Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Help stop internet censorship

profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
From the petition site:
Just the other day, President Obama urged other countries to stop censoring the Internet. But now the United States Congress is trying to censor the Internet here at home. A new bill being debated this week would have the Attorney General create an Internet blacklist of sites that US Internet providers would be required to block.

This is the kind of heavy-handed censorship you'd expect from a dictatorship, where one man can decide what web sites you're not allowed to visit. But the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to pass the bill this week -- and Senators say they haven't heard much in the way of objections! That's why we need you to sign our urgent petition to Congress demanding they oppose the Internet blacklist.

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/
Oct 17 2010 6:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Nooschoolers
Posts: 577 - Karma: 32
oh lets just keep those white pride sites up.

they wont ban anything not extremely offensive

ur a dumbass

hes not a dictator......



Oct 17 2010 6:31PM
0 0
profile picture
freestyler540
Posts: 13083 - Karma: 18,720
what sites are being censored?
Oct 17 2010 6:33PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
no, you're a dumbass. this flies in the face of the constitution so fuck off.

and freestyle, nothing has been cencored yet in the US but this bill would allow the government to cencor whatever it wants wtih no justification as the terms in the bill are very vague.
Oct 17 2010 6:35PM
0 0
profile picture
jorb.co
Posts: 2581 - Karma: 468
 
Oct 17 2010 6:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Nooschoolers
Posts: 577 - Karma: 32
OH RLLY
Oct 17 2010 6:38PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
really what? are you want the US to join China and Iran in censoring the internet? Cuz we're damn close to doing it. Luckily, it didn't get through before teh congressional recess so there's still some time to hold it off.
Oct 17 2010 7:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Nooschoolers
Posts: 577 - Karma: 32
im against that, it just depends on wat dey r censoring
Oct 17 2010 7:05PM
0 0
profile picture
-___-
Posts: 266 - Karma: -23
4chan.org
Oct 17 2010 7:07PM
0 0
profile picture
thugaim
Posts: 2181 - Karma: 33
has anyone really been far... etc.
Oct 17 2010 7:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Bodhisattva
Posts: 878 - Karma: 138
I heard that they will censor torrent sites such as Bittorrent and Limewire. I'LL BE FUCKIN PISSED IF THEY DO THAT. That's how I get everything, games, movies, songs EVERYTHING
Oct 17 2010 7:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Nooschoolers
Posts: 577 - Karma: 32
lets keep that KKK shit on the internetz
Oct 17 2010 7:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Nooschoolers
Posts: 577 - Karma: 32
well suck my penis dry
Oct 17 2010 7:17PM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,272
bye bye 4chan
Oct 17 2010 7:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Mezmerize19
Posts: 6475 - Karma: 18
This bill is not just to randomly block offensive sites. Its intent is to enforce copyright protection. It even says it in the name: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.

The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.

One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.

But if COICA passes, Viacom wouldn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down -- as long as they can persuade the courts that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, the whole site could be censored.

Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn't get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.)
Oct 17 2010 7:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarcoma
Posts: 437 - Karma: 5
When do they teach US Government at your middle school?  At my school, they taught it in 7th grade. 
Oct 17 2010 7:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarcoma
Posts: 437 - Karma: 5
That's irrelevant.  You are stupid.
Oct 17 2010 7:46PM
0 0
profile picture
WaterBottle
Posts: 1156 - Karma: 4
this wouldn't have happened under George Bush...
Oct 17 2010 8:05PM
0 0
profile picture
JON_MCMURRAY
Posts: 193 - Karma: 471
It's only a matter of time b4 the whole shit is censored Free Masons run the world
Oct 17 2010 8:44PM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,272
censor jon mcmurray's internet so he can only visit www.hookedonphonics.com
Oct 18 2010 9:30AM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
Freemasons is one word.


