Bad Idea From Famed First Amendment Lawyer: Press Should Sue Trump For Libel

from the no,-they-shouldn't dept

Floyd Abrams is one of, if not the most famous First Amendment lawyers in the country. He gets and deserves a ton of respect. His most famous case was defending the NY Times against the US government when Richard Nixon tried to block the NY Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. And he's been involved in many other seminal First Amendment cases as well. That doesn't mean he doesn't sometimes make mistakes -- like the time he insisted that SOPA wouldn't violate the First Amendment because it was censorship for a good cause (i.e., for his clients at the MPAA). Or the time he falsely accused Wikileaks of indiscriminately leaking information that was actually being more carefully distributed.

And while I totally agree with Abrams in claiming that Donald Trump is the "greatest threat to the First Amendment since the passage of The Sedition Act of 1918," I disagree with his thoughts on how to fight it. His argument is that the press that Trump has been insulting should sue Trump for defamation:
"Trump has denounced people in language that punctuated his campaign," Abrams tells The Hollywood Reporter in a follow-up conversation. "If what he said is not pure protected opinion, then the press side ought to take a hard look and see if they have a basis for commencing litigation. They have to think creatively as no candidate in living memory has denounced the press as he has; no candidate has banned journalists from covering him because they didn't like the tone or substance of what they are saying. And so, press lawyers ought to bear in mind that if things get rough, if the relationship is one of constant denigration and threats, it may be time for journalists to think about using libel laws in way that is constitutional."
Admittedly, he has a lot of caveats in there, but it's still a silly suggestion and would almost certainly backfire in a big way. Yes, Trump himself is somewhat famous for his bogus defamation threats addressed to the media, as well as his claimed plans to "open up libel laws" as President. So, you could argue that there's some potential irony or karmic retribution were he to be hit with a defamation lawsuit by the very reporters he's been threatening for so long.

But it's also a strategy that seems highly likely to backfire in any number of ways. Suing a sitting President is just difficult, first of all. Second, the bar to defamation is quite high -- as it should be -- and it's difficult to see how Trump has crossed that line at all, even as he falsely seems to believe the bar for defamation is much lower. Third, this is very much stooping to his level, and if Trump has shown anything this election year, it's that when you stoop to his level in the mud, he'll drown you in it, because he knows how to play that game better than anyone else. Anyone who did this would almost certainly be hit with a countersuit (at the very least) and would have to prove "actual malice" against a sitting President. They'd also have to point out actual false statements of fact that Trump made, rather than his usual ridiculous hyperbole.

Trump is, absolutely, a huge threat to the First Amendment. And lots of people and organizations need to be ready, willing and able to fight back on any attempt by the Trump administration to harm the First Amendment. But playing the low game of suing for defamation is the wrong way to go about it, and will be seen by his supporters as yet more evidence of the press trying to muzzle Trump.

Filed Under: defamation, donald trump, first amendment, floyd abrams, journalism, reporters


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Tom Landry (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 12:13pm

    The press should be brought up on inciting violence among other things FFS.....what balls these people have.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Holmes, 11 Nov 2016 @ 2:10pm

      Re: Trump not 1A threat

      .


      "Trump is, absolutely, a huge threat to the First Amendment."


      That's an extreme assertion... presented with zero evidence to support it. (how convenient!)

      The 1st Amendment is explicitly a restriction upon Congress ("Congress shall make no law...") , not the President (who has zero legitimate power to create law of any kind).

      How exactly will Trump unilaterally abridge freedom of speech ?? (..you have no idea, of course --it's BS)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Adaline (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 7:24pm

        Re: Re: Trump not 1A threat

        Regardless of his position, if he keeps suing people for Constitutionally-protected opinions, he uses the government (court system) as a bludgeon to threaten speech based on content. If he wins a case, he creates a precedent which may be cited by other courts in the future. This can gradually add caveats to otherwise strong speech protections. And even if he never wins any case, the threat of getting sued -- costing very significant amounts of time, money, and mental distress -- alone will deter people from voicing negative opinions about him. Just see the ABA.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Holmes, 12 Nov 2016 @ 6:58am

          Re: Trump not 1A threat

          .

          @Adaline: "... he uses the government (court system) as a bludgeon..."


          The "court system" is a separate branch of government-- not controlled by any President nor Trump.

          The Federal court system is directly controlled by the Supreme Court and can very easily block any Presidential attempts to violate the 1st Amendment via the courts.
          Any relevant court could sanction/punish Trump for patterns of frivolous or malicious court filings. Trump is powerless without the COOPERATION of the courts.

          But perhaps you don't trust the courts either... nor Congress ? Maybe you don't trust the government at all ? Who then will protect your Free-Speech rights ?

          Your understanding of government and your own political principles is probably highly deficient.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2016 @ 9:02am

            Re: Re: Trump not 1A threat

            >The "court system" is a separate branch of government-- not controlled by any President nor Trump.

            That does not stop Trump using it as a bludgeon, as the costs and stress of fighting through the courts alone is enough to convince people to remove speech, or just not take the risk in the first place.. Further if the president uses it as a bludgeon, it encourages other powerful people to do the same. A real deterrent to fighting through the US courts is the fact that costs are rarely awarded to the winner, and so people can with the case while going bankrupt.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Holmes, 12 Nov 2016 @ 9:53am

              Trump not 1A threat

              The courts can be used as a bludgeon ... ONLY if the courts permit themselves to be used as a bludgeon.

              The courts can easily & immediately dismiss any merit less lawsuits brought by Trump. Trump's targets would not even need a lawyer or any defensive litigation.

              Sounds like you distrust the court system. That's the core issue here, apparently... not Trump.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 5:34am

                Re: Trump not 1A threat

                I've got one word for you, Holmes: "Gawker."

                The court system should have tossed the Hogan case out but didn't. Whether you believe it served them right that they were totally destroyed or not, the fact is you can't rely on the court system to uphold our rights. Too damn often, they do the opposite. *Cough*FISA*Cough cough*rubber stamp*

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 13 Nov 2016 @ 12:08am

            Re: The "court system" is a separate branch of government-- not controlled by any President nor Trump.

            But it is possible for Congress to stack it with judges with left-leaning or right-leaning politics. And I thought judges were supposed to be above politics?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 12:16pm

    Now You're Mad?

    "it may be time for journalists to think about using libel laws in way that is constitutional."

    If journalists hadn't become a bunch of water carrying pussies / dicks and reported the truth versus towing the line then they would have the power of their word (which they no longer have) rather than having to try a constitutional libel case like a bunch of dicks / pussies.

    Stooopid lawyers and their hammers... walking around looking for nails to smash.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 12:17pm

    Comment in Review

    Please post it, thanks... sorry for being so vulgar...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 12:18pm

    "Trump is, absolutely, a huge threat to the First Amendment."

    I would agree to this about Donald Trump, but I'm really hoping it's not true about President Trump. I'm honestly hoping that after the shock of things wears off, and he's done with the initial bad decisions he's likely to make, that he's going to grow up a little and be the President this country needs him to be.

    If that doesn't work, then Right can always spend the next 8 years blaming his failures on Obama, just like the Left did to Bush...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 1:03pm

      Re:

      "If that doesn't work, then Right can always spend the next 8 years blaming his failures on Obama, just like the Left did to Bush..."

      Nope, they can't. You don't get to win both houses of Congress and the White House AND get to make SCOTUS picks, likely 2-3, AND get to blame the past for any shitstorms that occur on your watch. You do NOT get to do that....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 1:18pm

        Re: Re:

        Turnabout is fair play Helmet. Deal with it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2016 @ 2:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          A Don the Con sycophant talking about "fair play"?
          That's as funny as his plastic wife talking about battling cyberbullying, while married to the planet's biggest cyberbully!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 1:35pm

        Re: Re:

        So what exactly ARE the requirements for not taking responsibility for your own actions and blaming someone else for what happens on your watch? What criteria has to be met to pass the buck? You need the House? The House and the Senate? The Presidency and the House?

        The Country became Obama's responsibility the moment he was sworn in. You don't get to point the finger at anyone else when your in charge, it's part of being a leader. But for the last 8 years we've had to listen to the Left blame Bush for damn near EVERYTHING and you want to say now that Trump doesn't get to do that because "reasons"? Fuck that.

        Mike, Dark Helmet... THIS is why people think this web site is Left leaning. RIGHT HERE is your reason.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          History Lesson Time, 11 Nov 2016 @ 2:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The Country became Obama's responsibility the moment he was sworn in"

          The Legislative branch aka Congress creates the laws and controls the budget.

          The Judicial branch is supposed to litigate how those laws abide to the constitution.

          The administrative or executive branch is much more like George W Bush described as the "Cheer leader in chief".

          President Obama is one of three branches of government. So as much as you'd like to blame the President, the other two branches of government have much more control. Who ran those branches of government, republicans... Who stalled filling federal judge seats, republicans, who opposed the president in every action, republicans.

          Who will now have prove they intend to help the working class who elected Trump, the republicans.

          Talk to us in four years about how that's worked out for your paycheck, for your increased health care costs, for more pollution killing children (drinking water, smog, rivers filled with mining run off, et), for less food safety and the rise in contaminants.

          The test for who can govern is now here.
          Republicans control all three branches of government, the outcome will solely be on their shoulders...

          /grabs the popcorn.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 5:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah, darn pesky facts.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2016 @ 2:36pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Girl's the srot who blames the adult cleaning up the mess, not the child who made the mess!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Nov 2016 @ 3:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hey, genius, did I say it was okay when Obama did it? No, I did not. All I said was that the Republican Party can't blame everyone else if everything goes to shit when they control all the everythings. Nowhere did I say that the constant blaming of W by Obama and the Dems was okay.

          Commenters....you want to know why we writers here react with scorn when we're accused of partisanship, when we know the accusation itself is the partisanship in question? RIGHT HERE is your reason.

          Learn to think better, please....

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 4:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Whatever Helmet, You said what you said. Don't back-peddle now.You said they don't get to blame Obama because "reasons". Your biased, it shows in your writing. Own it, because you can't hide it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 4:24am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Not it seems all my comments are "held for moderation". O the irony....

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 4:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Ahh.. found a working proxy.

