: (Score:2)
He defines it as anyone who doesn't say what he wants them to say when he wants them to say it. I just had a whole boring thread with him over the evidence of collusion in the Mueller report [justsecurity.org] where he insisted that I read it to him.
Re: (Score:2)
People who once understood and defended free speech, but now see it as nothing but an obstacle to their power.
Re: (Score:2)
So republicans then.
You're fighting the last war.. move on. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"And who decides what are "lies?""
Sane people? Who can think?
It doesn't take a high IQ to understand the concept of a false statement.
Re: (Score:2)
I just explained this. If you're too stupid or unwise to understand subjectivity and bias, you just should not vote. Our democracy needs to be run by people who understand basic concepts of human behavior.
Stick to prosecutable crimes (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting into the debunking business and trying to control citizens "spreading" foreign propaganda (who determines thay they didn't came up with it themselves?) is always going to skirt first amendment issues and political influencing. It was stupid mission creep.
Re:Stick to prosecutable crimes (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends how it is done.
For example, clearly labelling the origin of social media accounts is simply providing the viewer with more information so that they can make an informed choice. If the account uses a Moscow IP address and only posts during Moscow business hours, most people would probably think that the "James. L. Patriot" persona posting non-stop "we should defund Ukraine" memes is inauthentic.
Of course, such information should be independently vetted. That's how democracy works, we have many layers of checks and balances. Within government, the press, the judicial system, freedom of speech etc.
The alternative is far worse. Election campaigns run from Moscow and Beijing. Don't think that just because they happen to support your guy this time that it's okay.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1a absolutely does cover intentional lies.
This has been covered many times before. Yelling fire! in a crowded theatre has been determined to not be a crime. And that's far worse than just talking shit on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the error in your post is saying any ignorant or gullible person has something to gain from the misinformation; it's mischaracterizing the vast majority of rubes as being part of the conspiracy and that is trolling.
Better to ridicule and shame people for being gullible and ignorant then get modded down by a snowflake who's feelings are hurt. at least then you have proof you upset 1 person... not likely they'll think any about it but maybe their bruised ego will inspire a little self reflection.
Oh, I
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck your free speech
Thanks for letting us know what you're about. You're now a foe. Have a nice day.
Yeah, sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
These lawmakers insist work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to combat online disinformation during elections singles out conservative voices
Also in the news, burglars complain that police singles them out for arrest.
If your bullshit get called out for being bullshit, it may be that someone is out to get you... but the far more likely reason is that it's bullshit.
Re:Yeah, sure... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, it's way, way better if we let some enemy government tell our people what to believe. That can't backfire at all.
Good. (Score:2)
The agency needs a massive overhaul (Score:2)
Paul is correct that it should have had absolutely no dealings with big tech on the elections issues, especially with Meta, Twitter, etc. which aren't even remotely justifiable under the agency's mandate to protect critical infrastructure. It is the job the Intelligence Community and federal law enforcement to hunt for FARA violators, 50 cent army trolls, etc. not CISA or the NSA (folks, CISA is the purely civilian, DHS counterpart of the defensive side of the NSA).
The agency was supposed to be laser focuse
Re: (Score:2)
Opinion/Hot Take (Score:2)
I don't think an American squabbling about this on /. will accomplish as much as writing to a political representative and demanding a reply to hear what they intend to do; and I do think it's a dichotomy and not a false dichotomy; there's an opportunity cost in how one spends one time, attention and thoughts.
If nothing else you'll have a measure of how useful or not your current representative is. You'll be working with evidence instead of something repeated on the internet so often it'll be treated as a "
Fake News - Court told CISA to Back Off (Score:3, Insightful)
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
The order bars CISA and top agency officials including director Jen Easterly from taking steps to “coerce or significantly encourage” tech companies to take down or curtail the spread of social media posts.
SCOTUS will take up this case in 2024.
