American bill will allow the government to censor Internet domains.

[Riku'sTwilight]

Jesus. Probably, hopefully, won't go through, but the mere idea is quite ridiculous. No government should attempt control or filter the internet.
That can only ever lead to bad things.

America, land of the free.

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.

Spoiler: VERY off topic

What about the Irish? Can we come? We're quiet as mice, I swear.
Oh, I know this is extremely off topic, but did you say people get a house on benefit? And that's as standard, then?
Nice. Fuck this noise, I'm coming to your country.
Wait... There's a catch, isn't there? To we have to pledge our lives to, and forgive me for the cliché because I'm a bit tired right now and the only other Englishman I can think of is Warwick Davis, Stephen Fry? Because I am there.
Wait, no, there's something else...
...Even your smallest towns are bigger than most, if not all, Ireland could come up with, leading to a much more generally convenient lifestyle, especially for someone from the countryside?
...Your currency is far stronger?
...As someone who was raised almost entirely around English people and grew up absorbing English culture, I'd appreciate the country's works?
...Terry Pratchett?
Oh wait. There is actually a catch.
Chavs, innit blud?

Your off-topicness made me laugh.

Spoiler: Reply to Off-Topic

Of course the irish can come over. We love the irish.
In fact I have a fond keeness for the irish girls, it's the accent. Does it for me

 

[Gindil]

COICA delayed... [http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/victory-internet-censorship-bill-delayed]

For now...

People, be wary of this bill. I'm sure some parts of it will be added to other bills to impede on our rights.

 

[Irshy]

So I read a few pages of this and hopefully I wont be repeating already made points. Firstly, I'm Australian, not American so that may factor into what I'm about to say.

Why do a lot of the vocal American's state their First Amendment as the reason why this act of censorship is wrong? Oh, I agree that it is morally questionable, far too much power for over infomation to exist and would take a massive dump all over my chronic porn viewing.

I would've have thought that the point worth standing up for is the idea of human rights, the idea of all humans right to freedom of infomation (to go along with freedom of belief, self-determination, etc) so I think perhaps in America your First Amendment is a useful tool in standing up for these basic human rights - I don't think you should preach it as the reason why the censorship is wrong.

"A man with a name like a city back when this country was founded wrote that everyone has the right to speak their mind."

or

"Every human being has the right to view infomation in an un-censored way."

I mean, which applies more?

Saying because you have a law against it thus it needs to be protected is the same thinking that has gotten America so disliked and alienated in Europe and to an extent the South Pacific. It stinks of viewing the world in black and white and self-rightiousness. Saying "we have the freedom of speach, and the right to bear arms. America woah!" might not be what you're meaning, but to a lot of others it comes across that way.

It also hampers the arguement.

The debate shouldn't be so much about what is legal and what are the ground rules set down by Daddy-Washington, rather as what is morally right, ethical, and keeps my wonderful porn easily accessable.

Should Australia lacking a first amendment bow to internet censorship?

 

[Irshy]

I suppose its a kneejerk reaction to the spread of American culture, but when I hear

FIRST AMENDMENT

I just see red.

 

[WanderingFool]

Please correct me, but this is a bill, right? Even if passed in congress, they have to have the Presidents say in allowing it to become a law, and want Obama telling places like Iran and China to stop censoring thier internet? And how many congressmen are going to actually allow this to even leave the floor, more than half the sites most of them visit would be made illegal. Plus this probably counts as unconstitutional, so the Supreme Court would kill this fucker in its own way.

Plus wouldnt this additionally harm the US economy, in some way? Just seems like a waste of time for some dumb fuckhead...

 

[Gindil]

So I read a few pages of this and hopefully I wont be repeating already made points. Firstly, I'm Australian, not American so that may factor into what I'm about to say.

Why do a lot of the vocal American's state their First Amendment as the reason why this act of censorship is wrong? Oh, I agree that it is morally questionable, far too much power for over infomation to exist and would take a massive dump all over my chronic porn viewing.

I would've have thought that the point worth standing up for is the idea of human rights, the idea of all humans right to freedom of infomation (to go along with freedom of belief, self-determination, etc) so I think perhaps in America your First Amendment is a useful tool in standing up for these basic human rights - I don't think you should preach it as the reason why the censorship is wrong.

"A man with a name like a city back when this country was founded wrote that everyone has the right to speak their mind."

or

"Every human being has the right to view infomation in an un-censored way."

I mean, which applies more?

Saying because you have a law against it thus it needs to be protected is the same thinking that has gotten America so disliked and alienated in Europe and to an extent the South Pacific. It stinks of viewing the world in black and white and self-rightiousness. Saying "we have the freedom of speach, and the right to bear arms. America woah!" might not be what you're meaning, but to a lot of others it comes across that way.

It also hampers the arguement.

The debate shouldn't be so much about what is legal and what are the ground rules set down by Daddy-Washington, rather as what is morally right, ethical, and keeps my wonderful porn easily accessable.

Should Australia lacking a first amendment bow to internet censorship?

I'll try to boil down the essence of the 1st Amendment - "I may not agree with what you said, but I respect your right to say it"

On the internet, there's a lot of options available to people. What COICA does is take a fair amount of options and gives it to a biased "third party". That is the Attorney General. There is also a loophole that websites that are considered "pirate sites" can be shut down without due process. It's like your father coming to take away your computer for no reason other than "because I said so"

Just to get an idea of our Attorney Generals... Mike Nifong [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong], Richard Blumenthal [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100908/18062710949.shtml]and Andrew Cuomo [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100610/1334239771.shtml] are just a few of the nasty little bloodsuckers that will have control of a website's fate. Do you really think we want THEM in control of the internet?