              I said the left when I said "you". But it really doesn't matter does it? The point still stands. YOU said he doesn't get to do that because "reason". Not once in the last 8 years did I see you post anything similar when this site piled up on Bush, but by god on day 2 of Trump wining the Presidency, out it comes. It's blatantly biased. I'm not even going to defend it after this point because no matter how you read your comment, it's obviously biased.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Agreed, it seems like the same apologists for industry that they criticize regularly on this site are morphing into the very same authors that lots of us originally came onto techdirt to read. Its very depressing but it seems like the half the country that thinks like "us" (conservatives) will have to find different tech sites to talk about the VERY REAL issues that effect ALL AMERICANS EQUALLY like privacy and copyright elsewhere....which is retarded in its own way since its only the dropping of tribal left/right analysis that will allow us to work together to stop these travesty of policies continuing/growing.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2016 @ 2:09pm

        Re: Re:

        He won't need to blame Obama even though he could. He will come wth solutions which Obama didn't have.

        MAGA

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 13 Nov 2016 @ 12:10am

        Re: AND get to blame the past for any shitstorms that occur on your watch.

        Ah, but they can always claim they “inherited” the situation that led to the shitstorm. Just like G W Bush’s supporters claimed they “inherited” the recessions that happened during his term from decisions that Clinton made.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 1:25pm

      Re:

      > he's going to grow up a little and be the President this country needs him to be.

      He's, what, 70 years old? If he hasn't grown up by now, I doubt it's going to happen.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    GoForIt, 11 Nov 2016 @ 1:14pm

    It's not about winning, it's the point that he's making

    Political speech isn't subject to the same rules you or I face in everyday conversations.

    This isn't England where a candidate who lies or makes false claims could end up back in the polling station with citizens able to cast fresh votes.

    We can't sue for false advertising through the FTC for political speech, it's outside of rules you and I have to follow.

    I'm hoping what Mr. Abrams intentions are to bring a magnifying glass on the media. e.g. Les Moonves President of CBS: Trump's run is 'damn good for CBS' - POLITICO

    Media highlighted the click bait from candidates, again didn't do actual journalism and they profited immensely from it. _By asking the press to sue, he's exposing the press for focusing on their bottom line instead of democracy..._

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2016 @ 2:38pm

      Re: It's not about winning, it's the point that he's making

      Political speech is still held to libel/slander standards.
      You can't run for office and claim your rival is a murderer if they haven't been tried and convicted as a murderer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 1:18pm

    A lawyer's solution to everything...

    is more legal action and more billable hours. What do you expect?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 1:23pm

    If Trump thinks he should be able to sue everyone that disagrees with him for libel then everyone that Trump disagrees with should be able to sue him for libel. It works both ways.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 9:10pm

      Re:

      If Trump thinks he should be able to sue everyone that disagrees with him for libel then everyone that Trump disagrees with should be able to think they should be able to sue him for libel. It works both ways.

      Fixed that for you

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 2:02pm

    Its fucking fantastic that trump is now president cause there's nothing better than dumb americans squirming
    lol you fucking idiots

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AC, 11 Nov 2016 @ 2:08pm

    Sounds like this would be good.

    Press sues Trump saying "we are lily-white and you have damaged our reputation".

    Trump responds with Ron Unz's American Pravda list showing that the press/media has assisted in covering up state crimes.

    We the people get sworn testimony on a lot of curious subjects.

    Go Floyd.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    John Mayor, 11 Nov 2016 @ 2:34pm

    SOMETHING FLOYD ABRAMS SHOULD REMEMBER TODAY

    Yeah!... well!... it would appear that a lot of our corporate media are I-D-I-O-T-S!... and have a N-A-S-T-Y H-A-B-I-T of marginalizing others' comments as "SPAM"!... if such even allow for comments at all on their websites! And!... because such are a tad unclear on what "SPAM" actually is! And so, I'd like to suggest that Abrams... and "company"!... review the following (although, I suspect, that their "corporate incapacitation" may make it difficult to "connect the dots"!)!...
    .
    ATTENTION: THE CYBER BLACKLISTING OF A NETIZEN'S IP ADDRESS (AND THEREBY, COMMENT LOG/ CLOG!) ON PUBLIC WEBSITES (AND ON CORPORATE SITES WHICH FEIGN "PUBLIC PARTICIPATION"!) THROUGH THE FACILITATION OF "BLOG HOST FLAGGING", IS CYBER BULLYING, AND DISCRIMINATION!... AS SUCH FACILITATES BOTH A DENIAL OF FREE EXPRESSION, AND-- AT ONCE!-- ALLOWS FOR "ELITE"/ "SELECT" NETTROLLIAN EXPRESSION (A NETTROLLIAN, A NETIZEN OF "NETTROLLIA"!)!... YEA, "NETTROLLICIDE"! AND HERE'S WHY, AND HOW (PLEASE!... NO EMAILS!)!...
    .
    One of the frontline tactics that the Alt-Right has used to gain control of the "Internet discussion" on what's REALLY IMPORTANT to Americans in this U.S. election!... BUT YEA, IN MANY OTHER AREAS OF NETIZONIA'S NETIZONIAN'S LIVES, GENERALLY!... is to scream SPAM whenever a Comment made on a Conservative Site becomes TOO HOT to handle; and thus, "flags" the Comment accordingly, and ends the "HEAT"! And so!... I thought it appropriate to offer up the following, on the "ALT-NET (the Alt-Net, being the Alt-Right's/ Trumpian "vision", and manipulation, of the present and future course of the Internet!)"!...
    .
    .
    A GLOBAL DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS MANIFESTO: A WORK IN PROGRESS (1ST EDITION, FRIDAY, NOV 11, 2016 - 05: 22 PM EDT)
    .
    .
    If I may!... today, I would like to bring a more concerted focus, on the Alt-Net's Corporate Media buzzword... SPAM!... as it's not what it appears to be...
    .
    What?... dear reader!... is YOUR definition of SPAM? To YOU!... dear reader!... and for example-- and as some site owners believe!... are COMMENT LOGS (CLOGS!) on site blogs/ articles/ stories that/ which contain LINKS to yet other sites, facilitating SPAM?... i.e., by mere virtue of the simple fact, that a link has been introduced by the Clog?
    .
    Although many sites encourage links, many others do not!... and thereby, such "denying sites", have denied-- and are denying!-- one fundamental means of communicating important information (and in contrast to the view of the said inventor of the Blog, Jorn Barger!... how diabolical!)!
    .
    LINKING to another site, is a common-- and functional!-- feature, of most websites!... or the ability to link, would be abandoned as a tool of Operating Systems!
    .
    Linking provides the reader with a clearer understanding of the subject one is trying to convey in a story (and why, Wikipedia-- for example!-- LINKS FOR EVERY ITEM IT DEALS WITH!)!... and!... provides a reader with a heads up on issues!... and regardless of a cited story! And re the latter!... it's like someone on a street yelling to a pedestrian, "Watch out for that pole!"... to save the pedestrian from walking into it!; or yelling (or simply saying!) "Have a good day!"... to bring a smile to some stranger! And if one is broadcasting a message to a pedestrian on the street through a hand-held device (e.g., a megaphone!... or a portable radio!)... i.e., LINKING!... is the message no less a warning?... or comforting?... because the message incorporates an "electronic mediating device"? THAT'S RIDICULOUS! And thus!... LINKING, IS NOT SPAMMING!
    .
    But!... what linking CLEARLY has become for "CERTAIN INTERESTS (i.e., 'ELITE INTERESTS', and conservative websites-- and, otherwise!... AND D*MN OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED 'DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS'!-- MANY OF THESE WILL ADD!)", is a THREAT to the "S-A-N-C-T-I-T-Y" of "SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION"/ SEO based site and Netizen manipulation, and the "SANCTITY" of other such "DYS-I-C TECHNOMAE (i.e., BAD INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOMAE!)" underpinning "A-N-T-I NET NEUTRALITY" and "A-N-T-I SEARCH NEUTRALITY" "O-L-I-G-A-R-C-H-O-C-Y-B-E-R-S-O-C-I-O-P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H-Y"! And!... MOST NOTABLY!... a THREAT to the D-E-S-P-A-R-A-T-E N-E-E-D on the part of these interests, TO DOMINATE THE PRESENT, AND FUTURE COURSE OF THE INTERNET (the Unauthorized Access Provision of the CFAA, being but one example of this attempt at domination!)! But!... and for the present!... let us continue our reflection on the notion of "SPAM"!
    .
    "SPAM (the canned "Shoulder Pork and hAM"/ "SPiced hAM" luncheon meat!... as introduced by Geo. A. Hormel & Co.)", was originally registered as a trademark in 1937... being a conflation of “SPiced hAM (which was the original name)"! The name “SPAM” was chosen from entries in a naming contest at Hormel! The name was suggested by Kenneth Daigneau (who was the brother of a then Hormel Vice president!)! He was given one hundred dollars as a prize for winning the naming contest (so much for the appearance of impartiality!... let alone, ACTUAL IMPARTIALITY!)!
    .
    According to the official Hormel trademark guidelines, "SPAM (the food product!)", should be spelled with all capital letters! And a stipulation of the trademark, was that it should always be used as an adjective!... as in “SPAM meat”!
    .
    Hormel was able to successfully defend their trademark of "SPAM", by limiting it to this capitalized version; and thus, the usage, and spelling (“spam”, and “Spam”!) doesn’t conflict with their trademark! The "principals" of Hormel unsuccessfully defended the variant, "Spam", as an extended use of their trademark!... and resorted, to “SPAM (i.e., the use, in capital letters only!)"!
    .
    However!... much to the chagrin of Hormel Foods, the term "SPAM" has, today, come to mean-- FOOLISHLY!-- NETWORK ABUSE (i.e., by sundry post-SPAM pejorative accounts of the term!... and, in deference to a 1970s TV spiel that implicated Shoulder Pork and hAM/ SPiced hAM... in a can!... as-- somehow!-- FAKE MEAT!)!... and, in particular, "junk E-mail", and massive "junk postings"! And the TV spiel in question, is a Monty Python Flying Circus skit, on SPAM (the meat!)!
    .
    In this skit, menu items in a restaurant devolve into "SPAM"! And when a waitress in a restaurant repeats the word "SPAM" to two customers (though, to one, specifically!), a group of Vikings in the corner of the restaurant-- eventually!-- begin singing, “SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM... lovely SPAM!... Wonderful SPAM!”...and drowning out the objections by one of two customers, to being offered "SPAM" by the waitress (like "SPAM- OBJECTING" netizens do, when these shout NO to "SPAM" at-- and about!-- other netizens' Net communications!)!... until the Vikings are finally told to, "...shut up!", by the unwitting waitress (the waitress, being a metaphoric anology of a "clog facilitator"/ "site gatekeeper"!)!
    .
    While some have suggested that this hatred for "SPAM" was because "SPAM (as in the Hormel meat product!)" is sometimes satirized as “fake meat (and thus, by analogy, 'SPAM messages' are-- supposedly!-- 'FAKE MESSAGES'!)", this allegation-- while plausible enough on the surface!-- turns out to be not correct!... AT ALL!
    .
    Exactly where this skit first translated to INTERNET MESSAGES (of varying type... such as chat messages, newsgroups, etc.!), isn’t entirely clear!... as it sort of happened (i.e., the labeling of internet messages as "SPAM"!) all over the Net! And!... in a very short span of years! It is, however, well documented, that "CERTAIN" "SPAM- OBJECTING NETIZENS"... and, in each of these just cited "SPAM" categories!... have chosen the word "SPAM (consciously, or subconsciously!... knowingly, or unwittingly!... directly, and/ or indirectly!... by commission, and/ or omission!)", to refer to the 1970's Monty Python sketch! And wherein, "SPAM" is depicted as undesirable by ONE customer!... and yet!... the love of same, is drowning out... through singing by Vikings!... the conversation between the waitress, and the ONE objecting customer! And!... just like some CONSCIONABLE "viking netizens" have done-- and are doing!-- to "SPAM- OBJECTING NETIZENS (the SPAM- OBJECTING NETIZENS, having us believe, that 'L-E-G-I-T C-O-N-V-E-R-S-A-T-I-O-N-S' between 'T-R-U-E N-E-T-I-Z-E-N-S'-- i.e., SPAM- OBJECTING NETIZENS!-- are being 'drowned out' by 'Spammers'!)"! And!... and just like the skit, though "SPAM" was unwanted by ONE customer-- in particular (and... was-- nevertheless!-- popping up as a menu choice by way of the offerings of the waitress!)!-- R-I-G-H-T-F-U-L C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S (e.g., Comment Logs/ Clogs... and, including links!), are, NONETHELESS, "popping up" all over the Net through the offerings of countless "democratic servers", and "viking netizens'"/ comment loggers'/ cloggers' clogs! And!... and just like the canned meat!... the "electronic product" is still edible!-- i.e., "nutritious food"!
    .
    Some examples of these cited categories of "unsolicited/ unwanted messages" being referred to as SPAM, include:
    .
    ◾The first ever spam email, on May 3, 1978. Gary Thuerk, a marketer for the Digital Equipment Corporation, blasted out a message to nearly 400 of the 2600 people on ARPAnet (the DARPA-funded “first Internet”-- so-called!)! Naturally... he was selling something (computers!... or, more specifically, information about open houses!... where people could check out the computers!)! He... as a result... annoyed a lot of people! But... he also had some success with a few recipients!... who were interested, in what he was pushing! And thus... the "electronic version" of SPAM, was born!
    .
    Here’s the text of that glorious-- first-ever-- message (and as it was... in all caps!):...
    _____

