SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-can-never-have-too-many-offsite-backups-eh dept.
The Internet Archive plans to create a backup of its data in Canada in response to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States:
The Internet Archive, a nonprofit that saves copies of old web pages, is creating a backup of its database in Canada, in response to the election of Donald Trump. "On November 9th in America, we woke up to a new administration promising radical change," the organization wrote in a blogpost explaining the move. "It was a firm reminder that institutions like ours, built for the long-term, need to design for change."
[...] The move will cost millions, according to the Internet Archive, which is soliciting donations. In their post, the Internet Archive justified its decision to backup its data in Canada, claiming that Trump could threaten an open internet. "For us, it means keeping our cultural materials safe, private and perpetually accessible. It means preparing for a Web that may face greater restrictions."
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:17PM
Interesting that Hillary sponsored basically the exact same thing Trump tweeted while in the Senate. One year and/or $100,000 fine for flag burning at protests.
Also, I should mention that this is factually incorrect.
From your link:
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service summarized the act as follows:
Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; (2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning a U.S. flag; or (3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.[1]
So no, burning (your own) flag at a protest would not have been illegal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:53PM
... aren't those things already illegal, whether you use a flag or a bed sheet?
(1) destroying or damaging something with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace;
(2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning something; or
(3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of something belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that something.
Am I wrong, or is this yet another case of stacking charges? Similar to outlawing fraud/bullying/harassment/threats, but this time "on the Internet", so they could threaten people with 500 years in jail or something to that effect.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:28PM
(1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace;
That's ridiculous. If people see you burning a flag and react violently, that was their own choice; your intentions do not matter because what you actually did does not change either way and your intentions cannot magically force other people to react in any particular way. I know the US doesn't believe in freedom or personal responsibility, but it's still sad to see this kind of thinking. And why just a U.S. flag? What was the point of this nonsense?
(Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:10AM
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:45AM
That's a very charitable interpretation of their actions, and you could do that with pretty much any issue to make one party seem spotless.