 

[Masterninjaz12]

I really cannot see this bill being passed mainly because it goes against the first amendment. If it does get passed I would hope many Americans protest it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Whatever happened to our First Amendment rights? I would definitely be one of the many thousands of people protesting if the bill was actually passed but i agree with you on this the chances of this bill being passed are kinda slim.

 

[Blind Sight]

And this, children, is why the 'right to bear arms' is genius: you have guns to overthrow the government if they begin to attack your rights. Just ask the guys who started the Rum Rebellion, the American government learned not to mess with their moonshine.

I kid of course, but once again, another silly law attempting to undermine civil liberties while sucking up to the media corporations. Usually these things get killed pretty fast, especially if public opinion shows up in the debates. And I guarantee you people will use the First Amendment on this like no tomorrow.

Ah America, where the idiots' voices are the loudest and the rational just shake their heads in disbelief.

Canadian politics are a bit more fun. You don't like a policy? Pie that ************ IN THE FACE.

 

[Firetaffer]

Here we go. Just a step closer until America turns into Oceania.

I don't recall them doing it in New Zealand? None of the sites for me are blocked.

 

[Irshy]

So I read a few pages of this and hopefully I wont be repeating already made points. Firstly, I'm Australian, not American so that may factor into what I'm about to say.

Why do a lot of the vocal American's state their First Amendment as the reason why this act of censorship is wrong? Oh, I agree that it is morally questionable, far too much power for over infomation to exist and would take a massive dump all over my chronic porn viewing.

I would've have thought that the point worth standing up for is the idea of human rights, the idea of all humans right to freedom of infomation (to go along with freedom of belief, self-determination, etc) so I think perhaps in America your First Amendment is a useful tool in standing up for these basic human rights - I don't think you should preach it as the reason why the censorship is wrong.

"A man with a name like a city back when this country was founded wrote that everyone has the right to speak their mind."

or

"Every human being has the right to view infomation in an un-censored way."

I mean, which applies more?

Saying because you have a law against it thus it needs to be protected is the same thinking that has gotten America so disliked and alienated in Europe and to an extent the South Pacific. It stinks of viewing the world in black and white and self-rightiousness. Saying "we have the freedom of speach, and the right to bear arms. America woah!" might not be what you're meaning, but to a lot of others it comes across that way.

It also hampers the arguement.

The debate shouldn't be so much about what is legal and what are the ground rules set down by Daddy-Washington, rather as what is morally right, ethical, and keeps my wonderful porn easily accessable.

Should Australia lacking a first amendment bow to internet censorship?

I'll try to boil down the essence of the 1st Amendment - "I may not agree with what you said, but I respect your right to say it"

On the internet, there's a lot of options available to people. What COICA does is take a fair amount of options and gives it to a biased "third party". That is the Attorney General. There is also a loophole that websites that are considered "pirate sites" can be shut down without due process. It's like your father coming to take away your computer for no reason other than "because I said so"

Just to get an idea of our Attorney Generals... Mike Nifong [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong], Richard Blumenthal [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100908/18062710949.shtml]and Andrew Cuomo [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100610/1334239771.shtml] are just a few of the nasty little bloodsuckers that will have control of a website's fate. Do you really think we want THEM in control of the internet?

My point is more this.

Why the fuck are the technicalities of this amendment being argued? It isn't your precious bit of law which makes America so able to call your president the leader of the free world that is on the table. Its basic human rights.

If a bit of law gets changed, removed, added in of itself that isn't the right/wrong of anything. Its what it changes in actuality and what it represents, the law in cases like this is a vessel for views/beliefs/concepts/morality/etc

I really dislike hearing. "Doesn't the first amendment protect me from this?" or "Shouldn't it..." No, what protects you from that is being a human, with rights - the fact America legislates it changes it from an arguement over what the rights of an individual are into the technicalities of law.

I dislike how the use of langauge has this property of altering the subject away from what is one of the closest to black and white subjects (the basic rights of a human) into the gray mass of loophools that is any legal system.

 

[strum4h]

Here we go. Just a step closer until America turns into Oceania.

I don't recall them doing it in New Zealand? None of the sites for me are blocked.

It was a joke on the country in the book 1984. Oceania was the country that it was set in.

 

[Something Amyss]

Haha. If they even try this, they will get lawsuits, riots, and the wrath of every internet user.

This can't hold people. There's a limit to how much the government can take away.

Yeah, Americans won't stand for it. Remember when the PATRIOT ACT was repealed after all that outrage?

 

[Gindil]

...

Ravensheart, I really hope you are joking...

 

[Wardnath]

This will never fly. We have the constitution, but hey, the internet wasn't around when they wrote that little document, so hey screw freedom of speech right? /sarcasm.

If this happens, people will riot, and the government will probably start fearing the people for once.

Methinks you overestimate Western civilisation.

 

[Axzarious]

They say its the land of the free, but it seems more like the Land of "Screw the rules I have money."

Your only free to do what you want if you got enough money.

 

[sylekage]

This will never fly. We have the constitution, but hey, the internet wasn't around when they wrote that little document, so hey screw freedom of speech right? /sarcasm.

If this happens, people will riot, and the government will probably start fearing the people for once.

Methinks you overestimate Western civilisation.

how do you mean?

 

[Uber Evil]

Here we go. Just a step closer until America turns into Oceania.

At least we don't have the cameras ..... yet.