Has anybody actually signed this or spread the word or are you just bickering at each other like usual?
Oct 18 2010 10:43AM
0 0
profile picture
Pow.yuHdig*
Posts: 1903 - Karma: 146
just dont go to it pussy
Oct 18 2010 10:54AM
0 0
profile picture
Deezy
Posts: 4580 - Karma: 1,004
:D
Oct 18 2010 10:56AM
0 0
profile picture
PaleCelery
Posts: 7228 - Karma: 609
As long as I can still torrent my porn, movies, music and software I'll be happy
Oct 18 2010 10:56AM
0 0
profile picture
Willard
Posts: 5117 - Karma: 429
i need the piratebay
Oct 18 2010 11:07AM
0 0
profile picture
jason...
Posts: 9006 - Karma: 780
nooooooooo
Oct 18 2010 11:10AM
0 0
profile picture
CodyTurner
Posts: 677 - Karma: 86
All this is bullshit, hopefully if it is passed someone will sue claiming it infringes their constitutional rights and it will be declared unconstitutional after awhile
Oct 18 2010 11:30AM
0 0
profile picture
pomme-de-terre
Posts: 3915 - Karma: 703
what are we fucking china? fuck that shit. they cant have my internet.
Oct 18 2010 11:34AM
0 0
profile picture
paulgenovese
Posts: 524 - Karma: 362
Wuts a fourchan
Oct 18 2010 11:36AM
0 0
profile picture
Trollolo
Posts: 793 - Karma: 16
Wake up America. Ron Paul 2012
Oct 18 2010 11:56AM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
Schenck v United States
Gitlow v. New York
Debs v. United States
Schecter Poultry Corp. v The United States
United States v Butler
Dennis v. United States
Yates v. United States
Island Trees School District v. Pico

because none of those cases ever ruled that limitation of free speech was constitutional....

So yeah...hateful speech can most definatly be limited. I would most like to remind you that writing "bong hits for jesus" is not okay on school grounds, you cannot say purely offensive things and claim "first amendment protection." Things can be deemed offensive and then censored.
Oct 18 2010 12:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Username_42069
Posts: 1591 - Karma: 15
dude, you're the man
Oct 18 2010 12:21PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
if this bill passes, many sites will just be entirely taken down and being canadian won't change the fact that the website is removed.
Oct 18 2010 12:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
I know most of the cases, no googling required, I just listed the ones off the top of my head that I vaguely remembered limiting free speech. a few might be wrong. and it doesn't change the fact that free speech has been limited often throughout time (even if I disagree with it, it was to show that free speech can and HAS been limited within reason)
Oct 18 2010 12:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8553 - Karma: 4,089
this is bullshit, if they want to provide a public option ISP, (all americans should have access to internet access!) then sure block everything but wikipedia
Oct 18 2010 12:45PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
but that's not the case with this bill. the terms are intentionally vague so that anything they want can be classified as "reasonable". torrent sites, dissent sites, whistleblowers, political activist sites, anything they deem having the potential to be detrimental to the smooth flow of the system stands the chance of being censored. The issue is much more than comparing it to "bong hits for jesus" on a school wall.
Oct 18 2010 12:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
A. There is no separation of power issue here, the senate is passing a bill that would give the executive the ability to decide what is okay and what is not, no separation of powers issues.

B. Free speech has been limited if it will incite violence or is directly targeted against a specific group.

C. Even if this bill is a bad idea (which I actually think it is) up until the point where it limits something that is not offensive, we cannot decide if it is unconstitutional. This is the type of bill thats practice can be unconstitutional, the language of the bill is completely constitutional.

there is no set standard for what is and is not offensive you can "know it when you see it" but up until something not offensive has been banned, then the bill is completely constitutional.
Oct 18 2010 12:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
quit just saying shit against what I say, and actually say something with substance that deals with what I say.
Oct 18 2010 12:58PM
0 0
profile picture
thugaim
Posts: 2181 - Karma: 33
>implying offensive things should be censored.
Oct 18 2010 12:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
and they shouldn't be, I am just attacking the idea that censorship has been, and always will be unconstitutional. (see woozy's first post)
Oct 18 2010 1:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
because "Im seriously rolling on the floor laughing. Please come teach my con law class because obviously my professor is unqualified." is such a complex statement that deals exactly with what I say.
Oct 18 2010 1:01PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
but thats what I was referring to. If I missed the mark by a mile, then explain to me my misteps in thinking, dont just say "I'm rolling on the floor laughing" its condescending and annoying. You always claim to want to have an intelligent discussion, but when attempts are made you start to ignore everything that comes after, if I am so stupid, educate me! dont make ad hominem attacks against me.
Oct 18 2010 1:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
Regardless, if I speak with such certanty then feel free to show the problems, if my logic is so flawed, it should be quite simple to show the problems. Regardless of age, I still know at least some knowledge of constitutionality of laws, show me my mistakes please, I am always up for learning. You are still making ad hominem attacks, show me the problems with my logic, not me as a person.
Oct 18 2010 1:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
Throughout history, the executive and legislative branches have deemed things offensive or dangerous. The espionage act 1917 is one example, where all things that would hurt the war effort were declared illegal.