    “DIGITAL WILL BE GIVING A PRODUCT PRESENTATION OF THE NEWEST MEMBERS OF THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY; THE DECSYSTEM-2020, 2020T, 2060, AND 2060T. THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY OF COMPUTERS HAS EVOLVED FROM THE TENEX OPERATING SYSTEM AND THE DECSYSTEM-10 COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE. BOTH THE DECSYSTEM-2060T AND 2020T OFFER FULL ARPANET SUPPORT UNDER THE TOPS-20 OPERATING SYSTEM.
    .
    THE DECSYSTEM-2060 IS AN UPWARD EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT DECSYSTEM 2040 AND 2050 FAMILY. THE DECSYSTEM-2020 IS A NEW LOW END MEMBER OF THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY AND FULLY SOFTWARE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL OF THE OTHER DECSYSTEM-20 MODELS.
    .
    WE INVITE YOU TO COME SEE THE 2020 AND HEAR ABOUT THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY AT THE TWO PRODUCT PRESENTATIONS WE WILL BE GIVING IN CALIFORNIA THIS MONTH. THE LOCATIONS WILL BE:
    .
    TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1978 – 2 PM
    .
    HYATT HOUSE (NEAR THE L.A. AIRPORT)
    .
    LOS ANGELES, CA
    .
    THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1978 – 2 PM
    .
    DUNFEY’S ROYAL COACH
    .
    SAN MATEO, CA
    .
    (4 MILES SOUTH OF S.F. AIRPORT AT BAYSHORE, RT 101 AND RT 92)
    .
    A 2020 WILL BE THERE FOR YOU TO VIEW. ALSO TERMINALS ON-LINE TO OTHER DECSYSTEM-20 SYSTEMS THROUGH THE ARPANET. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE NEAREST DEC OFFICE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXCITING DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY.
    _____

