With luck, this bill is just more sloppy legislation from the left, and ultimately will be refined into something that makes an iota of sense. But it does reflect their mindset - the initial solution that comes to them is to shut down our free speech.
I think that there should be legislation to shut down computers and/or people and their internet connections, per Post #500 that I was talking about above. We've been subject to these very kinds of attacks here on our own forum of Free Republic. And so, any legislation which would shut down these kinds of computers immediately, I would be in support of doing.
That's truly scary. And if enacted could be the spark that ignites a violent revolt.
That's another way overused statement -- "could be the spark that ignites a violent revolt." Such legislation is not going to do that. The key is to identify the kind of threat, and to deal with it effectively and swiftly, to prevent the shutting down of our national infrastructure (on which we all do banking, phone calls, everyday life and all sorts of other daily activities...).
And legislation like this, which should be done properly and effectively and have teeth to it, is something that would be for any administration in the future. That means people need to balance things such as freedom and liberty and privacy against security and safety of national infrastructure. That's always a balancing act. We're not going to simply dispense with dealing with security of our national infrastructure and ignore it...
The legislation under discussion here permits much more than merely disconnecting DOS attacks and chattering cards.
That's another way overused statement -- "could be the spark that ignites a violent revolt." Such legislation is not going to do that.
The legislation referred to in this thread would give the President unlimited control over the primary means of communication used by his opposition. It would effectively shut down those who expose and analyze his agenda. If he used such power I don't think it's overly dramatic to suggest that the citizens would immediately respond by attempting to overthrow the entire federal government. There really would be no remaining choice.
If by "overused" you mean that you see that assertion frequently these days, you may be correct. But people are talking about revolt from a position of desperation. Real, significant breaks with the government of our once free society are driving this. That's why you see it a lot. Just as during a certain time of the year you read a lot of references to hurricanes or snowstorms.
Legislation "done properly and effectively" would not elicit this outrage. In this instance, we're talking permitting Obama to cut off entire portions of the internet. Maybe there are too many people using Verizon who are vocally opposed to flu shots. Too many radical websites hosted at Yahoo, or a strong level of Christian activity going through a router at Global Crossing. The implication is this bill (being so vague) is that the President has the capability to declare that to be an emergency and to shut it down.
Vigilance is crucial to a free society. Paranoid, I am? Maybe. Or maybe I'm just learning that someone's out to get me. Either way, I don't trust these clowns trying to ram this law down my throat.