In Jacobellis v. Ohio, the supreme court decided that the state of Ohio acted unconstitutionally in banning a film. It was unconstitutional, not due to the fact that the state was choosing what was obscene or not, but due to the fact that the film was ruled to be not obscene. The supreme court was completely placit on the idea that the state had ruled weither something was obscene or not, they allowed them the right to do that, the problem was that it just was decided incorreclty. The supreme court allows the executive to declare things that are obscene to be banned, the supreme court will simply define what is and is not obscene.

The same can be said for this law, the president can choose to ban "inappropriate" materials, but the materials can be deemed to be not offensive later.
Oct 18 2010 2:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
I want to clarify further. The power of the executive to ban things has been constitutionally enforced, if the president were to issue a ban on all "inappropriate" materials, it would then be up to the supreme court to define "inappropriate"
Oct 18 2010 2:09PM
0 0
profile picture
pomme-de-terre
Posts: 3915 - Karma: 703
it fucking better be.



there is absolutely no fucking reason this bill should go through. its complete bullshit and is founded on nothing that makes any kind of sense for a normal human being. if they pass this then they can shut down ANYTHING they want. shit like this means that the government can basically control our entire information flow and we cant do JACK SHIT about it. i dont give a fuck what anyone says, this is unconstitutional. the founding fathers would be shitting a fucking rhinoceros over this. the amount of control a bill like this allows over the countrys people is insane. on top of that, it opens the door for even more ridiculous violations similar to this one to be passed. wait till they ban all the TV channels and newspapers and radio stations. then they take away the second amendment and we are the new fucking south korea.
Oct 18 2010 4:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Guavajelly
Posts: 197 - Karma: 34
The real question, at least to me, is not whether or not this bill is unconstitutional, it most certainly is. But the greater question we need to answer is whether or not the constitution applies to the internet. Is the internet an inherent right of the people? or is it ultimately a service provided to the people. Radio and TV can both be censored by the FCC if they deem it appropriate which helps prevent obviously racist, offensive, vulgar from being presented at legitimate and useful knowledge. (please if i am misinformed on this, link me to a site that says different, i am not 100% on this but its how ive always viewed the situation)

So we really need to decide if the internet is a continuation of people and their thoughts and should it be treated the same, or if its just another form of media provided for the people.

That all being said i will sign this petition because the beauty of the internet is its openness, which i think is important to many aspects of our modern culture.

Again please respond with real counter arguments, i could care less how immature you may think i am.
Oct 18 2010 4:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarcoma
Posts: 437 - Karma: 5
Don't even bother arguing with Darth_Veeder.  He has proven repeatedly that he is incapable of rational argument. 
Oct 18 2010 5:38PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
God damn it, just explain to me what the issues are then, I am not against the chance to learn, but I am debating what I think the issues are, explain to me what you think the issues are, you have yet to provide a true response to what I say other then "you are wrong and have no grasp of the situation" My answers are simply me trying to understand the "enormity of unprecedented power."

And quit fucking assuming that I am googling stuff, some high shcoolers do have a decent knowledge of supreme court cases believe it or not.
Oct 18 2010 7:32PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
Technically, it is a service provided to/for the people. However, why would you want it to be as controlled as the mainstream media? I don't want my only source of online news to be the same mainstream sources I see on TV, in the Newspapers and on the Radio. It is a service provided to the people that should not be censored, simply because of the fact that censoring it makes it as worthless as mainstream media sources, which do NOT provide the whole truth nor does it provide a non-biased view, nor does it provide anything other than fearmongering.

The internet is a great tool in an inumerable amount of ways, if it is censored, it stands the chance to become just as mindless as the boobtube and only pre-approved sites will remain (read: mainstream sites). Think about it, how many grassroots/underground website can you think of? Now compare that massive number to how many grassroots/underground TV/Radio stations there are, which are both heavily censored and owned by the same 6 people.
Oct 18 2010 7:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Darth_Veeder
Posts: 1054 - Karma: -26
well, there was your original argument to which I was mostly responding to that was "congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"
Thats the only argument I really wanted to debate, you took a literal interpretation that almost no supreme court judge has ever taken ever....
Oct 18 2010 7:52PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)