American bill will allow the government to censor Internet domains.
- Thread starter ribonuge
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok I concede. Still, if the website is hosted in the US (which a vast majority of popular websites are) they can then be completely shut down. If they are not, then they are censored in the US losing a huge majority of their user base. Still sucks to be honest.rockyoumonkeys said:
I'll change the original post to accommodate what I failed to realise.
What do you mean very little information? I linked directly to the full bill and it's agenda as well as an article.acer840 said:
Reading (quickly) the bill its on about sites that offer business (goods and services)...So I think it's too stop fraudulant sites selling junk. Eg pretending to be a proper gucchi vendor when your a dodgy git in a bedroom.
Sorry my bad. I will go over it, but it looks like they can't do shit if the site is International. The can block it from being seen in USA, but they can't touch it in any way (as that would be considered an International location, out of their jurisdiction and a hostile act (in extreme cases))Ribonuge said:
I believe he meanas Oceania as in the Orwellian superstate, which included The Americas, the UK and Oceania.Natonator said:
OT
Governments shouldn't be interfering with the internet; the internet is in and of itself its own land, and shutting things down based on copyright claims may be construed as 'good' by some, but granting a physical government power over the internet just doesn't seem a good idea.
Love it.joemegson94 said:
What with this and the California game laws im sorry to say but America 'the most powerful and respected country in the world' is dumber than most others.
This law seems, to me at least to reflect those of China's censorship law.
Have fun over their guys, remember you can always come to the UK to gain not only a house and money on benefits, but hey we'd love to have Americans over here rather than eastern european illegal immigrants we seemingly get.
and you think an internet petition is going to make a difference?
When has an internet petition ever made a difference? These people don't give a damn about what you or anyone else says. They get paid a fat salary out of our tax dollars and whatever the lobbyists line their pockets with, they're going to do whatever they want since it doesn't matter to them. A life of no consequence. They get paid today, they get paid tomorrow, and they'll get paid after they're out of office.
The US isn't turning into Oceania, it already IS Oceania. Just because it's missing the giant two-way video screens with Big Brother doesn't make it any less real. THis bill will pass, I'd bet my life on it.
When has an internet petition ever made a difference? These people don't give a damn about what you or anyone else says. They get paid a fat salary out of our tax dollars and whatever the lobbyists line their pockets with, they're going to do whatever they want since it doesn't matter to them. A life of no consequence. They get paid today, they get paid tomorrow, and they'll get paid after they're out of office.
The US isn't turning into Oceania, it already IS Oceania. Just because it's missing the giant two-way video screens with Big Brother doesn't make it any less real. THis bill will pass, I'd bet my life on it.
You really think a condescending attitude actually helps someone to realise a mistake? No it just makes them annoyed and frustrated.Scout Tactical said:
Here you go, this is from the article I posted, if you had bothered to read it.
Basically the potential of what could come from this law is what worries people. You should read a little more into things before posting. Check that submission button, y'know?
A bill cannot simply give jurisdiction over the first ammendment. Free speech, sadly, almost always wins. Even in piracy. THe bill better have some pretty fucking fancy lettering, to get around the first ammendment.Ribonuge said:
Here's how it will play out: if a bill passes and a site gets shut down, the site can bring the federal government to court, citing an infringement of the first amendment. With any luck, the appeals will go all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the power and authority to *****-slap COICA and any bill like it into non-existence if they rule it as unConstitutional. We still have a system of checks and balances. It might be difficult to hold Congress accountable, but it's not impossible.
Well, the truth is that most of the sites that would be affected aren't hosted in the US. And even the ones that are will quickly rise again somewhere else. Being "shut down" won't destroy the code or data.Ribonuge said:
I know this. In the case of Demonoid [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonoid#In_Canada] they had to move to the Ukraine. But my point was that the domain would still be censored in the US. Which sucks. It's also slightly worrying that the government could have any sort of power over the internet. You can't deny that if this is somehow passed, it would suck.rockyoumonkeys said:
Well, using the logic that:
People use search engines for pirating, therefore search engines are the core of the pirating network.
BAN ZEM!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!
HAH!
That was a joke back in 1814 when they THOUGHT OF IT!
In 200 years, nothing's changed.
It's still a joke.
It might get some meaning when they close Gitmo.
couldn't they ban all search engines?
People use search engines for pirating, therefore search engines are the core of the pirating network.
BAN ZEM!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!
America, land of the free.joemegson94 said:
HAH!
That was a joke back in 1814 when they THOUGHT OF IT!
In 200 years, nothing's changed.
It's still a joke.
It might get some meaning when they close Gitmo.
Your argument reinforces my own. Your article says essentially what I said, so I don't see why you should doubt MY reading prowess.Ribonuge said:
That court case in particular shows that the United States (which is the only entity that in this case matters, not Viacom for instance) currently believes sites like YouTube are perfectly acceptable. Unless what you're getting at is that if this law is passed and a lot of Viacom employees are appointed to become Federal justices of the law we'll be in trouble, then I don't see your point.
Maybe you should have thought twice before you hit the submission button.