    Being on ARPAnet, that first "SPAM MESSAGE" provoked a swift crackdown from the governing authorities!... and inspired much contemplation among the tiny community on the Net, at the time! Richard Stallman is quoted as stating... and I quote him!... “Nobody should be allowed to send a message with a header that long... no matter what it is about.” Well... with all due respect to Richard Stallman... AND I DO RESPECT HIM (AND PRAY FOR HIS SOUL!)!... the CAPS notwithstanding, it is-- virtually!-- a simple message! What appears disconcerting!... TO SOME!... is that it is a "BATCH MESSAGE (i.e., a message sent to a number of people at once!)"!... and... that it smacks of a SALES PITCH! As if to suggest, that BATCH MESSAGES!... and with the hint of a SALES PITCH (like "flyers" in one's physical mailbox!)!... are not to be accepted on the Net! Well!... says who?
    .
    We've all sent out physical-- and/ or electronic!-- batch messages!... and!... have tried to "pitch" some notion (like mailing out christmas cards!... or valentines greetings!)!... though, some of which, may not have been appreciated, or desired! And... if we've been informed by a recipient-- or two, or three!-- that a given batch message (like a Christmas card!... or valentine's greeting!) is unappreciated!... undesired!... then we have-- responsibly!-- discontinued sending such messages, to the affected party, or parties! But!... that doesn't mean we must be forever banned from sending out batch messages to people (e.g., visa vie, the post office!), if a soul-- or two, or three!-- has/ have expressed some disinterest in our spin/ pitch! And although a SALES PITCH may be delivered to people that the salesperson doesn't know (i.e., the "pitched party" may not be familially related to!... or friends with!... the "salesperson"!), a salesperson has EVERY RIGHT to PITCH a product/ service (commercial, or otherwise!)! The problem arises-- however!-- when the salesperson won't receive NO for an answer!... and!... when the product/ service is of little use to anyone (or to the environment!)! And!... when the salesperson could care less to target the right audience (even if the product/ service is deemed sound!)! But!... denying a salesperson the Right-- UNDER RATIONAL CONDITIONS!-- to PITCH one's goods/ services, is to deny a person a DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to various CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS!... and!... to deny to people products/ services that (and apart from any proprietary concerns!) may-- indeed!-- be useful to individuals!... to society!... and, to the environment!
    .
    ◾A documented case among Usenet users, of March 31, 1993! This case is often-- incorrectly!-- stated to be the first usage of the term "SPAM" as referring to "SPAM messages"! This first Usenet case came when Richard Depew... who had been playing with some moderation software... accidentally ended up posting around 200 duplicate messages in a row, to the news.admin.policy newsgroup! Subsequently, the SAID first person to call this "SPAM", is thought to be Joel Furr, on March 31, 1993! Depew, himself... when he apologized!... referred to his messages, as "SPAM"! Given the time frame-- at least!-- for Joel Furr's use of this expression, and Depew's ready acknowledgement of the tag offered up by Furr, it's safe to conclude that both Furr and Depew were consciously and/ or subconsciously equating the electronic messages sent out as "SPAM messages", with the 1970s Monty Python skit!... and!... the skit's incorporation of Hormel Food's luncheon meat (although, Furr-- specifically!-- had made the initial conscious and/ or subconscious erroneous informal pejorative colloquial/ slang interpolative ascription of Hormel's luncheon meat, as bad, fake, or "popping up" meat!... or a combination of these skit associations!)!
    .
    ◾A further “first use” of the word "SPAM" referring to certain electronic messages, comes from MUDs (for... Multi-User-Dungeons!)! This was a sort of real-time multi-person shared environment; a somewhat primitive version of The Sims Online, or Second Life!... and the like! In it, users could chat and interact with other people, locations, and objects, as well as create objects, and share them with the community! Basically, a really advanced chat room! The name MUD, comes from the fact that it reminded people of certain aspects of Dungeons and Dragons! In any event, "SPAMMING" was used here to refer to a few different things!... including: flooding the computer with random data (and not to be confused with batch communications!); “SPAM the database” by flooding it with new objects; and flooding a chat session with a ton of unwanted text (and... again!... not to be confused with batch communications!)!; and-- to extrapolate further!-- anything that had to do with filling other members' accounts with unwanted (but... to be sure!... disquieting!) electronic junk (and... once again!... not to be confused with batch communications!)! One of the earliest DOCUMENTED USES of the word "SPAM" from MUDders, arrived in 1990 (and so... predating the SAID "FIRST USE" tag, given to Joel Furr!)... when they were-- ironically enough!-- discussing the origins of the word “SPAM” as referring to electronic junk messages (and so... bringing the "origins issue" of the association of "SPAM MEAT" with electronic junk messages, even farther back than 1990!)! Undocumented sources, say, that the term "SPAM" had been around quite a bit before its use among MUDders (a rational deduction!)... and evidenced, by the content of the documented message!
    .
    ◾Others say that the term originated on Bitnet’s Relay (a very early chat system in the 1980s!)! Anecdotally!... users would occasionally come on and annoy other users with unwanted text!... including, the actual "SPAM SONG" from the 1970 Monty Python skit! And so... bringing the junk electronic communications association with "SPAM MEAT", to the doorstep of the 1970s Monty Python skit!
    .
    ◾Another similar chat system (TRS-80) also reported the same phenomenon!... and also called it "SPAM"! Both of these latter two chat system origins, are not documented!... but, numerous former users of these systems have stated, that they remember this term being used commonly among users of these systems! And so... if one is to believe the "anecdotal evidence" provided by the users of the TRS-80 chat system, we have further (and I suggest "rational"!) proofs, for the Monty Python association!
    .
    ◾In the early days of the internet, "SPAM" was significantly more annoying than it is today! Not just because of the lack of "filters" back then, but because of the extremely slow internet connections! Even sending ASCII Art was considered "SPAM"!... as a picture sent a few times in a row, could take an enormous amount of time to download! And, with-- often!-- no real way for the end user to get around this!... except, to wait it out!... or disconnect! And so!... how is sending ASCII Art... AND COMPOUNDED BY WAY OF THE EARLY PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE NET!... to be made SYNONYMOUS with D-E-L-I-B-E-R-A-T-E H-A-R-M to our early netizen civilization?
    .
    Yes!... people were frustrated!... were upset!... but, truth be told, the frustration, and upset, was-- more often, than not!-- misplaced! For!... the ASCII Art wasn't to blame!... wasn't "SPAM"!... it was the L-I-M-I-T-A-T-I-O-N-S that ALL early netizens were forced to face!
    .
    ◾In the early days of chat rooms, it was a common tactic among chatters to use large blocks of meaningless text to annoy other groups! For instance, Star Trek chatters would invade a Star Wars chat room, and post large amounts of random text!... making it impossible for the Star Wars people to talk! A veritable, NERD-FIGHT! But!... these were outright malicious attacks between dissenting Nerd Groups!... and should not be made SYNONYMOUS with batch communicating (in the sense as aforementioned!)!... i.e., made SYNONYMOUS with an attempt to communicate some holiday greeting, or some pitch of a product/ service!
    .
    ◾Around the same time, the term "SPAM" became popular among Usenet groups!... and also came to be referred to as "EMAIL SPAM"! And which quickly dominated the world of "SPAM"!... and still does, to this day! Early "SPAM BOTS" simply harvested emails from Usenet newsgroup messages, which gave them extremely large email lists to work from!
    .
    ◾IRC (Internet Relay Chat) was named after Bitnet’s Relay, and-- no doubt!-- the members of which, were also familiar with the then emerging electronic communications buzzwords!
    .
    ◾The earliest documented "COMMERCIAL SPAM MESSAGE" is often-- incorrectly!-- cited as the 1994 “Green Card Spam incident"! However, the ACTUAL first documented "COMMERCIAL MESSAGE"-- as indicated earlier!-- was for a new model of Digital Equipment Corporation computers!... and was sent-- as stated-- on ARPANET, by Gary Thuerk, in 1978!
    .
    ◾The famed "Green Card Spam incident", was sent, April 12, 1994, by a husband and wife team of lawyers!... Laurence Canter, and Martha Siegal! They bulk posted (i.e., batch communicated!)... on Usenet newsgroups!... advertisements for immigration law services! The two would eventually defend their actions (post criticisms against same!), citing the Right to Free Speech! They also later wrote a book, titled, “How to Make a Fortune on the Information Superhighway“!... which encouraged, and demonstrated to people how to quickly, and freely reach over 30 million users on the Internet, by "Spamming"! Nevertheless!... and despite their unfortunate use of the term "Spamming (and-- no doubt!-- IN REACTION to the label that was imposed on them, and their work from others!)" within their subsequent publication, their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to make a living, and to express themselves (and in a batch manner!), IS NOT DISALLOWED BY VIRTUE OF THEIR NASCENT NAIVETY ABOUT THE THEN EMERGING COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS, OF THE NET... AND-- MOST NOTABLY!... THE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS THAT THE NET, AND PERSONAL COMPUTING, WERE HAMSTRUNG BY! And maybe!... hindsight being 20 20!... this sad history of failed Net communications suggests our need for a new type of email technoma! One that demarcates between, and accommodates, businesses, NGO+NPOs, and bureaucracies! A "tri-email mechanism (if you will!)"!... whereby, businesses, NGO+NPOs and bureaucracies can have their own "slot" for communication!... COUPLED WITH SEVERE PENALTIES-- BOTH CIVIL/ TORTIOUS, AND CRIMINAL!-- FOR DELIBERATELY EMAILING TO THE WRONG WINDOW (AND, UNSOLICITED!)! And... maybe!... a "fourth" email slot, for family, friends-- and otherwise permitted souls!-- to communicate (and!... with the same failsafeguard checks, as that to be met by members of any, or all, of the previously mentioned three Primary Sectors!)! (Sectors!... incidentally!... into which the sum communities on planet earth, are grouped!)!
    .
    ◾Before it was called “Spamming (i.e., unsolicited messages in a chat, or forum... or the like!)", the terms used-- generally!-- for these actions, were “flooding”, and “trashing”! And suggesting!... that the early concerns involved MALICIOUS ATTACKS against "community members"!... and not about batch processing, and spin/ pitch (e.g., the "CONTENT" referred to, in the story about Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel!)! And inasmuch, as those perpetrating "flooding" and "trashing" could care less about the content-- per se!-- of that which was being used to flood and trash! And is akin-- I'll suggest!-- to someone who might flood or trash a toilet, by indiscriminately tossing material into it! And so... it's not about selectively choosing quality tissue paper (i.e., content!)!... it's about using what's handy to flood/ trash the bowl (and by analogy, the computer!)!
    .
    ◾Various attempts have been made-- and are being made!-- to release numbers for the origins of "SPAM" by country! However!... it remains to be seen how much these stats reflect MALICIOUS ATTACKS!... versus attempts by sundry, to "batch communicate" some SOUND CONTENT (i.e., some SOUND notion, or product!)!
    .
    ◾Of all "EMAIL SPAM", about 73%-- IT'S SAID!-- is attempting to steal the user’s identity in some way (through "phishing")!... including possible bank information, or gaining enough information to open new credit accounts from the user! But!... to include the aforementioned classes of "SPAM (and again, distinct from batch communicating SOUND CONTENT!)" with that associated with the historic reasons for "phishing", is to bend-- to the point of breaking!-- the traditional definition of the notion of "phishing (and... however unfortunate this traditional definition of the notion actually was!)"... and!... of what constitutes the-- I suggest!-- "confused description" of "SPAM"/ "Spam"!
    .
    ◾Of the 90 trillion emails sent in 2009 (for example!), 81%– IT’S SAID!– is “SPAM”! That amounts to about– for example!– 200 billion “SPAM EMAILS” sent every day, in 2009! But!… again!… there is no clear indication of what this stat means!… and what these “SPAM EMAILS” are composed/ comprised of!
    .
    ◾Of the 7.4825e+13 emails sent in 2015-- for example!-- 27,878,166,915.1, it's said, is "SPAM (see, [PDF] Email Statistics Report, 2015-2019 - The Radicati Group)"! That amounts to about 205 billion emails sent every day in 2015 (an average of 122 per person!)!... and "22 (or 10.16666666666667% of 122)" as said SPAM (note: The figures for the amount of spam received, reflect only spam that is "delivered" to the "emailbox" after bypassing all "spam security filters"!)! But!... again!... there is no clear indication of what this stat means!... and what these "SPAM emails" are composed/ comprised of! And this is no less the case, today!
    .
    ◾Though not called "SPAM"!... at least, when the ensuing mention emerged!... Telegraphic messages were extremely common in the 19th century... and, in the United States, in particular! Western Union allowed Telegraphic messages on its network to be sent to multiple destinations... and thus, wealthy American residents tended to get numerous messages through Telegrams... presenting unsolicited investment offers (and, the like!)! This wasn’t nearly as much of a problem in Europe!... due to the fact, that telegraphy was regulated by European post offices!