The Conservatives don't want CISA regulating online speech. It's not their job and it's not the government's job.
Re:Fake News - Court told CISA to Back Off (Score:5, Insightful)
The Conservatives don't want CISA regulating online speech. It's not their job and it's not the government's job.
When it comes to other topics, such as abortion, conservatives have shown themselves to be very happy to regulate speech.
This isn't about free speech, if's about conservatives desire to protect their ability to lie to voters.
Offtopic (Score:2)
I don't mind language being used a little loosely in context, but when it's openly dishonest like this it has to stop.
US Conservatives Are Trying To Kill Government (Score:2)
How about making lying illegal? (Score:2)
Let's say that there was a law that punished someone for consciously telling a lie. The punishment for which should scale with the lie. You would have to be accused, go to court and be found guilty, just like with any other law, but this sort of thing would severely limit the idiots who seem to think that lies are protected speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is neither Left nor Right (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is from Politico, a publication that is solidly on the Left, and therefore it is filled with click-bait terms such as "hard right" and breathless warnings about dreaded "conservatives". None of that is relevant here. CISA was caught with its hands completely in the cookie jar by jawboning private sector media companies to censor protected speech. The people whose voices were silenced took them to court, and won an injunction. That injunction was narrowed in an appeal, and then stayed by the Supreme Court.
If the government wins this case, it will be a dark, dark day for freedom of expression. It's an important case that has zero to do with Left or Right, and everything to do with places like /. being able to tell the government to take a hike if it wants to.
Re:Freedom of speech is neither Left nor Right (Score:5, Interesting)
Forgot to add: Read this: The Westminster Declaration [westminste...ration.org]. This is a statement from the international community about the exact same kinds of illegal and unethical suppression of speech being tried the world over. The problems with CISA are not an isolated case. Many democracies are trying to suppress speech, exactly like China does.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a more balanced article on it? Like, I'm really curious what the government wanted to censor, and what threat it made against the media companies. All I have found are articles where states complained that the government was coercing companies, but no actual examples are given in any of the articles. I am really sick of articles that don't actually say what happened. And when I click links that say "the preliminary injection ordered by the judge" I don't get a link to the injunction, I get a
Re: (Score:2)
They're under the hard right AND the hard left. Have been for many decades.
Re: Nice work Vladimir and He... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's time the middle kicks both extreme loonies off their deep end for good and take back the country while it still exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Get out to the range, and keep your skills sharp.
I wish. Only ranges around here max out at 50-yards, pretty pointless for rifle practice. I am however headed out into the country next week, and looking forward to putting some rounds down-range.
Pass along to your liberal friends that firearms are merely tools and don't leap out of your home to kill people. As with many things, take time to educate those ignorant of firearms...
I do that, quite a bit. But I also try to help people with the other extreme viewpoint understand that what we're doing in this country to keep nutcases from shooting up schools, dance clubs, concerts, and grocery stores isn't working either.
about the truth.
This last part of your comment dovetails so wonderfully into the contex
Re: Nice work Vladimir and He... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's largely the Gingrich revolution in the GOP that has led to this phase of the collapse. They prioritized entrenchment at all costs and made gerrymandering and fundraising MORE extremely polarized. This results in their side lacking accountability and gaining more power! It's quite simple if you think about it and have been watching since the 90s.
You isolate opposition into concentrated areas which makes them more extreme, less accountable, and more "alien" to the mainstream while you are doing the same for your side. It's more extreme for your team because your strategy is an unequal number of districts on both sides but the max for you and the min for them.
This is why the GOP has so many extremists and the Dems has so few (if your perspective is warped you still can't see the contrast. maybe if you're a child you've not been around long enough to see the shift... old people have some advantages.)
Not enough time to address the money policy shifts and their impact but that Gingrich time period also made money more damaging for both sides but in that case, it was intentionally done to corrupt the Dems along with the GOP. (in some minds private ownership of government IS the goal and democracy is the corruption.)
