USA Customs are policing DVD's now.....
- Thread starter Christopher Dudgeon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well with the hammer and sickle im assuming that you're suggesting America is becoming a Communist State? What does Communism have to do with this? A Police State or some kind of Totalitarian State sure but its ignorant to suggest that restricting the freedom of information is any way related to or part of Communist ideology.JesterRaiin said:
Urm...this doesn't appear to be a new law, by any means. In fact, it appears to date from 1930 - with a few alterations over time to other parts of the act.
haha this is kind of funny. I had a friend get 7 seasons of scrubs through customs by putting the DVD's in order and resealing the DVD package they came in (ie burnt DVD's)
Also what's not funny how seriously fucked our country is. This is just the tip of the iceberg, shit we are spending twice as much money making pennies as what they are worth. We throw away 1.07 Trillion dollars every year in potential tax revenue and enforcement/prison/probation/procecution costs for the War on Marijuana.
shoot, with just those two problems we could be adding 1.1 trillion dollars back into the economy / budget each year.
Also what's not funny how seriously fucked our country is. This is just the tip of the iceberg, shit we are spending twice as much money making pennies as what they are worth. We throw away 1.07 Trillion dollars every year in potential tax revenue and enforcement/prison/probation/procecution costs for the War on Marijuana.
shoot, with just those two problems we could be adding 1.1 trillion dollars back into the economy / budget each year.
True but its bloody annoying whenever someone cries Communist or Socialist when they dont like or understand any random thing (not saying that about you just in general)JesterRaiin said:
No problem.Ilikemilkshake said:
Hammer and Sickle are - for me - the symbols of Stalin-style, ruthless oppression hiding behind the veil of sweet, beautiful ideology full of words like "us", "we", "future", "order" etc. etc. Plenty of people, especially those like me, living in the post-communist countries recognize them as such.
I they want to discourage thought crime.
I bet by "immoral" they mean stuff like porn (which I think is pirated by EVERYONE except maybe a few old people) making this pretty much useless.
also what the fuck is wrong with America? if I want to buy scat porn (for whatever reason) just let me! I don,t care about anybody,s morals when I buy that sort of stuff!
I bet by "immoral" they mean stuff like porn (which I think is pirated by EVERYONE except maybe a few old people) making this pretty much useless.
also what the fuck is wrong with America? if I want to buy scat porn (for whatever reason) just let me! I don,t care about anybody,s morals when I buy that sort of stuff!
They've been doing it for 20ish years.Redlin5 said:
I vaguely recall it starting during Allan Rock's stint as Minister of Justice.
It was mostly focused on print, which makes sense given the times, and there was a few cases that got media attention. I remember a lot of alternative bookstores being unable to get books through customs when they were deemed "immoral"...which was totally subjective and up to the given customs agent. For a while they were blocking pretty much any erotica with gay/lesbian elements, which i believe resulted in the biggest uproar.
A little off topic, but if you don't mind me asking, do you fell that Irish Catholics in England are treated with a little more tolerance than ethnically English people, given England's history with Ireland and Irish Catholics? How do you think the UK government would respond if a Pakistani Muslim community/religious leader was on tv/radio and did something like try to justify what happened to the Irish people during Bloody Sunday? Would the government respond in the same way that they would if it was a English Protestant community/religious leader tried to justify a past act of violence that England committed against Desi people?Thyunda said:
..um did you read what I typed? Most of what I typed wasn't in favor of the UK government, the last part I included where I typed that the UK wasn't a terrible place, was my poor attempt to end my comment with a reassurance that I wasn't the stereotypical overly patriotic American who thought that my country was better than everybody else. I was just trying(and apparently I failed) to be humble at the end and let Abandon4093 know that I don't hate the UK.Thyunda said:
I know Wikipedia isn't always reliable but I can't find anything to do with Mr.Livingstone and his take on rape laws. The things I did find on him on Wikipedia, (you might disagree) he seems to have a history of drawing negative attention to himself, so I don't know if you want to defend this guy.Thyunda said:
Interesting, was this during Prime Minister Questions?Thyunda said:
1. Honestly? I've never noticed the difference. People in this country don't seem as bothered, but then my father always insisted he moved to England from Scotland because the Scottish were a lot less tolerant of the Irish Catholics.Volf99 said:
I think, if a Muslim community leader said something like that, there would be a "We disagree, but they are entitled to their opinion" response. If it was an English Protestant, I can guarantee all ties to that speaker will be cut and they'll pretend he was never on their payroll/existing with their permission/English.
2. It's okay, I got confused by the whole debate and wanted to contribute, but couldn't find an adequate window, and I had to settle for yours.
3. Then it wasn't Livingstone, it was a different Ken. Or a Keith. Began with a K. I just know that some Labour politician had said it. I remember the news report on TV.
4. I saw it as reported by the BBC on my homepage when I opened my browser, so it might have been. Or it might not. Either way, it happened...and it was very amusing. I think it was just as they commenced their discussion, the report said Cameron and Miliband were 'united' in their belief that Scottish Parliament did not have that kind of authority.
Justifiable racism and a justifiably racist person are two different things. One means it's okay to hate another person based specifically on their race, which is wrong, and the other is saying that you can understand why that person might be a little bit racist...such as when the influx of a certain race has managed to destabilise the entire city, and it's still suffering from the after-effects.GrandmaFunk said:
that's a giant load of bullshit and it stinks of victim blaming.Thyunda said:
Would you ever use the length of a woman's skirt to explain how you can understand where her rapist was coming from?
And there was I thinking that racism could never be justified.Thyunda said:
Are you sure you don't mean Ken Clarke? Quite a big difference, one is Labour, the other is Tory.
Ken Clarke was trying to reduce overcrouding in prison by cutting 25% off the sentences of people who plead guilty at their earliest opportunity, for all crimes, not just rape. And the Lib Dems were broadly in support of this. You've turned it around to where you seem to be saying that you think rape is a less serious crime if it's committed while drunk.
Pretty sure the government would strongly condemn such statements, regardless of how the Irish Catholic community might respond.Volf99 said:
I'm reminded of the black MP who made some generalisation about all white people recently and was made to apologise.
--
OT: US Customs directive concerning 19 USC 1305, the law that this thread is supposed to be about [http://foia.cbp.gov/streamingWord.asp?i=12]:
'A 1978 district court decision, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, interpreted [seditious and treasonable materials to mean] only those materials that are "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action." The court said that this interpretation was necessary for the statute to pass constitutional challenge. Customs officers must distinguish matter that merely advocates lawless action, which is permitted, from prohibited matter that is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action... Prohibited seditious matter does not include abstract teaching that promotes violence and other illegal acts.'
So, "matter advocating or urging treason or insurrection" (OP's phrase) is permitted, and it is unconstitutional to prohibit such materials from entering the US unless they are "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and are likely to incite or produce such action." Anyone who believes they have had things stopped at the border unlawfully should in the first instance make representations to customs officials as to why they think their goods are permitted by US law to enter the country, citing the appropriate statutes and rulings.
but of course, they have also eliminated world hunger, energy dependency, diseases and have begun to send out colony ships to the rest of the solar system. They wouldnt do this because some powermad people have promise to cut them off if they dont promote their agenda right?The Artificially Prolonged said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.339583-White-House-petiotioned-to-Investigate-MPAA-on-account-of-Bribery
Well it's a good thing that institutions like the pacific legal foundation exist now. http://www.pacificlegal.org/
At the moment they are arguing to the supreme court the bullshit that is the EPA regulations.
At the moment they are arguing to the supreme court the bullshit that is the EPA regulations.