    .
    ◾"SPAM (i.e., 'electronic messages'!)", was first added to a major English dictionary (in the New Oxford Dictionary of English), in 1998! It defined "SPAM" as “Irrelevant, or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of newsgroups, or users.” And so... by 1998, the whole of the notion of "SPAM" had pejoratively subsumed the batch communication of RATIONAL CONTENT (along with the length/ size, and repetition of such electronic messages used for flooding and trashing!), as "MALICIOUS CONTENT (i.e., in reference to the terms, irrelevant, and inappropriate!)"!
    .
    Well!... W-H-O is to DEFINE what constitutes "I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T"?... and/ or, "I-N-A-P-P-R-O-P-R-I-A-T-E"? And, W-H-O is to determine whether one's personal BATCH COMMUNICATION of SOUND CONTENT should be ascribed as "irrelevant" and/ or "inappropriate" Net communications?... AND, THEREBY, DENYING INDIVIDUALS THEIR RESPECTIVE DEMOCRATIC AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREELY EXPRESS THEMSELVES IN A RESPONSIBLE BATCH MANNER OF THEIR CHOOSING; TO COMMUNICATE MATTERS THAT MAY GO BEYOND THEIR RESPECTIVE IMMEDIATE PERSONAL CONCERNS (E.G., BATCH COMMUNICATING THE MESSAGE YOU ARE NOW READING!); AND-- AT ONCE!-- AFFORDING ONLY "ELITE INTERESTS" WITHIN BUSINESSES, BUREAUCRACIES, AND EVEN CERTAIN NGO+NPOS, THE SOLE/ EXCLUSIVE RESERVE TO COMMUNICATE IN A BATCH MANNER (AND, AS THESE PRIMARY SECTORS HAVE DONE, FOR GENERATIONS!)! The question to be asked concerning "SPAM/ Spam (so-called!)", is: "Are 'ELITE INTERESTS (and through countless websites!)' now using this buzzword to 'D-E-L-I-M-I-T' the FREE EXPRESSION of netizens generally, in the G-U-I-S-E of protecting the public good from 'U-N-D-E-S-I-R-A-B-L-E C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S (e.g., ascribing the message you are now reading, as 'undesirable', based on some 'CORPORATE ASCRIPTION'!)'?"
    .
    ◾The general term "spam (with all small letters!)"... today!... has taken another slight shift in meaning! It is now becoming common for people to refer to A-N-Y unsolicited/ unwanted advertisements, messages, or telemarketer calls, as "SPAM"/ "Spam"!... and when-- and even if!-- the means of communication, may not even be electronically based! A code, for... if we (whoever we is!) don't like your "FREE EXPRESSION (i.e, OPINON!)", we'll label it SPAM, Spam, or spam!... AND E-N-D, YOUR "FREE EXPRESSSION (and, in particular, your BATCH COMMUNICATION!... S-O-U-N-D, OR OTHERWISE!)"!
    .
    The CORPORATELY FOSTERED "public debate" over how to deal with "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" ignores the "CYBER ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM"!: CENSORSHIP ON THE INTERNET IS ALREADY AN ACCEPTED AND PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED POLICY!... A-N-D M-O-S-T P-E-O-P-L-E D-O-N-'-T R-E-A-L-I-Z-E T-H-A-T!
    .
    Not to long ago, America On Line announced its intention to start charging people a "license fee" to send bulk email to AOL subscribers!
    .
    The resulting shiver traveling up the spines of mailing list managers, and Internet providers all over the world, quickly morphed into an A-L-L T-O-O R-A-R-E "quasi-collective outcry", that actually forced AOL into a "half-step" backwards! Upon reconsideration, the Internet giant announced it would CONTINUE to offer the "license"!... but, for those who don't want the "license", it would also CONTINUE to treat bulk email as it had up to that point!
    .
    Whatever sighs of relief one might have discerned, are-- in reflection!-- the sounds of an Internet community THREATENED with a deadly "kick to the head"!... and relieved that it only had to cope with a "boot on its throat"!... AND!... W-I-T-H N-O L-E-G-A-L J-U-S-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N F-O-R I-T-S A-C-T-I-O-N-S (A-N-D, I-N P-A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-R, N-O C-O-N-S-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L J-U-S-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N!)!
    .
    In fact, the entire "pseudo public debate" over the potential harm in AOL's once "plan", overshadows the fact that large commercial providers' responses to the problem of "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" A-L-R-E-A-D-Y R-E-P-R-E-S-E-N-T-S A D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S A-N-D P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L-L-Y C-R-I-P-P-L-I-N-G A-T-T-A-C-K O-N T-H-E C-U-L-T-U-R-E A-N-D F-U-N-C-T-I-O-N-I-N-G O-F T-H-E I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T A-S A V-E-H-I-C-L-E O-F F-R-E-E S-P-E-E-C-H!
    .
    Now let's be clear: email is in crisis because of the huge amount of unwanted bulk email people receive!... and like-- as I've expressed!-- the physical letters received at our respective front doors!
    .
    The issue, here, isn't that the large providers have finally RECOGNIZED THE PROBLEM!... and are trying to deal with it! Trying to DEHUMIDIFY the house when it's already FLOODED, shows a lack of vision!... to say the least! And!... when one notes, that the "FLOOD" has-- in part!-- been instigated by "CORPORATE DAMNBUSTERS"!
    .
    The problem, is their RESPONSE! And!... at its root (and always a good place to start!)... it comes down to their D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N (IF S-U-C-H, SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE LUXURY!) of "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam"! AND!... AND R-E-G-A-R-D-L-E-S-S O-F T-H-E-I-R D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N!... SHOULD "NON-CORPORATE BATCH COMMUNICATIONS" BE "CAUGHT" WITHIN T-H-E-I-R RESPECTIVE "F-I-L-T-E-R-S O-F J-U-S-T-I-C-E"!
    .
    Most people have a pretty simple definition of the latest "electronic SPAM" variant, "spam": it's bulk communication, one doesn't want!
    .
    And we are then brought back to a similar "popular definition" that naturally flows from that of the "unwanted bulk email definition": "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam", is bulk email sent without a reasonable expectation that the people receiving it, would be interested in it!
    .
    And that corollary definition developed, because most of the "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" one receives is sent by people who have simply acquired, or purchased, huge lists of email addresses for the purposes of communicating their intended content!... and, with no reasonable expectation-- in many instances!-- that the people on these respective lists WOULD WANT TO READ WHAT THEY'VE BEEN SENT IN THE WAY OF A "BATCH COMMUNICATION"! It's "shotgun marketing (to be blunt!)"!... with a hope that someone will be hit by their content! And so!... the prospective recipient's "REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF INTEREST", S-H-O-U-L-D B-E a pretty important component of one's effort to batch communicate one's content!
    .
    BUT!... the "COMMERCIAL INTERNET" ignores that! INSTEAD!... the LARGE PROVIDERS (groups that we're A-L-L supposed to allow to do their thing!) define "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" as simply T-H-E A-C-T O-F C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-N-G A-N-Y "U-N-S-O-L-I-C-I-T-E-D B-U-L-K C-O-N-T-E-N-T": e.g., email sent to more than a handful of people (and, S-O-M-E of whom-- of course!-- may not want it!)! And such smaller bulk emailers might do that, because such have no idea of what one might want!... or, be interested in! And!... many have failed to develop a method of figuring that out!
    .
    And so... the large "CORPORATE INTERNET LOBBY (i.e., 'ELITE INTERESTS' behind large corporate players!)" have declared a W-A-R against almost all bulk email/ communications!... making the terms "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" useless (i.e., redundant!)!... and making EMAIL/ CENSORSHIP (in particular!) an "O-B-L-I-G-A-T-O-R-Y P-U-B-L-I-C C-Y-B-E-R V-A-C-C-I-N-A-T-I-O-N P-O-L-I-C-Y"! In other words, do as T-H-E-Y SAY!... BUT!... NOT AS THEY D-O!
    .
    THESE, have "TAGGED" A-N-Y bulk email the moment "someone" complains (AND MAYBE!... FROM AN ELITE CORPORATE BOARDROOM!... OR OTHER, "TACTICAL BUNKER"!)! And!... THESE make it S-O-O-O E-A-S-Y to complain!... that people can just push the "COMPLAINT BUTTON (THROUGH THE EASE-- E.G.-- OF EMBEDDED WEBSITE APPS!... AND WITHOUT KNOWING THE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS RAMIFICATIONS OF THEIR 'PUSH'!)"! If there are a number of "complaints" received somewhere by some-- supposedly!-- impacted souls!... and usually three, or four, are good enough!... THESE "K-E-E-P-E-R-S O-F T-H-E N-E-T (AND THEIR AGENTS!... AND 'SOFTWARE TOOLS'!)" will block the issuer of any "U-N-D-E-S-I-R-A-B-L-E B-A-T-C-H E-M-A-I-L"! THEY (AND THEIR AGENTS!) monitor "emailers" who are sending the SAME EMAIL to more than a handful of people!... and "list" "SPAMMERS/ Spammers/ spammers" who have had "complaints (CONVENIENT, AND TACTICAL!)" lodged against them (like those depicted in Ray Bradbury's book... and eventual film!... Fahrenheit 451!)!... so those with a "complaint history", can be MORE QUICKLY blocked! And!... this has now extended to the Copying and Pasting by such "TARGETED INDIVIDUALS", of "R-O-G-U-E", bulk comment logs/ clogs on multiple website blog stories (and!... even without one's use of a "personal" Email App, and/ or "personal" email address!... e.g., using the email address of an agreeing third party, to enable/ facilitate simple acceptance of a clog in a given site!)!
    .
    What's M-O-S-T D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S, is that THEY keep records of the "TARGETED'S" IP address!... and the numeric address of the server the "TARGETED" uses (e.g., through the efforts of groups covertly and overtly "ALGORITHMICALLY EMBEDDED" within websites, such as the group at, http://projecthoneypot.org/!... and bodies such as SPAMHAUS, and STOPFORUMSPAM!... and!... through the implementation of "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" plugins, such as WP-SpamShield Anti-Spam!)!
    .
    Project Honey Pot is a web-based "honeypot network", which uses software embedded in websites (IF YOU CAN IMAGINE CONSCIONABLE WEBSITES ALLOWING THIS!) to collect information about IP addresses used when harvesting e-mail addresses for "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam (but now!... also including those who have avoided 'personal' 'email App/ address deployment'!)", or other similar purposes, such as bulk mailing and "email fraud"! The "project" also solicits the "donation" of unused "MX entries" from domain owners!
    .
    In 2007 the "Project" began a number of NEW INITIATIVES!... including a "QuickLinks program" that makes it easier for more people to "p-a-r-t-i-c-i-p-a-t-e"!... as well as a system to track COMMENT LOG/ CLOG "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam"! The Project has also launched a free new service called http:BL, which leverages the data to allow website administrators to keep "malicious web robots" off their sites! CODE, for!... let's keep any "PRYING EYES" from getting a "HANDLE" of what we're R-E-A-L-L-Y D-O-I-N-G!... AND!... HOW "P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L-L-Y S-T-A-N-K-Y, OUR S-T-U-F-F ACTUALLY S-T-I-N-K-S! In other words!... don't tell Ralph Nader, Naomi Klein, and Jon Stewart what we're up to!... OR ANY OTHER JEW WITH A CONSCIENCE!
    .
    In addition to collecting information which is made available on a "top 25 list" at periodic intervals, the project organizers also "help" various "l-a-w e-n-f-o-r-c-e-m-e-n-t" agencies combat private and commercial unsolicited "BULK EMAILING O-F-F-E-N-C-E-S"! And!... overall!... work to "help" reduce the amount of "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam" being sent and received on the Internet (POOR NETIZENS!)! The information collected is also used in "research and development" of NEWER VERSIONS of the software, to further "I-M-P-R-O-V-E" the efforts of the group as a whole! But!... and in my view!... this is all just CODE, for... THE ELITE (AND THEIR WEBSITES!... AND "CONTROLLER APPS"!) WILL CONTROL THE FLOW OF INFORMATION ON THE NET, AND "WE (THESE S-T-A-N-K-Y P-O-W-E-R-S THAT BE!)" WILL PROMULGATE THE INSTIGATION OF CRYS AGAINST "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam (AND IF NEED BE!... FROM 'OUR' VERY BOARDROOMS, AND OTHER TACTICAL BUNKERS!-- BEFORE LUNCH!)", AND WILL PROMOTE THE MANIPULATION OF IP ADDRESSES (AND!... ANYTHING ELSE 'WE' CAN MANIPULATE!-- TO 'WIN THE DAY'! AND!... DAMN ANYONE, THAT GETS IN 'OUR' WAY!)!
    .
    Project Honey Pot was founded, and is managed by Unspam Technologies, Inc.... and in addition to "working" with various "law enforcement" agencies (A SAD JEST!... TO SAY THE LEAST!), the group "affiliates" with the "Internet Law Group", and ViaWest!
    .
    I-- personally!-- have a different rationale for wanting to block (AND NOT JUST MERELY BLOCK!) a website, when a website communicates "HAZARDOUS CONTENT (e.g., malicious cookies!)"!... i.e., when a website den(ys) my access to ITS COMMENTS CONTENT by stealing (through ITS EMBEDDED SUBVERSIVE CONTENT!) my IP address, and then uses this to BLACKLIST me! Then!... I want to be able to BLACKLIST such a site from I-T-S U-S-E of the Net!... AND NOT JUST FROM "MY" PC! And if "I" shouldn't be allowed to use such a measure/ technoma, THEN I DEMAND THAT SUCH A MEASURE BE INVOKED BY A DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS SUPPORTING GROUP M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D TO DO SO!... AND THAT THE ICON FOR SUCH A GROUP BE AFFIXED ON MY-- A-N-D E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E E-L-S-E-'-S!-- RESPECTIVE PC'S TASKBAR (BUT YEA, I-C-T D-E-V-I-C-E!)!
    .
