Signed
But I have no Problem of them Censoring Encyclopedia Dramatica,4Chan,and Furry Art.
yeah. there was one by explosm.net to have one of the authors/artists get into the country. 4000 pages of online signatures later, he got a Visa and is now currently in the US.
Clearly because of the petition.
Signed, but don’t know how much it will help. I’m def keeping an eye on this.
So you want to ban what makes the internet worthwhile these days?
Mostly Furry Art.But I can live with ED
Signed.
I always support the 1st Amendment.
Just another way the Obama Administration (aka: Celebrity in Chief) is trying to move us towards a socialized government.
I don’t see what this has to do with socialism, censorship seems more conservative to me
I’d say censorship is associated with just radical govs in general, whether socialist, communist or fascist.
This isn’t a first amendment issue, kids. The U.S. congress has broad powers in relation to interstate commerce and copyright law, and this falls squarely into those categories. Censorship has nothing to do with it, it’s about stopping morons who spread around pirated material. The Huffington Post misrepresented what’s being proposed here as some plot to control everything you do on the internet. This is about enforcing the law – a very fair and necessary law that protects intellectual property.
If you’re a pirating douche then there’s some cause for alarm, otherwise you won’t even notice when it’s enacted (IF it’s enacted).
Asking the proprietors of sites to control their content and make sure they aren’t infringing is a perfectly reasonable request – even if it’s difficult to accomplish.
I’ve actually read this bill, and it’s very specific and reasonable in regards to what behavior is or is not considered infringement. And the site has to specifically fall under U.S. jurisdiction, so the talk of shutting down foreign sites is nonsense.
If you disagree with me but haven’t read the bill, I suggest you do so, then we’ll talk. Otherwise don’t bother.
edit: “when…such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.”
This only affects sites who’s main purpose can be shown to be pirating. So not youtube.
If it’s DDOSing they’re planning to do, I’m pretty sure that falls outside of the US congress jurisdiction, and falls squarely under outright suppression. If there are websites that somehow violate international laws (or US laws if they’re American sites), then fine or arrest or whatever the offenders.
And I’m pretty sure in that case there will be massive DDOSing of the government instances responsible.
:facepalm:
The law states VERY clearly that international offenders can only be prevented from infringing within the U.S. They can’t be shut down in another country. The specifics of how that would be accomplished is not even mentioned.
gibbelin, your probably one of the most competent gargs I’ve seen. Could you provide a link to where you read it. I don’t want to bother searching :p.
Sure thing. https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/09/CombatingOnlineInfringementAndCounterfeitsAct1.pdf
I’m not trying to be a dick about this issue, but I think this actually a pretty important piece of legislation, and I’m not going to let it get slandered by a bunch of pirates on btjunkie or whatever trying to turn it into some fascist plot.
Its associated with whomever does it, and everyone on either side of center does it.
What if that petition was blacklisted?
Looking at the actual news article and seeing it’s actually suppose to be targeting illegal activity, I don’t hate it as much as the first post tried to imply I should. HOWEVER, I do see where this could get out of hand. Once the government has a foot in the door, they usually have a much easier time going farther.
Also, to “Censor” a website seems like a weird way of countering the issue of piracy. Or at the very least, a very odd way of wording it.