Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday December 15 2015, @08:10PM   Printer-friendly

On Tuesday morning, the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, a governmental agency which operates hundreds of schools in Los Angeles and nearby areas, sent all its students home. The agency did not make its buses available, but instead asked parents to pick up their children from outside the schools. Superintendent Ramon Cortines ordered all the schools in the district closed because of a threatening message regarding "many schools" which was received by a member of the school board. Cortines called the closure a "precaution based on what has happened recently." Police and the district's "plant managers" are searching the campuses.

Sources:

From Reuters:

The unprecedented move left some 643,000 students of the Los Angeles Unified School District and their families scrambling to make alternate arrangements and drew criticism as officials in New York said they received the same threat and deemed it not to be credible.

A law enforcement source told Reuters that Los Angeles authorities ordered the closure to allow a full search of about 900 public school facilities without consulting with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which takes the lead on any potential terrorism investigation.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15 2015, @11:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15 2015, @11:27PM (#276880)

    Censorship is bad, and government-mandated censorship is intolerable.

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by bob_super on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:10AM

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:10AM (#276894)

    We're at war, boy. Censoring your enemy's propaganda, or at the bare minimum not broadcasting it daily and in the process encourage potential traitors, is pretty much part of the war plan.

    Not every loser looking for a cause should be able to easily find materials showing them how they will be someone after they hurt as many people as possible. Can't censor them all, but US companies shouldn't be helping recruit dangerous idiots.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:35AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:35AM (#276905)

      We're at war, boy.

      It's easy to talk tough and pretend you care about freedom when things are peaceful, but your commitment to freedom is only truly tested during trying times. It seems that you do not truly care about freedom. Being at war does not justify censorship.

      What a pathetic state of affairs. The US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave", and yet so many of its citizens are nothing more than sniveling cowards who will surrender their liberties so they can feel safe. You can't be free for very long when so few people are truly brave and committed to freedom.

      Censoring your enemy's propaganda, or at the bare minimum not broadcasting it daily and in the process encourage potential traitors, is pretty much part of the war plan.

      Government censorship (I presume this is what you are advocating) is unconstitutional, war or no war.

      Not every loser looking for a cause should be able to easily find materials showing them how they will be someone after they hurt as many people as possible.

      You don't think they should, but that's quite different from suggesting that it's alright for government thugs to engage in censorship.

      Can't censor them all, but US companies shouldn't be helping recruit dangerous idiots.

      They're not. People are simply using the tools they provide in ways that many people do not like. The companies themselves are not helping with recruitment; they are simply not impeding that process. There is a difference between doing nothing to stop something and actively trying to make something happen.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 16 2015, @01:09AM

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 16 2015, @01:09AM (#276919)

        Tell that to the people arrested for "providing material support to a terrorist organization", which is what the Internet giants and the US media have been doing.
        I know, you're going to tell me that ISPs are not responsible for the data they carry, nor is google responsible for search results nor the file it hosts as long as it obeys a DMCA notice.

        But Google censors things that the Chinese government points out as unpleasant. The media censors its knowledge of specific military operations to avoid endangering troops. Both happen even if there are Americans involved.
        Does the first amendment apply to a foreign person, listed as a terrorist member, on foreign soil, who explicitly intends to threaten Americans? Then it's not the kind of censorship you're worried about. I'm asking to muzzle the source, because propaganda is their main weapon. US residents can keep exercising their right to support any remote dumbass who wants to declare war on them, but they don't have a first-amendment right to hear or see what he's got to say.

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 16 2015, @01:50AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 16 2015, @01:50AM (#276931)

          Tell that to the people arrested for "providing material support to a terrorist organization", which is what the Internet giants and the US media have been doing.

          I would tell them that.

          as long as it obeys a DMCA notice.

          The DMCA is not legitimate in the first place. I don't think it should be obeyed at all, if you are capable of fighting it.

          But Google censors things that the Chinese government points out as unpleasant. The media censors its knowledge of specific military operations to avoid endangering troops. Both happen even if there are Americans involved.

          It shouldn't.

          Does the first amendment apply to a foreign person, listed as a terrorist member, on foreign soil, who explicitly intends to threaten Americans?

          The first amendment applies to everyone. But here's what you're actually doing: You want companies *in the US* (meaning that even if you disagree with my previous statement, you're still censoring speech that is hosted in the US) to censor material that you don't like. That the messages were written by a foreign person is entirely irrelevant; the website has an owner, and the government may not force the owner to engage in censorship.

          If foreign people had no first amendment protections, and the government could force website owners in the US to censor user-generated messages if they were from a foreign person, then the government could censor any communications from foreign persons that it does not like. After all, if the first amendment doesn't apply, then there are no limitations on the type of communications the government could censor.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:16AM (#277021)

      > We're at war, boy.

      Oh, so you are one of those "you can't handle the truth!" idiots. "Boy" jesus christ.

      WWII was war, whatever this is with SISI isn't war, its a distraction. White nationalists kill more american civilians than 'radical islamists' do. Where's the war on 'radical whites?'

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:31PM

      by isostatic (365) on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:31PM (#277048) Journal

      War with who? An idea?

      Isis is just one embodiment of the idea of militant Islam. Boko Harem and Alquada, and the ones in Somalia are others.

      Now if you wanted to declare war on the source of this - certainly sanctions, perhaps a blockade, I could be in favour of that. Blockading Saudi Arabia would cause a few problems with the world economy though.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 16 2015, @05:45PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 16 2015, @05:45PM (#277220)

        I guess I should have closed a sarc tag after the "boy".

        The point does remain that their recruiting propaganda is the only weapon that those idiots have against the West (whatever presidential candidates claim). So we need to stop enabling them. If the networks were not driven by "these guys are scary" profits, they would do the right thing and stop aiding the otherwise quite incompetent Daesh.