Years ago, when the Internet was still gestational, the Writers Guild of America had a members-only bulletin board system that allowed screen and television scribes to post and respond much the way we do here on Glenn’s blog. It was clunky but it worked. During a period of extreme political turmoil in the Guild (during and after a work-stopping strike in 1988), the bulletin board – which up until then had been a clubby spot to gossip and exchange war stories – emerged as a meeting place where the rank and file could discuss issues, debunk rumors, examine management pronouncements and criticize a Guild leadership which had never been subjected to much oversight or scrutiny by the members. There was much to criticize at the time; news of management lies and misdeeds that formerly would have been hushed up instead spread like wildfire. The rabble was aroused. Management jobs and leadership positions were at risk.

One morning, writers woke up to find that the Guild’s leadership had decided, after conferring with Guild lawyers, that the bulletin board had to be shut down -- as technically simple as turning off one computer at the WGA offices. The story was that things were being posted that might expose the Guild to lawsuits for slander, defamation of character and the like. The very existence of the union was supposedly at stake. No one bought that explanation, but management had the key to the office where that computer was kept, they wouldn't budge and moreover, there was no longer anyplace for members to pool their voices into a meaningful throng. Guild leadership hunkered down and weathered what protests of outraged frustration did manage to reach their ears because anything was preferable to having truth spoken to power. It was a dark period at the Guild that didn’t end for quite a while (I know, I know – tempest in a teacup, but it meant a lot to screenwriters at the time).

My point: in paranoid moments, I’ve wondered whether today’s Internet is invulnerable, by dint of being sufficiently decentralized, to this kind of unilateral action.

I strongly urge those who continue to echo the inaccurate phrase, "She voted for the war," to read the text of Hillary Clinton's floor speech the day she cast her vote for the AUMF.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

It's a long speech, thoughtful, analytical and full of angst. Here, IMO, is the key snippet:

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

But don't take my word for it. Read the whole thing. When you've done so, you can still say she should've known that GWB was a lying, incompetent sack of road apples and was guaranteed to get it wrong. But she clearly hoped he wouldn't. Either way, it's simply inaccurate by any measure to say, "She voted for the war." (And someone, please, explain to me why this paragraph is all pinched down -- I closed the blockquote at the end of the speech.)

My name's Jim Houghton and I do agree we can disagree on just about anything. If I was too categorical about my opinion of what HRC said or didn't say, I apologize.

You can come out, now.

I'll ask again, this time without the lengthy anecdotal lead-in: can anyone reassure me that the Internet can't be shut down by the government?

Time to ban them. For everyone.

JimPharo, I agree with you completely that we shouldn’t give right-wing foamers and chickenhawk provocateurs too much of our energy. We have other, more important things to do. But while not everyone should be engaged in the work of stamping out the stinkbombs, it's good that there are Glenn Greenwalds to do it for the rest of us.

You simply cannot say that liberalism has “won,” the way you can say the Colts won the Superbowl. Liberalism is not the natural state of mankind; our liberal institutions have to be maintained as meticulously as a jumbo jet. Complacency about our freedoms is the surest way to lose them.