1021 - Suspension of Terrorist Websites Act

[Clark Kent]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. Haslam2020 (F-TN)

[/]

Concept is good, but we need more specification on how this bill will be implemented if we want it to be effective. We also need some way to define what is and isn't a terrorist website instead of being vague.

[Classic Conservative]

I don't support government intervention in the Internet besides child porn

[NeverAgain]

I don't support government intervention in the Internet besides child porn

It could be argued that the atrocious act of terrorism being home-grown requires more government attention than kiddie-porn, which although is heinous, but is a person's personal choice. Going after those that make it should be the goal.

That being said, this bill is very much unclear on specifics. I would like the sponsor to look at this and attempt to find more clearer and better set standards for this bill.

[Goldwater]

I don't support government intervention in the Internet besides child porn

It could be argued that the atrocious act of terrorism being home-grown requires more government attention than kiddie-porn, which although is heinous, but is a person's personal choice. Going after those that make it should be the goal.

That being said, this bill is very much unclear on specifics. I would like the sponsor to look at this and attempt to find more clearer and better set standards for this bill.

Uh, I don't think children can legally consent to being in porn...

[Kingpoleon]

I don't support government intervention in the Internet besides child porn

It could be argued that the atrocious act of terrorism being home-grown requires more government attention than kiddie-porn, which although is heinous, but is a person's personal choice. Going after those that make it should be the goal.

That being said, this bill is very much unclear on specifics. I would like the sponsor to look at this and attempt to find more clearer and better set standards for this bill.

Uh, I don't think children can legally consent to being in porn...

I think the age of consent/majority is sixteen, IIRC.

[NeverAgain]

I don't support government intervention in the Internet besides child porn

It could be argued that the atrocious act of terrorism being home-grown requires more government attention than kiddie-porn, which although is heinous, but is a person's personal choice. Going after those that make it should be the goal.

That being said, this bill is very much unclear on specifics. I would like the sponsor to look at this and attempt to find more clearer and better set standards for this bill.

Uh, I don't think children can legally consent to being in porn...

No, the watcher, not the actor. I want to end kiddie-porn, but watching it is a personal choice even if it is sickening. We should attack those making these awful things, not those watching it.

[Blair]

Whilst I hope the House does it's job on this bill, I'm ready in the Senate to heavily heavily heavily amend this bill to get it somewhere even close to being passable.

We're not the Executive Branch folks

[Senator Cris]

I don't support government intervention in the Internet besides child porn

What?
We are speaking of terrorists that use internet for recruiting people. The government must fight this. Ok with wanting less federal government intrusion in the life of Atlasians, but here we are speaking of terrorists that might kill Atlasians and the government shall do everything possible to protect Atlasians.

The concept behind the proposed bill is obviously good, but it needs work on language.

[Blair]

If you support Libel laws/consumer protections you support government intervention in the Internet

[Clark Kent]

I have limited service here, so I'll just pop in to say that I'll try to propose a reworded/amended version either tomorrow or Friday.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don't support government intervention in the Internet besides child porn

What?
We are speaking of terrorists that use internet for recruiting people. The government must fight this. Ok with wanting less federal government intrusion in the life of Atlasians, but here we are speaking of terrorists that might kill Atlasians and the government shall do everything possible to protect Atlasians.

The concept behind the proposed bill is obviously good, but it needs work on language.

Speaking as the Secretary of State, I must strongly agree with Cris on this issue. This is not a debate over net neutrality or free speech: we are talking about people who are actively trying to recruit our citizens to kill Atlasians. To allow this to continue compromises our national security and leaves the door open for another attack on our soil.

As Blair and others have noted, this bill needs a lot of work - at present it is much to vague and basically gives me a blank check to do whatever the hell I want (not that I'm complaining ) - but the principle behind it is sound, and I hope the House will do the necessary heavy lifting to get this proposal into shape.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Are there specific activities or content of these websites that directly contribute to terrorism, and if so, what are they? 

[Clark Kent]

I propose an amendment that will strike all existing text and replace it with a hopefully better version:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know, it probably could be a lot better, but hopefully it's a start.

[Clark Kent]

In little under an hour, this amended version replaces the existing bill. If you have any objections, raise them now.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Good.

[Clark Kent]

My amended version has been adopted. Representatives, please state your opinions.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Still kinda vague: "links to terrorism"/"related to terrorism" ? Who determines this?

[Clark Kent]

Still kinda vague: "links to terrorism"/"related to terrorism" ? Who determines this?

True. I'm assuming that we have a list of active terrorist organizations, since we were trying to add the Muslim Brotherhood to that. If not, we should make one.

How about,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Still kinda vague: "links to terrorism"/"related to terrorism" ? Who determines this?

True. I'm assuming that we have a list of active terrorist organizations, since we were trying to add the Muslim Brotherhood to that. If not, we should make one.

How about,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that's good for clause 2, but clause 1 and the concept of "online terrorism" is still vague imo.

[Clark Kent]

Still kinda vague: "links to terrorism"/"related to terrorism" ? Who determines this?

True. I'm assuming that we have a list of active terrorist organizations, since we were trying to add the Muslim Brotherhood to that. If not, we should make one.

How about,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that's good for clause 2, but clause 1 and the concept of "online terrorism" is still vague imo.

I don't really think it's vague, to be honest.

[Clark Kent]

Since there has been no debate in almost four days, we will now move to a final vote. Representatives have 72 hours to vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.

[/]

Abstain

Good idea but it's not that coherent.

[Clark Kent]

AYE


FYI we're voting on my amended version, not Rep. Haslam's original version of the bill.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Ok, reading the amended version again, I don't think that would impinge on free speech even if interpreted overbroadly. 

AYE