Who could be against "reasonable" restrictions on web speech?
Not Eric Holder.
And here's more on his antipathy to the Second Amendment:
After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder complained that the decision "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."
Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old's home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez "was not taken at the point of a gun" and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted "very sensitively." If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling "Get down, get down, we'll shoot" is example of acting "very sensitively," his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.
Fighting the confirmation of this man should be the Republicans' first battle against the Obama administration. The last thing we need is the second coming of Janet "Burn Baby Burn" Reno.
Yeah i know I always felt safer knowing no one who assaulted me could have a pistol grip and folding stock on their rifle.
Is this what he's saying (found here)? My current browser doesn't handle movies at all.
He's also supported federal hate crime legislation. I don't know why we can't have an US Attorney General for once that supports the Constitution and US law. How hard can it be?
Like Reno, he will be harder on groups he doesn't like rather than actual criminals.
Well...I'm not so sure this is an easy call. I'm sympathetic to the slashdot/Reason what part of Congress shall make no law abridgin the freedom of speech don't you understand? absolutists.
But...what about Lori Drew? What about the teenager with a history of mood disorders who just killed himself on justin.tv while the watchers egged him on? What about phishing scams that destroy the life savings of mildly disabled people? Folks who are the victims of flash mobs, online lynchings?
Some people are rather vulnerable, and you personally know very well how the anonymity of the Internet can turn otherwise people into vicious mobs -- how people say stuff when they're RandomUser666 that they'd never say in person. The nonverbal social cues we inherited from our monkey ancestors that help govern our speech in person are missing from Internet text, and it's a problem.
It's not a solution to say, well, everyone is just going to have to toughen up, because that won't happen. What will happen, if zealous ibertarian interests resist some reasonable restrictions on Internet free speech, the equivalent of the rules against yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, is that the statists are going to come along in coalition with the moderate middle and do something much more drastic. The perfect will drive out the good. The libertarians need to make common cause with the moderates to neuter the totalitarians.
I don't know the right answer, but I do think that absolutism about free speech is not productive. For one thing, completely free speech tends to allow the suppression of minority voices through unchecked mob action by the majority. This we can see by watching how large online fora evolve. They almost inevitably develop a remarkably dogmatic groupthink, and viciously punish deviancy from Correct Thinking. Government may have a role in preserving the ability of the minority to speak out without fearing the revenge of the majority.
I don't know why we can't have an US Attorney General for once that supports the Constitution and US law.
Probably because we don't often get a president who supports the Constitution and US law. We certainly weren't fated to get one in this election.
But...what about Lori Drew? What about the teenager with a history of mood disorders who just killed himself on justin.tv while the watchers egged him on? What about phishing scams that destroy the life savings of mildly disabled people? Folks who are the victims of flash mobs, online lynchings?
If there's a crime happening, like in the case of the phishing scam, then there's something for government to pursue. If someone is libeling me, that's another activity which I can address without resorting to new government intervention. Otherwise, there's no place for government to protect me from mean trashtalk on the internets.
It's not a solution to say, well, everyone is just going to have to toughen up, because that won't happen.
I have an alternate theory. My take is that "toughening up" is exactly what will happen.
David, you wrote:
Probably because we don't often get a president who supports the Constitution and US law. We certainly weren't fated to get one in this election.
I guess that's hitting the nail on the head, isn't it? The US Attorney General is the point man for the President's legal defense. If the president plans to subvert or merely bend the Constitution, then they need someone willing to do the dirty work.
Plus, no one I know gathers some type of life giving force from the internet in order to survive. If you have a problem on the internet and its beginning to affect your life, here is how you resolve your issue. Take both hands, place them palm down on the edge of the desk, and push yourself away. If you're too stupid to survive on the internet, try real life for a change.
When one gets Janet "burn baby burn" Reno, the boomerang returns and one gets Tim "firecracker" McVeigh.
How much involvement did Eric Holder have in the criminal defense of FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi? Back in 1997 Boundary County Idaho prosecuted Horiuchi for manslaughter over the death of Vicki Weaver in 1992. Horiuchi's main defense was to force the trial into Federal court and then claim immunity from State llaw since he was acting as a Fedeal agent following orders. That's right, his defense against murder was "I was just following orders"! I know that Horiuchi's lawyer was paid for by the Feds, but I don't know how much involvement the DOJ and Eric Holder had in the specific legal strategy of the defense. I suspect a lot of involvement and approval.