A Call To Arms And Action STOP SOPA!

[TazzMission Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close TazzMission]

I remember posting about this ages a go in the old gamer thread and then tazz making a thread about it in Qward and it became apart of the crazy conspiracy thread.... anyway this needs to be stooped. Carry on.

+ YouTube Video

has this passed in britain yet?

[The British Lantern Not A Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close The British Lantern]

Not that i know but some ISP have been court ordered to block sties
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/inte...ocks-newzbin2/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...king_newzbin2/

[TazzMission Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close TazzMission]

Not that i know but some ISP have been court ordered to block sties
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/inte...ocks-newzbin2/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...king_newzbin2/

:sigh: this is what im afraid of


next thing they will want to censor things like certain politicians are idiots next because it's "" offensive""

[Darth_Andrea Owned by Natu Find all posts View Profile Close Darth_Andrea]

So, I call my representative and say, what?

Stop it.

Seriously, I don't want to look like a complete tool.
Also, wasting their time. I don't want to do that.

Actually I recommend you read the bills, see where their flaws are then call or write. That way your informed and don't sound like some random idiot



Darth_Andrea

[TazzMission Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close TazzMission]

Actually I recommend you read the bills, see where their flaws are then call or write. That way your informed and don't sound like some random idiot



Darth_Andrea

just easier to say tazz 2.0 andy lol

[Mister.Weirdo Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Mister.Weirdo]

Sopa goes against America's right to have a voice. Destroy it, we must destroy Sopa. It is the fowl scum of the earth.

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

:sigh: this is what im afraid of


next thing they will want to censor things like certain politicians are idiots next because it's "" offensive""

See, I see that as kind of a big logical leap to make. I agree that such things have potential for abuse, and need to be VERY carefully worded, but those particular examples are exactly the sort of things such laws are designed for, not an example of possible abuse and unintended consequences.

I suspect that most citizens aren't opposed to the idea of blocking sites whose whole purpose is to help you download free content illegally.

The danger that must be emphasized if one wants to get the Average Joe to oppose these kinds of things is the possibility of abusing the law to shut down sites just because you don't like them.

However, that said, while I agree that such extreme cases ARE possible, and are a reason to make SURE any such legislation is carefully worded and NARROW in focus, I also think that it is highly unlikely that the passage of such legislation, even if NOT carefully crafted, is going to lead to some kind of massive crackdown on the internet. Why? Because even the people not convinced of the danger ahead of time will ABSOLUTELY scream bloody murder if such things actually happen, and it isn't like they are putting this stuff in as Constitutional Amendments. All it will take to change it is Congress passing NEW legislation. Which they absolutely WILL do if their constituents are calling them all pissed off because all the social media sites have been shut down arbitrarily, or somesuch.

[Razorgod Anti-Monitor Find all posts View Profile Close Razorgod]

what particular issue?

Seriously, Tazz? Here's a hint, the answer the question you seek is on page 1 of this thread.

Why? Because even the people not convinced of the danger ahead of time will ABSOLUTELY scream bloody murder if such things actually happen, and it isn't like they are putting this stuff in as Constitutional Amendments. All it will take to change it is Congress passing NEW legislation.

Yeah, I remember what happened after they passed the Patriot Act....it's easy to get legislation that works around Due Process repealed.

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

Yeah, I remember what happened after they passed the Patriot Act....it's easy to get legislation that works around Due Process repealed.

Ah, but in that case they worked hard to try to convince people that it was necessary, and succeeded for a whole lot of people. The reason that doesn't get repealed is PRECISELY because the majority of the American people weren't convinced it NEEDED repealing.

But you start messing with people's internet? Sad to say, but I think that would piss off a lot more people than the effects of the Patriot Act, mainly because it would become THEIR problem, instead of "somebody else's" problem. And they wouldn't have anything as compellingly scary as "terrorist threats" to hold over the people to try to justify its necessity.

[Razorgod Anti-Monitor Find all posts View Profile Close Razorgod]

Ah, but in that case they worked hard to try to convince people that it was necessary, and succeeded for a whole lot of people. The reason that doesn't get repealed is PRECISELY because the majority of the American people weren't convinced it NEEDED repealing.

That's horseshit and we both know it. As soon as people read what was in the Patriot Act they were skeptical, but it was passed at a time where people were uptight over terrorist threats.

Once cooler heads prevailed people spoke out, including our current President, and yet it keeps getting extended.

The point is that assuming that constitution violations will be addressed through the court system is bullshit....especially when the constitutional right being violated is the 4th.

