Regulating the Internet?

[BeTheChange]

Patriot Act 2-
Section 401 would criminalize and create a cause of action against a person who "knowingly conveys false or misleading information, where the information reasonably may be believed, criminal activity relating to weapons of mass destruction...." Several observations with respect to persons -- particularly conspiracy theorists -- wishing to conduct discussions of terrorism on the internet: (1) Under decisions going back to the 1930's, the word "knowingly" can be interpreted to include willful ignorance, gross recklessness, and other states of mind not requiring objective knowledge. It can also be taken to imply that the communication was "knowing," irrespective of whether the sender "knew" of the "false or misleading" nature of the content. (2) Under a broad range of federal statutes, including the SEC's Rule 10b5, "false or misleading" information includes true statements that fail to include other information which might be of interest to the reasonable listener. This is usually couched in language like: "fails to state a fact necessary to make the statement not misleading." (3) What person, conveying the most outrageous information on the internet, could credibly argue that the information "may not reasonably be believed"? (4) The information need not concern criminal activity of the sender. More likely, in fact, it will be mindless speculation on criminal activities of Osama bin Laden, al Queda, etc.

Conspiracy Theorists beware. The big problem with this is that sometimes conspiracy is true.

[Miami Liberal]

1. Does this apply to the many internets or just one? n/t

[mcscajun]

2. What's with all the 'strikeout' text? n/t

[BeTheChange]

5. There was a pluralization

Sorry about that.

[unpossibles]

3. so...

Patriot Act 2-
Section 401 would criminalize and create a cause of action against a person who "knowingly convey false or misleading information, where the information reasonably may be believed, criminal activity relating to weapons of mass destruction...."

....(1) Under decisions going back to the 1930's, the word "knowingly" can be interpreted to include willful ignorance, gross recklessness, and other states of mind not requiring objective knowledge. It can also be taken to imply that the communication was "knowing," irrespective of whether the sender "knew" of the "false or misleading" nature of the content.

...More likely, in fact, it will be mindless speculation on criminal activities of Osama bin Laden, al Queda, etc.
********************************

Does this mean we can send Bullsh and Rover and Rummie to Gitmo for "false or misleading information" regarding WMDs?

[clem_c_rock]

4. OMG - This proves Orwell was an inside man - he knew too much

Can you send me quickly to where you found this?

Thanks

[BeTheChange]

6. From ACLU.org

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206