    NO WEBSITE OWNER... NOR TECHNOMA IN THE CONTROL OF A SITE OWNER!... SHOULD BE ABLE TO CAPTURE AND MANIPULATE AN IP ADDRESS OF A USER!... AND TO USE SAME, TO BLOCK A USER FROM ACCESSING ONE'S SITE! AND USERS SHOULD BE MADE I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-E-L-Y A-W-A-R-E OF WHO AND/ OR WHAT HAS MADE OFF WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE IP ADDRESS, THROUGH AN A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C, A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., A M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E, R-E-M-O-T-E, D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y "WEBSITE INTERFACE TECHNOMA"! AND!... AFTERUPON A USER'S CONFIRMATION OF WHO, AND/ OR WHAT HAS ABSCONDED WITH ONE'S IP ADDRESS, SUCH A NETIZEN SHOULD BE AFFORDED AN A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C, A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., A M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E, R-E-M-O-T-E, D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y TECHNOMA/ MECHANISM, TO INTERVENE IN THE MITIGATION/ END OF A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L R-E-A-L AND I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T THREATS TO A USER'S RESPECTIVE DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS (E.G., ONE'S RIGHT TO ACCESS A GIVEN SITE!)! FOR!... TO LEAVE THE ACTUAL INTERVENTION RE A SITE OWNER'S BREACHES IN THE HANDS OF RESPECTIVE NETIZENS WHO ARE POTENTIALLY ILL-EQUIPPED TO TACKLE THE TECHNOMA WITH WHICH USERS MAY BE CONFRONTED, IS TO--BY DEFAULT!-- ENABLE THOSE MORE EQUIPPED, AND SKILLED, TO UNDERMINE THE RIGHTS OF NETIZENS! FOR!... SOME OF THE BREACHES AGAINST USERS CURRENTLY IN PLAY, ARE BY WAY OF "P-R-O-F-E-S-S-I-O-N-A-L I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T G-A-T-E-K-E-E-P-E-R-S/ P-L-A-Y-E-R-S", P-O-S-S-E-S-S-I-N-G S-O-P-H-I-S-T-I-C-A-T-E-D, A-N-D-- T-O M-O-S-T N-E-T-I-Z-E-N-S!-- I-N-C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-S-I-B-L-E A-L-G-O-R-I-T-H-M-S!
    .
    However!... if a holder of an IP address poses an I-L-L-E-G-A-L software/ hardware threat to a S-I-T-E, then the most appropriate security measure for a website owner, is to invoke an A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C, A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., A M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E, R-E-M-O-T-E, D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y MECHANISM, TO INTERVENE IN THE MITIGATION/ CESSATION OF A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L R-E-A-L A-N-D I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T T-H-R-E-A-T-S TO ONE'S RESPECTIVE "USER- ACCESSED" SITE!... AND!... TO ONE'S DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS! AND OWNERS SHOULD BE MADE I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-E-L-Y A-W-A-R-E OF WHO AND/ OR WHAT HAS I-L-L-E-G-A-L-L-Y POSED A SOFTWARE/ HARDWARE THREAT TO ONE'S SITE, THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE REMOTE DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS INTERMEDIARY'S WEBSITE INTERFACE TECHNOMA! FOR!... TO LEAVE THE INTERVENTION RE "USER-BASED BREACHES" IN THE HANDS OF RESPECTIVE SITE OWNERS (RATHER, THAN AN A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y!), IS TO INVITE THE POTENTIAL A-R-B-I-T-R-A-R-Y D-E-N-I-A-L OF WEBSITE ACCESS TO USERS!... AND THEREBY, TO POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF WEBSITE USERS (AND E.G., SITE ACCESS!)!
    .
    AND SO!... EVERY STATE OF THE ART (S.O.T.A.) SECURITY MEASURE AVAILABLE MUST BE INVOKED, THAT WOULD PREVENT A USER'S IP ADDRESS FROM BEING STOLEN!... AND IN ORDER TO UPHOLD A USER'S FREE ACCESS TO PUBLIC SITES, AND TO PROTECT THE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AFFORDED NETIZENS! AND!... CONVERSELY!... EVERY SOTA SECURITY MEASURE AVAILABLE MUST BE INVOKED, THAT WOULD PROTECT AN OWNER'S SITE FROM A USER'S I-L-L-E-G-A-L R-E-A-L A-N-D I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T T-H-R-E-A-T-S TO OWNERS' SITE OPERATIONS! AND!... IF THERE IS TO BE A-N-Y A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E WEBSITE OWNER CONTROLLED, AND SITE-USER CONTROLLED O-F-F-T-H-E-S-H-E-L-F, S-T-A-N-D-A-L-O-N-E TECHNOMAE/ MECHANISMS TO INTERVENE IN THE MITIGATION/ END OF R-E-A-L A-N-D I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T T-H-R-E-A-T-S ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROVERBIAL FENCE, THEN LET BOTH OWNERS AND USERS BE U-T-T-E-R-L-Y A-W-A-R-E OF THEIR RESPECTIVE (M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D) M-U-T-U-A-L O-B-L-I-G-A-T-I-O-N TO IMPLEMENT ONLY A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D/ M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D TECHNOMAE/ MECHANISMS!... OR, SUCH SUFFER THE CIVIL AND/ OR CRIMINAL REPERCUSSIONS/ CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR USE OF A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L U-N-A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D TECHNOMAE/ MECHANISMS (AND!... REPERCUSSIONS/ CONSEQUENCES, BY WAY OF THE TASKBAR ICON-- AND AUTHORITY!-- AS AFOREMENTIONED!)! But, that being said, there's a further host of problems in the offing, when institutions (e.g., those within governments!) attempt to address SECURITY on, and F-O-R, the Net!
    .
    When governments begin discussing "BETTER NET SECURITY", "FOUR POINTS" are usually missed! And these are:... evil people want ACCESS, and evil people want PRIVACY; and non-evil people want ACCESS, and non-evil people want PRIVACY! Conclusion:... SECURITY ON THE NET, IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT PRIVACY VERSUS ACCESS!... I-T-'-S A-B-O-U-T F-O-U-R S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y E-L-E-M-E-N-T-S (I.E., HIGH-LEVEL LANGUAGE ICT ACCESS, AND LOW-LEVEL LANGUAGE ICT ACCESS/ CRYPTANALYSIS/ WHITE HAT HACKING FOR THE GOOD GUYS, AND AGAINST THE BAD GUYS!... AND, HIGH-LEVEL LANGUAGE ICT ACCESS, AND LOW-LEVEL LANGAUGE ICT ACCESS/ CRYPTOGRAPHY/ STEGANOGRAPHIC ENCRYPTION FOR THE GOOD GUYS, AND AGAINST THE BAD GUYS!)!
    .
    NON-EVIL PEOPLE NEED BOTH ACCESS AND PRIVACY! AND EVIL PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS!... OR!... PRIVACY! BUT, IF YOU DENY THE WRONG PEOPLE ACCESS AND PRIVACY (I.E., NON-EVIL PEOPLE!), AND ALLOW THE WRONG PEOPLE ACCESS AND PRIVACY (I.E., EVIL PEOPLE!), YOU HARM SECURITY!... AND, IN THE CASE OF NON-EVIL PEOPLE, ACCESS AND PRIVACY DENIALS WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT ON MANY OTHER DIGITAL... AND HUMAN!... RIGHTS! AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH IS WHICH (I.E., WHO IS EVIL, AND WHO IS NOT!)... WELL... YOU D*MN WELL SHOULD FIGURE IT OUT!
    .
    SIMPLY STATED!... LIFE IS NOT GUARANTEED TO BE EASY!... OR WITHOUT THORNS!
    .
    What if... in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels, or cybersecurity attacks on companies and government agencies!... the FBI had come to the American people, and said: "In order to keep you safe, we need you to remove all the locks on your doors and windows... and replace them with weaker ones! And... because!... if you are a terrorist, we need to get access to your house!... and your locks might slow us down!... or block us!... entirely! So... Americans!... remove your locks! And American companies!... stop making good locks!"
    .
    Well... I'm guessing!... most Americans would reject this as a bad idea! And... inasmuch!... as they would see this as making them vulnerable! And... not just to terrorists!... but to ordinary thieves, and bad guys! Americans-- for the most part!-- would reject having their daily security undermined, in favor of a VAGUE PROMISE, that law enforcement would be quick!... easy!... and GUARANTEED SECURE! Most Americans would say to the FBI:... "STOP!... RIGHT THERE!... WE NEED M-O-R-E S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y IN THE WAKE OF THESE ATTACKS!... NOT L-E-S-S!"
    .
    Yet!... that same tradeoff is similar to what's being asked of Americans in the ATTACKS ON STRONG ENCRYPTION! The FBI, isn't-- TECHNICALLY SPEAKING!-- asking for N-O L-O-C-K-S!... it's asking for WEAKENED ONES!... so that it can break any lock that Americans buy, or use! But!... the end result, is the same!... I.E.... AMERICANS ARE LEFT M-O-R-E V-U-L-N-E-R-A-B-L-E! As with the locks on many doors, DIGITAL LOCKS CAN'T BE MADE TO ALLOW ONLY ACCESS TO ALL THE GOOD GUYS!... and!... TO DISALLOW ACCESS TO ONLY THE BAD GUYS (i.e., AT LEAST, NOT YET!)! THE LOCK CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE!... and!... even more vulnerabilities are created, by building complicated processes for storing digital keys (as demonstrated by a recent MIT report!... see, http://www.technologyreview.com/view/543566/dont-blame-encryption-for-isis-attacks/... and... in an open letter to David Cameron... see, https://medium.com/message/dear-prime-minister-cameron-20th-century-solutions-wont-help-21st-century -surveillance-ff2d7a3d300c#.ium2wu3n5, by Harvard Professor, and EFF Board member, Jonathan Zittrain)!
    .
    Right now, the FBI's strategy is focused on putting pressure on companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google to prevent Americans from ever getting access to good locks in the first place! Yet!... if the FBI was publicly calling for home builders and locksmiths to stop offering Americans the strongest possible home or office security systems, Americans would see the folly of their strategy!... OUTRIGHT!
    .
    The EFF (see, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/09/nine-epic-failures-regulating-cryptography) and many others (see, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/opinion/mass-surveillance-isnt-the-answer-to-fighting-terrorism.ht ml?_r=0 ) have long demonstrated that limiting Americans' access to strong encryption, is a bad idea! But... somehow!... and, maybe, because the way these locks work is more hidden from users in the context of digital networks and tools!... the argument continues to be raised by Agencies and politicians, who should know better!... and e.g., the FBI, and Hillary Clinton (see, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12475829 )!
    .
    The response to insecure networks and digital technologies must be to make them-- IN PART!-- S-T-R-O-N-G-E-R! And yet!... this basic message is not only LOST on those who call for encryption controls, but it has also been U-N-D-E-R-M-I-N-E-D by the cybersecurity approach of the CISA (see, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/eff-strongly-oppose-cisa-cyber-surveillance-bill-and-cfaa-amen dment )... which!... instead of encouraging better security by those who store information, pushes companies to increase the risks Americans already face (by "S-H-A-R-I-N-G" more data belonging to Americans, with the government)! Of course, the lapses in government security are already well documented (see, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/we-told-you-so-opm-data-breach-reveals-not-only-lame-data-secu rity-weak-legal )! The same wrongheaded approach is on display when the US Congress fails to reform the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to protect the security researchers whose work results in better protections for Americans!... and, instead, pushes for a worse version of the law with a still broader scope, and harsher penalties (see, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/some-good-news-about-cisa-it-doesnt-include-dangerous-computer -fraud-and-abuse )!
    .
    Unlocking everyone's doors isn't the answer to global crime!... or terrorism! Nor!... is simply facilitating stronger encryption! Building, and supporting, STRONGER SECURITY is a VIABLE SOLUTION AGAINST ATTACKS!... however!... failing to allow for A-C-C-E-S-S to the "bad guys" is-- LIKEWISE!-- D-E-N-Y O-U-R S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y!
    .
    Nevertheless!... and the foregoing notwithstanding!... this issue of Internet Security is compounded by the current reality, that Steganographic approaches are even eclipsing that of conventional encryption (not to mention, Quantum Steganography... see, Why Quantum Steganography Can Be Stronger Than Classical Steganography!)!... see, http://www.infosectoday.com/Articles/digitalstego.htm !
    .
    The advantage of Steganography over encryption is that law enforcement authorities readily recognize encrypted files and are willing to dedicate resources to attempt decryption!... while, with Steganography, police are unlikely even to realize that a hidden file exists! [See, COUNTERING THE USE OF THE INTERNET FOR TERRORIST PURPOSES: LEGAL AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS, MAY, 2011, "Working Group on Countering the Use of Internet for Terrorist Purposes", "United Nations, Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF)"]
    .
    The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy... which brings together into one coherent framework decades of United Nations counter-terrorism policy and legal responses emanating from the General Assembly, and the Security Council and relevant United Nations specialized agencies... has been the focus of the work of CTITF since its adoption by the General Assembly in September 2006 (General Assembly resolution 60/ 288)!
    .
    The Strategy sets out a plan of action for the international community based on four pillars:
    .
    • Measures to address the "CONDITIONS CONDUCIVE TO THE SPREAD OF TERRORISM";
    .
    • Measures to PREVENT AND COMBAT TERRORISM;
    .
    • Measures to BUILD STATES' CAPACITY TO PREVENT AND COMBAT TERRORIM and to STRENGTHEN THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM IN THIS REGARD;
    .
    • Measures to ENSURE RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL, AND THE RULE OF LAW... as the F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L B-A-S-I-S OF THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM (and I'll add here... DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS!)!
    .
    In accordance with "the Strategy"... which welcomes the institutionalization of CTITF within the United Nations Secretariat... the Secretary-General in 2009 established a CTITF Office within the Department of Political Affairs to provide support for the work of CTITF! Via the CTITF Office, with the help of a number of thematic initiatives and working groups, and under the policy guidance of Member States through the General Assembly, CTITF aims to coordinate United Nations system-wide support for the implementation of the Strategy and catalyse... system-wide!... value-added initiatives to support Member State efforts to implement the Strategy in all its aspects! CTITF also seeks to foster constructive engagement between the United Nations system, international and regional organizations, the private sector, and "civil society (i.e., the community of NGOs+NPOs!) on the implementation of the Strategy!
