Censorship day

[Abc1230]

http://americancensorship.org/

 

http://player.vimeo.com/video/31100268?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0

On 11/16, Congress holds hearings on the first American Internet censorship system.

This bill can pass. If it does the Internet and free speech will never be the same.

Join all of us on the 16th to stop this bill.

 

[bleep] censorship.

[ilovecuttingyews]

[bleep] censorship.

I lol'd

[Bxpprod]

ha.

 

hahahahaha.

 

oh goodness that was brilliant.

[Alg]

Well, we reap what we sow, I guess...

[Furah]

[bleep], thank god I'm only going to have to put up with this shit for 60 more years if I live to the nation average (which I doubt.)

 

Guess it's time to invest in mesh networking, even though I've never set foot on US soil. Wherever America goes, it [bleep]ing bends arms until everyone follows.

[Shiny]

[bleep] off USA, is all I can say.

[Distracted]

My opinion on this is [REDACTED].

 

I feel like we should [REDACTED]. As long as [REDACTED], we have to [REDACTED].

 

--This message has been made appropriate for your reading by the US Censorship Bureau.

[Kirschen]

You've got to be kidding me...

[GrandZephyr]

My opinion on this is [REDACTED].

 

I feel like we should [REDACTED]. As long as [REDACTED], we have to [REDACTED].

 

--This message has been made appropriate for your reading by the [REDACTED]

I fixed it for you.

[Will H]

Sorry if I'm being a spoilsport, but why could that bill pass? Internet censorship obviously contradicts the first Amendment.

 

My gut instinct is telling me that this is people getting riled up over nothing.

[FirenLazah]

There goes 4chan.

[The Observer]

I can see this turning into something where you are no longer able to say something negative against the government with fear of your site being blocked.

[Guest Rob]

Aw, someone beat me to the "[bleep] censorship" joke.

[sees_all1]

I have faith in the ACLU and the Supreme Court. They're both [wagon], but at least they're consistent [wagon].

[Kirschen]

I can see this turning into something where you are no longer able to say something negative against the government with fear of your site being blocked.

 

Especially when you're advocating the opposing party's agenda.

 

I don't see how this was on the table to begin with.

[Alg]

I can see this turning into something where you are no longer able to say something negative against the government with fear of your site being blocked.

ER, can someone give me a bit of background then? There wasn't much actual information on the first site, but it seemed to point to the bill being about copyright infringement.

[user1991]

h

[Zierro]

Neither the government nor the people hold "the power". Only ideas hold "the power".

[aspeeder]

Ok, this isn't censorship in that the government can tell you what is and isn't wrong. It's basically stronger protections for copyrighted works and the ability to more effectively prosecute sites who allow copyrighted content to be posted and shared. In other words, goodbye youtube, myspace, facebook, yahoo, tumblr, torrents, megavideo, megaupload. I can understand where the companies are coming from, but the power given in the bill reaches much too far and basically takes down many effective forms of social networking.

[Hamtaro]

Sorry if I'm being a spoilsport, but why could that bill pass? Internet censorship obviously contradicts the first Amendment.

 

My gut instinct is telling me that this is people getting riled up over nothing.

The individuals who wrote up the Constitution intentionally left the wording of the First Amendment to be vague in order for future interpretation (because there's no way they could presage the advancement of technology and a politically changing world) :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's not strictly inhibiting free speech, but rather over exerting the reach of copyright law, which would fall under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 :

[Congress may] promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

 

My point is that this isn't really a First Amendment case. The problem that arises is that the individuals making this decision are, for the most part, members of the Baby Boom generation who grew up without access to personal computers and have no real understanding of how the internet works. Generations X and Y are really underrepresented in the House because of the current Republican majority (generally pro-business, but much younger members in the House) there. Essentially, if the bill manages to pass in the Senate controlled by the Democrats (generally anti-business, but much older members in the Senate) somehow, it should easily pass in the House and be sent to the President. Obama's decision on the bill may directly influence whether I vote for him in 2012.

 

I've already written a letter to my Congressman asking him to vote against the bill's passage. It was probably unnecessary, though, because he's a musician himself and isn't a technology-phobe like most politicians his age. My state's senators, on the other hand, are completely incompetent morons and I have no faith in them whatsoever. I wrote emails to them, but they were probably ignored because they don't give a [bleep] about anything other than their corporate sponsors' special interests. They prove that by constantly voting against their constituents' wishes with the sole exception of our automotive labor union (to guarantee all their votes). That's a different topic altogether, but the corporate influence on our politicians is going to be the deciding factor on this bill, not what's right for America.

[Furah]

Ok, this isn't censorship in that the government can tell you what is and isn't wrong. It's basically stronger protections for copyrighted works and the ability to more effectively prosecute sites who allow copyrighted content to be posted and shared. In other words, goodbye youtube, myspace, facebook, yahoo, tumblr, torrents, megavideo, megaupload. I can understand where the companies are coming from, but the power given in the bill reaches much too far and basically takes down many effective forms of social networking.

No, it is censorship in that sense. As soon as the government has control over something new, people will do their best to gain control over it. I could easily see a future government where the people in control over this block things that go against their beliefs (Christians blocking access to anything that says anything bad against Christianity, Conservatives blocking anything that promotes liberalism, corrupt persons who will accept bribes to block those in competition with the bribees.)

 

 

Before anyone says that the people currently in power wouldn't do that, it doesn't matter. You cannot guarantee me that all future governments will remain as impartial to those things. It's there that my issues arise.

[Kaida23]

I could easily see a future government where the people in control over this block things that go against their beliefs (Christians blocking access to anything that says anything bad against Christianity, Conservatives blocking anything that promotes liberalism, corrupt persons who will accept bribes to block those in competition with the bribees.)

The heads of Scientology have been doing this for years.

[aspeeder]

Ok, this isn't censorship in that the government can tell you what is and isn't wrong. It's basically stronger protections for copyrighted works and the ability to more effectively prosecute sites who allow copyrighted content to be posted and shared. In other words, goodbye youtube, myspace, facebook, yahoo, tumblr, torrents, megavideo, megaupload. I can understand where the companies are coming from, but the power given in the bill reaches much too far and basically takes down many effective forms of social networking.

No, it is censorship in that sense. As soon as the government has control over something new, people will do their best to gain control over it. I could easily see a future government where the people in control over this block things that go against their beliefs (Christians blocking access to anything that says anything bad against Christianity, Conservatives blocking anything that promotes liberalism, corrupt persons who will accept bribes to block those in competition with the bribees.)

 

 

Before anyone says that the people currently in power wouldn't do that, it doesn't matter. You cannot guarantee me that all future governments will remain as impartial to those things. It's there that my issues arise.

Eh, that's a slippery slope scenario, which while possible isn't what these bills are going to do immediately. They're going to extend the reach of corporations more than the government, at least at first.