So much for freedom of speech...

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007 ... 854093.htm

Student arrested over Va. Tech remarks
(AP)
Updated: 2007-04-19 08:54

BOULDER, Colo. - A University of Colorado student pleaded not guilty Wednesday to making comments that classmates deemed sympathetic toward the gunman blamed for killing 32 students and himself at Virginia Tech, authorities said.

During a class discussion Tuesday of Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech, Max Karson "made comments about understanding how someone could kill 32 people," university police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley said.

Several witnesses told investigators Karson, who turns 22 on Thursday, said he was "angry about all kinds of things from the fluorescent light bulbs to the unpainted walls, and it made him angry enough to kill people," according to a police report. Witnesses "said they were afraid of him and afraid to come to class with him," Wiesley said.

Karson, of Denver, was arrested Tuesday on a misdemeanor charge of interfering with staff, faculty or students of an education institution.

His father, Michael Karson, told the Camera newspaper that the comments may have been misinterpreted and questioned whether his son's free speech rights had been violated.

"I would have hoped that state officials would know their First Amendment better than they seem to," he said.

University spokesman Bronson Hilliard said privacy laws prevented him from releasing personal information about students.

At Oregon's Lewis & Clark College, another student was detained by campus police Wednesday shortly before a vigil for the Virginia Tech victims when he was spotted wearing an ammunition belt. Portland police later determined that it was "a fashion accessory" made of spent ammunition, and said the man did not have a weapon. The belt was confiscated.

I'm sure people said that about 9/11 and weren't arrested. FOS my ass.

Universities don't believe in FOS. They are the most anti FOS institutions you can come across.

Thats Terrible what's next the thought police

Ha! See that .cn at the end of that article? The article is from The People Republic of China's state controlled press!

I will also note that this action was taken by the University itself. Conservatives have been targeted for remarks in similar circumstances in the past on campuses. Is that because of 9/11 too?

first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.

The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government.

The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation.

The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.

don't say nuthin' about no private institution restricting and restraining "free speech"

Merle

Americans... guys... your country is f***ed up

This is exactly what I've talked about in other threads. Believe it or not, we no longer live in a country with freedom of speech and the right to dissent.

Though actually, when examining our history, it's doubtful it was ever really there to begin with.

Freedom of speech as long as you completely agree with the powers that be...

Big Brother Brain Scanners To Detect Pre-Crime
Watching, Listening, Shouting, Firing X-Rays and scanning your brain for thought crime

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, February 9, 2007

You think this headline is alarmist? Fine, don't read anymore of this article, click here for the same story from today's front page of the London Guardian which debates whether a 'Minority Report' era, where judgments are handed down before the law is broken on the strength of an incriminating brain scan, is ethical or not.

The technology is no longer science fiction. A team of neuroscientists has developed technology that allows them to look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act.

During tests, researchers were able to successfully predict the intentions of multiple subjects with 70% accuracy by scanning their brains using a technique called functional magnetic imaging resonance.

The study revealed signatures of activity in a small part of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex that changed when a person took a choice to do something before carrying out the action.

The researchers are already devising ways of deducing what patterns are associated with different thoughts.

According to the Guardian report, Professor Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist and director of the Medical Research Council, said: "We shouldn't go overboard about the power of these techniques at the moment, but what you can be absolutely sure of is that these will continue to roll out and we will have more and more ability to probe people's intentions, minds, background thoughts, hopes and emotions.

So what happens when this becomes the next generation of CCTV? And more to the point, what happens if it stays at only 70% accuracy? Or worse still, what if certain emotions, such as depression or anger, lead a person to be categorized as a risk?

And what will be the punishment for pre-crime? With moves to "chemically castrate" sex offenders by eliminating their sexual desires, (seriously being considered) now, how far fetched is it to imagine a future thought criminal's brain being "corrected" by eliminating the relevant desires or emotions picked up by a brain scan?

The use of this technology for crime prevention and social control is worse than anything Orwell or even Huxley predicted, and is directly out of Phillip K Dick's Minority Report. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb1XC2bUMj8[/youtube] Is this the kind of society we want to live in? Clearly not. Why is there even a debate about that?

"We see the danger that this might become compulsory one day, but we have to be aware that if we prohibit it, we are also denying people who aren't going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence." Professor Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany told the Guardian.

This is total Orwellian doublethink on the grandest of scales. The Professor is essentially saying this should not be ruled out as a crime fighting tool because people should be given the chance to prove they are not criminals.

People already have the chance to prove they are not criminals by not committing any crimes! Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

But once again those detached from any kind of moral reality will say "If you've got nothing to hide then what is the problem with having your brain scanned for pre-crime? If it keeps us all safe from terrorists I'm all for it".The British government has (previously debated introducing pre-crime) laws in the name of fighting terrorism. The idea was that suspects would be put on trial using MI5 or MI6 intelligence of an expected terror attack. This would be enough to convict if found to be true "on the balance of probabilities", rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

So get it straight, you are helping the terrorists by resisting having your brain scanned. Plus, if you have anti-big brother government feelings you may be with the terrorists.

Last month we brought you a (report on leaked government policy review documents) that debated implanting anyone considered mentally unstable with a microchip. Will this new brain scanning technology be used in this field also, perhaps to check for suicidal thoughts?

Already, under the new mental health act, you can be sectioned for mild depression. Take the recent case of (Anna McHugh), who visited her GP after a failed intensive cycle of IVF treatment. She admitted that she was a little depressed and needed some help.

Four hours later she found herself admitted to St Pancras Hospital. Then, having admitted to the attending doctor that she had contemplated suicide, she was sectioned under Section 5.2 of the Mental Health Act and detained in a lock-down ward. When her husband tried to rescue her, she was held in a headlock while a doctor discussed her case with him.

It is not beyond reason to expect this technology to be implemented without debate. Can anyone remember a real meaningful debate occurring concerning surveillance cameras before they went up everywhere in London?

Last month we also reported on (documents leaked from the Home Office) in London revealing that the government is looking into using X-ray technology cameras by concealing them in lamp posts to "trap terror suspects".

The cameras, currently used in security check points at airports, can see through clothes and produce a naked image of anyone within their range.

Within that report I asked "How many more big brother functions can be gotten out of a camera?" Now, just over a week later we have an answer - brain scanners, is it a step too far to imagine them in the lamp posts with the shouting CCTV and the X-ray machines?

This shows what our governments think of us now. Everyone is a suspect.

Imagine the scenario, lamp post is triggered by technology to spot you walking strangely, begins recording your conversation, scans your face to match your details in the national database, X-rays you to check for weapons, shouts "stand still citizen" and scans your brain to check whether you intend to commit a crime, sees you're a bit depressed, sections you under mental health act, cops pick you up, hand you in to doctors who lock you up and microchip you.

Let's have a moral debate about that scenario. No, lets not.