    .
    But!... it would appear-- to me!... that many "Security Professionals"-- and "lay commentators"!-- are woefully stupid/ ignorant of the power inhere WITHin Quantum Mechanics (and, for example, within the "Uncertainty Principle"!) in the mitigation/ cessation of Security breaches! AND!... IF SUCH "QUANTUM SOLUTIONS" WERE UTILIZED (LET ALONE, ACKNOWLEDGED!), SUCH COULD VIRTUALLY SOLVE THE PRIVACY VERSUS ACCESS DILEMMA, OVERNIGHT! In other words, the Global Security Community has got to begin to incorporate proven "Quantum answers" within ICT devices, if it ever hopes to find a solution to the "PRIVACY VERSUS ACCESS DILEMMA"!
    .
    What is needed, is GLOBAL ATTENTION on research into the Application of--for example!-- the "Uncertainty Principle" in Quantum Mechanics, to Cyber Security!... and, on the implications of Steganography-- yea, Quantum Steganography (to B-O-T-H ACCESS and PRIVACY!... re B-O-T-H the "good guys" and the "bad guys"!)-- in Cyber Security! The benefit of QUANTUM STEGANOGRAPHY being, the power of the "Uncertainty Principle" can then be applied to the I-D-E-N-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N O-F B-O-T-H T-H-E B-A-D G-U-Y A-N-D T-H-E G-O-O-D G-U-Y R-E-C-E-I-V-I-N-G A-N-D/ O-R S-E-N-D-I-N-G A-N-Y F-O-R-M O-F S-T-E-G-A-N-O-G-R-A-P-H-I-C M-E-S-S-A-G-E!... as, it is I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E T-O H-I-D-E T-H-E I-N-T-E-N-T-I-O-N (Q-U-A-N-T-U-M F-L-U-X!) O-F T-H-E S-E-N-D-E-R O-R R-E-C-E-I-V-E-R! In other words... AND AT THE QUANTUM LEVEL!... T-H-E I-N-T-E-N-T-I-O-N O-F A H-U-M-A-N S-O-U-L C-A-N B-E "Q-U-A-N-T-I-F-I-E-D (M-E-A-S-U-R-E-D!... ALBEIT, INDIRECTLY!)"!
    .
    Therefore!... the sooner the Global Cyber Security community-- yea, the world of Cyber Security stakeholders!-- begins to acknowledge, and then implement the powers vested within such as the "Uncertainty Principle", the sooner Cyber Security will be assured for users!
    .
    However!... and to use God as an analogy here!... just because GOD knows how completely wretched we actually are, doesn't mean He is desiring to destroy us at every turn, due to every OVERT SIN we make! And so!... likewise!... just because "CERTAIN" will have the power to know the QUANTUM DYNAMICS OF THE INTENTION of whoever is sending and/ or receiving a given message, what will ensure us of the REAL WORLD INTENTION of the persons "manning the new 'foolproof' Cyber Security ICT"?
    .
    The "Uncertainty Principle" may do its job!... but, will "CERTAIN INTERESTS" O-V-E-R-R-I-D-E the "Uncertainty Principle", in order to delude us into a false sense of security! Will "CERTAIN" manning our new "foolproof" Cyber Security ICT know when to show M-E-R-C-Y in their disclosure of the INTENTION of a sender or receiver of information!... and, will "CERTAIN" manning same, C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-L-Y D-I-S-R-E-G-A-R-D the safety of netizens (physical, and spiritual!) in what these ALLOW to be excused, in their manning of our new "foolproof" Cyber Security ICT!
    .
    Simply put!... just because I now know the "QUANTUM GOOD INTENTION" of information sent and/ or received over the Net (for example!), doesn't mean that I desire to allow the sender and/ or receiver to get away with "ruling my world"! And conversely!... just because I now know the "QUANTUM BAD INTENTION" of information sent and/ or received over the Net, doesn't mean that I desire to deny the sender and/ or receiver the opportunity to "rule my world (HOWEVER EVIL!)"! And!... there is also the matter of the "SANCTIONED DEFINITION" of the A-C-T-U-A-L "I-N-T-E-N-T-I-O-N T-R-I-P-W-I-R-E P-A-R-A-M-E-T-E-R-S" E-M-B-E-D-D-E-D W-I-T-H-I-N I-C-T D-E-V-I-C-E-S! Who will "SANCTION" whatever definition will be used within such new Cyber Security ICT, that becomes the "STANDARD" for determining who the bad guy is, and who the good guy is?
    .
    Folks!... ladies and gents!... boys and girls!... this A-L-L comes down to behavior! And!... it's all the more reason why S-O-C-I-E-T-Y must F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L-L-Y "rethink" its PRIORITIES in the classroom! Behavior, behavior, behavior!... and as Dr. Edwin Fuller Torrey said in his work, The Death of Psychiatry!... and to paraphrase:... "INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL INTELLIGENCE (THE THREE "I_s"!), IS THE MISSING 'FOURTH WHEEL' ON EDUCATION'S SCHOOL BUS"! But!... in my view!... T-H-E W-H-O-L-E O-F E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N S-H-O-U-L-D B-E B-R-O-U-G-H-T U-N-D-E-R A G-L-O-B-A-L H-E-A-L-T-H M-O-D-E-L!!
    .
    And so to return to IP address theft and manipulation!... the technoma, and practice, discussed at Goog result, "IP address blocking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"... poses a FUNDAMENTAL THREAT to a user's Right to Access a given site!... to RESPONSIBLE AND CONSCIONABLE FREE EXPRESSION on a given site (HOWEVER POLITICALLY, AND/ OR SOCIALLY "PROBLEMATIC"!)!... and, thereby, to a user's Digital Human Rights! And thus!... the information at Goog result, "Block a specific IP address from accessing your website - Media"... should not only be disallowed on the Net!... the site itself, should be S-H-U-T D-O-W-N!-- AND, EVERY SITE LIKE IT! For!... the threat possed at this just mentioned site, and similar sites, is as much of a threat to the day-to-day FREE EXPRESSION of netizens, as any Government-based commissions and/ or omissions (directly, and/ or indirectly evidenced!)!
    .
    In fact!... and in response to this INSIDIOUS denial of even Comment Logs/ Clogs within websites (let alone, the arbitrary removal of SPAM, Spam, spam within that exist!)!... my recent "CYBEREPHIPHANY", and "CYBEREURIKA MOMENT", re a method for RESPONSIBLY RANKING Search Engine search results, is as follows...
    .
    IT IS MY POSITION, THAT ALL SEARCH RESULTS (REGARDLESS OF THE SEARCH ENGINE BEING USED!) SHOULD BE "M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D" TO BE W-E-I-G-H-T-E-D I-N F-A-V-O-U-R OF RESULTS THAT ALLOW FOR F-R-E-E (BOTH UNINTERMELLED, AND COST-FREE!) PUBLIC COMMENTARY (AND THUS, REQUIRING A COMMENT LOG/ CLOG SECTION TO BE PRESENT WITHIN SITES, IN ORDER FOR A WEBSITE TO BE GRANTED "PREFERENTIAL RANKING" BY, AND WITHIN, A-N-Y SEARCH ENGINE!)! AND THUSLY!... ELIMINATING THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF SEARCH ENGINES... AND/ OR "CERTAIN" THIRD-PARTY "ELITE INTERESTS"!... FROM INDIVIDUALLY, OR JOINTLY "M-A-N-I-P-U-L-A-T-I-N-G" "POLITICALLY CHARGED", OR "LEANING" COMMENTARY AWAY FROM "TOP BILLING (THROUGH PERVERSE 'SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION'/ SEO ALGORITHMS!... AND/ OR, OTHER 'A-N-T-I SEARCH NEUTRALITY' AND 'A-N-T-I NET NEUTRALITY' ALGORITHMS!)"! AND!... SIMPLY BECAUSE, SEARCH ENGINES, AND/ OR "CERTAIN" THIRD-PARTY "ELITE INTERESTS" FEEL THAT THESE ARE DIRECTLY, AND/ OR INDIRECTLY, ADVERSELY "POLITICALLY/ SOCIALLY IMPACTED (BY COMMISSION AND/ OR OMISSION!... DIRECTLY AND/ OR INDIRECTLY EVIDENCED!)" BY THE OTHERWISE "SEARCH ENGINE ALLOWED" "RESULT RANKING" OF SUCH "POLITICALLY CHARGED", OR "LEANING" COMMENTARY (E.G., THE MESSAGE YOU ARE NOW READING!)! AND THUSLY!... NO "NEUTRAL WEBSITE (I.E., ONE HAVING N-O CLOG WINDOW!)" WOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE TOP OF SEARCH RESULTS RANKINGS!... P-E-R-I-O-D!! UNLESS!... AND OF COURSE!... N-O C-O-M-M-E-N-T-S HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED WITHIN THE SUM NUMBER OF THE T-H-E-N "COMMENTS FACILITATING SITES" LISTED WITHIN A SEARCH ENGINE'S SEARCH RESULTS (RESPECTIVE OF A GIVEN SEARCH EXPRESSION USED!)!... OR!... THE SITE DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO "PUBLIC COMMENTARY (I.E., THE NATURE OF THE WEBSITE, 'LOGICALLY PRECLUDES' FACILITATING PUBLIC DISCUSSION!)"! AND THIS WILL THEN MEAN, THAT, F-R-E-E D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-U-B-L-I-C E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N WILL "HOLD SWAY" OVER A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L O-T-H-E-R "RANKING CONSIDERATIONS", RE THE RANKING OF SEARCH ENGINE SEARCH RESULTS!
    .
    THE NEXT STEP, WOULD BE TO ADDRESS THE DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS INHERE WITHIN THE VERY DESIGN OF CLOG WINDOWS WITHIN RESPECTIVE WEBSITES, THAT DISALLOW LINKING, AND "CRITICAL COMMENTARY (BUT, ETC.!)"!... AND, IN ADDITION, TO PUTTING A STOP TO IP ADDRESS THEFT, AND MANIPULATION!
    .
    For example, how is the nonsense at, https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466223-who-deleted-or-removed-my-comment-, allowed to go on anywhere in the free western world?... let alone, in North America!
    .
    No Blog Hosting Service should be allowed to ban a netizen across multiple sites because "I-T" "F-E-E-L-S" that a netizen is issuing "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam"! First of all, we're talking about SEPARATE WEBSITES in the just noted URL!... and second, it's been traditionally up to a site (although, this is deemed a F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L V-I-O-L-A-T-I-O-N of Digital Human Rights!) to make a "judgement call" re a user's continued use of a given site! It's not for a Blog Hosting Service... and based on one or two "complaints" offered up (or not!) re "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam"!... to then deny access to ALL SITES that that Blog Hosting Service services! And with regard to Disqus-- specifically!-- its site information indicates that it's NOT INVOLVED in the issues involving CONTENT!... and, that such issues must be addressed by a Site's "Moderator", and "Site Community"! But!... even such a determination by "Site Moderators", and "Site Communities", is the "slippery slope" to entrenching "CYBER GATED COMMUNITIES"!... AND THEREFORE, SUCH AN EVIL SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED A-N-Y-W-H-E-R-E ON THE NET! And one additional NASTY REVELATION re Disqus!... AND A C-L-E-A-R I-N-D-I-C-A-T-I-O-N that attempts are being made to eliminate A-N-Y F-O-R-M of NON-CORPORATE INTERNET BATCH COMMUNICATION (although, in this instance, it's merely repeating a message at different sites!)!... is a notice I've received at various sites afterupon "Sending" a comment, that the sent message was "flagged" as a "Duplicate message (or words, such as, 'You've Sent This Message Before'!)"!
    .
    In other words, despite being on an entirely different site!... and, in most instances, never having used the site before!... and!... Disqus is S-A-I-D to be "UNINVOLVED" with the CONTENT on a site!... Disqus is AUTOMATICALLY flagging content that has appeared on another Disqus operated site! And although I have-- for now!-- technically overcome this A-P-P-A-L-L-Y-I-N-G B-R-E-A-C-H of Digital Human Rights (and!... as well!... their denial of the ability to Copy and Paste larger segments of prepared text in a Clog window!)!... their very ability to even invoke such Digital Human Rights denying technoma, indicates a S-H-O-C-K-I-N-G L-A-C-K on the part of our N-E-T G-A-T-E-K-E-E-P-E-R-S (both L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E, and I-L-L-I-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E!) to "C-H-E-C-K" this "I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T S-C-O-U-R-G-E/ B-L-I-G-H-T"! And so!... if someone is anxious to "spread the word" regarding a deemed NECESSARY MESSAGE for the PUBLIC GOOD (AND E.G., THE MESSAGE YOU'RE READING!), Disqus (and other such Blog Hosting Services!) will "E-N-S-U-R-E" that that message will be limited to an "originating site"! WELL!... N-O-T O-N M-Y W-A-T-C-H! And!... just in case!... hello Ralph, Naomi, and Jon (but, etc.!)!
    .
    Many "INTERNET GATEKEEPERS" have come out over the years claiming that allowing ANONYMITY to flourish on the Net, is a threat to "c-u-s-t-o-m-e-r s-e-c-u-r-i-t-y"!... and should be stopped at all costs! And so, some sites have set up sophisticated hurdles for would-be participants, so that the CLIQUE "CYBER GATED CUSTOMER COMMUNITY CLIENTELE" of the site, can communicate amongst themselves!... minus those annoying/ pesky "ANONYMOUS L-I-B-E-R-A-L C-Y-B-E-R G-A-T-E-C-R-A-S-H-E-R-S"!
    .
    But!... lo!... and behold!... these very same S-E-L-F_A-P-P-O-I-N-T-E-D and hypocritical "INTERNET GATEKEEPERS" have been instrumental in allowing local TV, Radio, and Newspapers to disappear from communities!... and, thereby, allowing corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests" to run local communities as these see fit (I.E., I-N T-H-E B-O-O-T-H!... I-N T-H-E B-A-C-K!... I-N T-H-E C-O-R-N-E-R!... I-N T-H-E D-A-R-K!)! And without local TV, Radio, or Newspapers looking over the shoulders of corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests", there's no telling what these interests are up to! And... for all we know!... such could be up to theft, rape, child abuse!... and even murder! And how would we know otherwise?... who's holding them to account?
    .
    And so... what's to be done? How are we to hold corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests" to account, when all local corporate media coverage is absent from local communities? While!... all the while!... corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests"-- AND THEIR SUPPORTERS!-- would compel netizens to sign up, sign on, sign in, log in, log on, register, become a member, secure an account, give one's name, give one's physical address, give one's email, and otherwise receive their "BEASTLY MARK", in order to "SHARE" in their "GATED COMMUNICATION"! A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y D-I-S-G-U-S-T-I-N-G!
    .
    The answer, is... obviously!... T-O R-E-M-O-V-E "C-L-I-Q-U-E" C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-E, P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L, A-N-D "P-S-E-U-D-O_S-O-C-I-A-L S-P-E-C-I-A-L I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T" C-O-N-T-R-O-L O-V-E-R I-N-F-O-R-M-A-T-I-O-N C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S T-E-C-H-N-O-L-O-G-Y W-O-R-L-D-W-I-D-E! AND!... TO MANDATE THAT ICT (HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE!) BE MADE W-H-O-L-L-Y D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C!... AND!... THAT N-O I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T WILL BE ALLOWED TO BREACH THE DEMOCRATIC DIGITAL

