S. 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

Full Text

Some basic information

Essentially the bill gives courts and the Attorney General the ability to put sites on a black list, making any association with them illegal.

The bill is in committee at the moment, so there is still plenty of time for it to die.

You can sign a petition here, or you can contact one or all of the Senators sponsoring the Bill (especially if they are from your state).
List of sponsor and cosponsors
Members of the committee currently scheduled to consider the bill on the 30th

Discussion on the topic of internet censorship is welcome.

Postado por Monday

Hm. I think some censorship is needed, but only for terrorist websites/hacking sites or whatever. Otherwise, its a stupid idea imo.

Postado por 138638

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

o no not a blacklist!

they can attempt to get the internet censored all they want a week afterward a way to bypass the censorship will be available.

edit: You know if they can even get it censored in the first place

I don't think you understand what's happening. Read the article I linked.

Postado por 138638

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Postado por 278900

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Postado por Hyperspacerebel

the problem that i have with this is that what happens if someone links you to a site by accident (ie, a friend from another country who isn't aware that it is a censored website in the US). i dont want the law to come down on my head when it's not even my fault.

That's not how it would work. It would be censored at the ISP level.

Postado por 278900

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Postado por Patty

terrorist websites

Subjective phrase is subjective.

Postado por Monday

terrorist websites

Subjective phrase is subjective.

Al-Qaeda's website then?

Postado por buzz3070

I could see a snowball effect potentially happening here.

More people then the government realizes use "illegal sites" then they originally anticipated. Then when those people are banned from the isps then the isps lose money because of to many people getting banned. the loss of revenue will force them to either raise prices and that could anger a lot of people or potentially shut down or ask for a bail out because they can not make enough money to pay for operating costs. All leading to no internet providers in the country because the idiots In congress dident think this idea through.

Maybe im over thinking this. The point is that this is a bad idea.

Postado por Patty

Al-Qaeda's website then?
Subjective point is subjective. To thousands, Al-Qaeda are far from terrorists. This complicates matters.

Postado por Monday

Al-Qaeda's website then?
Subjective point is subjective. To thousands, Al-Qaeda are far from terrorists. This complicates matters.

The American Government, who is trying to pass this bill, has labeled Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization. Thus, for the purpose of this argument, they are terrorists.

Postado por 150529

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Postado por 138638

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Postado por Heckler

The American Government, who is trying to pass this bill, has labeled Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization. Thus, for the purpose of this argument, they are terrorists.
It's crazy to give such loose control over extremely subjective matters of censorship. As an example, the PATRIOT Act gave the government broad powers to label people as terrorists. For instance, anyone who "interferes with commerce" can be labeled a terrorist and treated accordingly. So if someone blows up a bank, terrorist, good right? What about someone who protests a fur dealership? Or someone who writes up an expose about a beef factory revealing atrocious sanitation concerns which result in a loss of business? Or perhaps leaders of a local boycott?

All of those things have gotten people labeled as Terrorists under the PATRIOT Act and prosecuted as such. Just because the U.S. Government labels something "terrorist" should not give them blanket powers to trample over Constitutional Freedoms. In fact, nothing should. The Constitution exists a tier above the government. The government is subject to it, not the other way around. The only way to modify the Constitution is by using the procedures outlined in the Constitution itself.

Links:
http://www.gregpalast.com/palast-charged-with-journalism-in-the-first-degree/
http://infowars.net/articles/december2005/091205Patriot_act.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/310104freespeechzones.html

(I found these with 3 minutes of effort on google, you can find more if you try, there's numerous cases of this happening, and continuing to happen still).

Postado por Monday

Are you saying Al-Qaeda is not a terrorist organization?

Or are you merely saying the American government shouldn't be able to censor it?

Postado por Heckler

I'm saying that your logic -- that the U.S. Government has labeled them a terrorist organization, and therefore should be able to censor American Citizens access -- is flawed.

You can't just "pass a bill" to take away protected rights, thats what it means to be protected.

Postado por Adamsm

Heh, the American government has been doing that for years since 9/11.... or has everyone already forgotten the Patriot Act? Where any officer of the law is free to break into your home without a warrant, arrest you on suspicion of terrorism and drag your ass down to GITMO, where you can be legally tortured, starved, beaten, and all the rest of that fun things just for speaking out against the Government.

And Funden, before you jump on it, that is what the Patriot act does; but I will admit to a @#$% ton of sarcasm in that post.

Postado por Monday

And Funden, before you jump on it, that is what the Patriot act does; but I will admit to a @#$% ton of sarcasm in that post.

I know. I was against it.

S. 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

Resposta da Mensagem