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, I'll bite. What have democrats done that has killed 43 million black folks?
Re: (Score:3)
What about the very left fighting for the islamists (Hamas)? Point is, the middle should be strengthened, the US political system does the opposite - mostly because the only thing the two parties can agree on is to keep the duopoly. They used to pick mid-leaning candidates to get them elected in the general election, but now the grassroots elects more extremists in the primaries.
I don't really get it completely. The middle is a lot bigger than either of the extremes, yet the extremes seem to be gaining traction in the power positions of government. Shouldn't a democracy, even a republic with a democratic base, vote the loons out in favor of moderates? I know a few Trump clingers, but even among the more staunchly Republican reds of the state, most look at the complete idiot brigade their party is right now and wonder WTF happened. Granted, the big show level stupidity does keep a l
Re: (Score:2)
As far as "violence never solved anything" goes, the Carthaginians (and many others) would like to have a word with you.
As the old phrase goes: violence doesn't show who is right, just who is left.
Re: Nice work Vladimir and He... (Score:5, Insightful)
The way the Israeli bombing campaign was conducted, it was inevitable it would lead to the deaths of many civilians and that's precisely what happened. There was a definite 'kill them all and let God sort them out' mentality there. Not allowing essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza, or only allowing a trickly may yet result in a lot more civilian casualties. Yes, there is some truth that Hamas are essentially using civilians in Gaza as human shields. It doesn't mean that you shoot the human shield in the head, then shoot anyone who could be used as human shield in the head, and only then go after the enemy combatants.
As for the violence solving problems, yes it can indeed be very effective in accomplishing your goals. After German occupation in WWII there were a lot less Jews left in many countries in Europe than there were before it. Does it mean that we should encourage those kind of tactics though?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someday, the crazy "beating of the liberal" posts will stop and I'll just assume he's finally gone on his killing spree one of the dozens we have every month in the USA. Being the slashdot bomber, he'll probably not leave enough digital evidence to connect to his posts but they'll probably find the usual mentally ill signs after the fact as usually happens.
My question is what kind of nut is this guy? bomb delivery, white powder mailer, or mass shooter?
At what phase is he at? it's been years of posting the
Re: "The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:2)
My guess would be "basement coward", i.e. annoying but harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
My question is what kind of nut is this guy?
I'm guessing that this person is the typical MAGA acolyte.
Too cheap to use their own guns and ammo and too chickenshit to actually get up off their fat asses and do anything of consequence even if they were given the equipment to do so.
I cordially invite them to prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad how you have to keep repeating this fantasy. I mean, did you ever meet another human being?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no actual content in that opinion piece. A lot of scare words, but no censorship. Mostly an ill-assorted list of "think tanks". Yeah, indeed, think tanks actually are ideology-driven political advocacy companies spewing slanted news and outright propaganda, but the ones I'd be more worried about are ones like the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity and the Federalist Society. Not the ones listed here.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck Racket. They endorse people like alex jones, which makes it very clear what they are about.
And fuck their 'map'. How the fuck do they figure NATO is part of US government?
This website is for paranoid idiots that don't understand the world. You should rethink where you get your sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Krebs naively did his job honestly when they fucked up by hiring a competent serious person when they really wanted a scumbag.
Incompetent senile old fool hires a few people to create something to protect against an imaginary threat and those competent people actually honestly create a REAL team to combat REAL threats. it's a broken clock that happened to get the correct time.
They may have believed the lies and honestly set out to fix or prevent a problem they thought was real (and had SOME basis in reality
Re: (Score:2)
A quick glance of your paragraphs yielded more adolescent insults than sentences. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
A quick glance of your paragraphs yielded more adolescent insults than sentences. Try again.
Also you:
"Are you aware of that, you ignorant fuck?" https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
"I swear to fuck, you people have no sense whatsoever." https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
1=1
Re: (Score:2)