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 11 Nov 2016 @ 9:12pm

    The behaviour of the press this whole election has been disgusting in my opinion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2016 @ 11:20pm

    American Press? I get most of my news from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. The press as a whole, in this country, is bought and paid for one way or another. I prefer the foreign propaganda instead.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 12 Nov 2016 @ 8:32am

    Wow what a great idea, promote and further the culture of litigiousness. Seriously, if someone had a solid actionable case they should have filed already... maybe. Trying to dig up something to file suit over is just stupid. Clearly no one noticed so can't be much of a claim.

    A better idea would have been to support people who have been defamation-suit-trolled by Trump (or anyone else for that matter, seriously, wth) so the case can come to a ruling or is dropped?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andy, 12 Nov 2016 @ 6:53pm

    Lies!

    The press is supposed to report the truth and every time they do not they should be punished and even be prevented from publishing any future stories unless someone has vetted them and ensured there is no lie and no opinion, but if they report the truth then nobody gets to sue them unless it is plain to everyone that it was done in a malicious manner...They do not get to report opinions that is not what news is about.

    I saw a reporter state that he believed a woman when she said trump raped her, He does not get to write that , he gets to write the facts and not opinion and that is the problem right now the press has decided they can use opinions to attack people they do not like or support to spread lies and at times opinion that they know are lies and they need to be punished if they cannot prove there opinions are fact or until a court has ruled that they are fact.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 5:41am

      Re: Lies!

      It's going to court and it'll all come out in the wash. It's irresponsible to believe someone just because they've pushed an emotional hot button. The Rolling Stone/Jackie Coakley story should have taught us that. Every accusation should remain unpublicised until it has been carefully investigated to determine the facts. If there's a case to answer, bring it to court. Keep all parties anonymous till the case is heard. Is that fair? I call it "due process for all."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.