Website blocking provision.

[Izzy Vega]

Found the following on firstamendement.com. Do you think it would down to this?

VI. Website Blocking Provisions

The provisions relating to Internet Computer Services, (“ICS’s”) are extremely interesting – and dangerous – from an academic and constitutional point of view. The Attorney General of the United States has now been empowered to unilaterally demand the immediate removal of any website he believes to be in violation of the UIGEA, in his unlimited discretion.[48] The law provides the ICS with the right of advance notice and opportunity to “appear” before any judicial relief can be granted.[49] It remains unclear exactly where the ICS is entitled to appear. However, nowhere in the Act does Congress provide any procedural safeguards for the website operator, whose business is about to be unilaterally terminated. This Due Process violation may not be so egregious but for the fact that Free Speech rights are at stake. The UIGEA allows the United States government to impose mandatory censorship by forcing ICS’s to ban selected websites, presumably before the affected website owner even knows what happened, and without any right to object.

The potential abuses authorized by this provision are glaringly apparent. Suppose the Attorney General does not enjoy the political commentary appearing on certain Internet gaming websites or portals, and thus decides to force the closure of those select sites while leaving a multitude of others online? Assuming that all this blocking activity occurs outside the formal legal process, little public attention or oversight will be devoted to these administrative enforcement efforts.

The First Amendment concerns of this newly-enacted censorship authority are staggering. The Internet has been called “the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed.”[50] According to the United States Supreme Court, the web is a “unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication.”[51] Given the importance of protecting the free flow of mass communication online, the courts have provided Internet communications with a high level of First Amendment protection, and have not hesitated to strike down laws restricting the content of online communications.[52] Congress has apparently overlooked the level of constitutional protection ordinarily afforded to online communications in allowing the Attorney General to unilaterally disable access to select websites without any notice or opportunity to be heard.

[ollie5050]

links?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
links?

[/ QUOTE ] link

[Dunkman]

Certainly troubling, that's for sure. Hell, I remember discussing whether or not they'd try to block sites like 2p2 when Frist was trying to get the bill to stick on a piece of legislation. On the plus side, I think the AG is kinda busy with more pressing matters at the moment...

[ArtMonkRules]

Id like to see them block access to my Remote Virtual Private Network.

[superpokermon]

I don't think it will come to that, but who knows.

If you read the conclusion of that article, the author states: "The URL blocking procedure is patently unconstitutional."

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]


If you read the conclusion of that article, the author states: "The URL blocking procedure is patently unconstitutional."

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when did Republicans pay attention to the Constitution? That won't stop them.