I don't want to get going on the Patriot Act, it's just an example of how you need to speak out before laws get made. It's easier to pass laws than it is to get them thrown out.

[TazzMission Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close TazzMission]

See, I see that as kind of a big logical leap to make. I agree that such things have potential for abuse, and need to be VERY carefully worded, but those particular examples are exactly the sort of things such laws are designed for, not an example of possible abuse and unintended consequences.

I suspect that most citizens aren't opposed to the idea of blocking sites whose whole purpose is to help you download free content illegally.

The danger that must be emphasized if one wants to get the Average Joe to oppose these kinds of things is the possibility of abusing the law to shut down sites just because you don't like them.

However, that said, while I agree that such extreme cases ARE possible, and are a reason to make SURE any such legislation is carefully worded and NARROW in focus, I also think that it is highly unlikely that the passage of such legislation, even if NOT carefully crafted, is going to lead to some kind of massive crackdown on the internet. Why? Because even the people not convinced of the danger ahead of time will ABSOLUTELY scream bloody murder if such things actually happen, and it isn't like they are putting this stuff in as Constitutional Amendments. All it will take to change it is Congress passing NEW legislation. Which they absolutely WILL do if their constituents are calling them all pissed off because all the social media sites have been shut down arbitrarily, or somesuch.

the problem is they say its for copyrighted material like napster, lime wire etc.


but in the end one thing like this will lead to other excuses to continue blocking things that they ( government) will not like wich would be critisizim.

we live in a country where we have the right to speak out and this kind of bill could honestly take that away from us.

wile i agree that yea there are indeed bad people out there who promote nothing but hate like the neo nazis that threatened obamas life.

but we all shouldnt have to suffer from it because some backwoods hicks want to continue there nazi propaganda bull shit

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

That's horseshit and we both know it. As soon as people read what was in the Patriot Act they were skeptical, but it was passed at a time where people were uptight over terrorist threats.

Once cooler heads prevailed people spoke out, including our current President, and yet it keeps getting extended.

The point is that assuming that constitution violations will be addressed through the court system is bullshit....especially when the constitutional right being violated is the 4th.

I don't want to get going on the Patriot Act, it's just an example of how you need to speak out before laws get made. It's easier to pass laws than it is to get them thrown out.

But I still maintain that the reason for that is that those "cooler heads" and those speaking out against it STILL are not in the majority. And even those who might be against it if pressed don't bother to make their views known because it doesn't really effect them personally (or so they think, I would assert that it DOES, just not in the really overt ways that it effects some people). They did too good a job of scaring people into its necessity, and now, even when people aren't as scared, it hasn't hit many of them in such a way that they actually feel strongly about repealing it.

If they pass this, and the nightmare scenarios that its opponents are warning about actually come to pass, it WILL effect a lot of people directly, and nobody will have anything convincing to point to to justify those kinds of results.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is better to keep bad legislation from passing than to try to repeal or override it. I just don't think, in this case, that it will last long if the worst case scenarios being mentioned DO come to pass, since they would adversely effect so MUCH of the electorate, with so little justification.

I'm not proposing that we not oppose these bills. I'm simply saying that, long term I can't see attempts to shut down large swathes of the internet being successful, since it would piss off too many people, and they wouldn't have anything convincing to tell those people to convince them that those kinds of "side effects" of the legislation were somehow necessary.

[Razorgod Anti-Monitor Find all posts View Profile Close Razorgod]

the problem is they say its for copyrighted material like napster, lime wire etc.

The problem is that the law ignores due process and allows action taken against people for nothing more than an accusation of copyright violation. It goes further to try and redesign certain key features of how the internet works...specifically DNS. It also allows the accuser to level sanctions against advertisers and ISP's requiring them to monitor their users closely.

I'm less concerned with the ways that the government can abuse the laws for gain and more concerned with how corporations can abuse the laws for gain.

Regardless of whether government uses the law to suppress speech, it's still a bad law simply because it removes legal process from the equation and calls for a radical overhaul of the Dynamic Naming System that in the end won't solve shit.

[Razorgod Anti-Monitor Find all posts View Profile Close Razorgod]

But I still maintain that the reason for that is that those "cooler heads" and those speaking out against it STILL are not in the majority.

It's debatable, but as long as it's not a hot button issue, we'll never know.

The Patriot Act is an example, nothing more.

No matter how over the top a law is, people can get used to anything until it becomes the norm. There's a lot of extreme laws that prove this.

[IonFan Forum Member Find all posts View Profile Close IonFan]

sorry D_A but my "political activism" days are over with, here's hoping cooler heads prevail