White House Pressuring Registrars To Block Sites 569
An anonymous reader writes "While the Senate is still debating a bill that would force registrars and ISPs to block access to sites deemed 'infringing,' it appears that the White House's IP Czar is already holding meetings with ISPs, registrars and payment processors to start voluntarily blocking access to sites it doesn't like. Initially, they're focused on online pharmacies, but does anyone think it will only be limited to such sites? ICANN apparently has refused to attend the meetings, pointing out that they're 'inappropriate.' Doesn't it seem wrong for the US government to be pushing private companies to censor the Internet without due process?"
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:3, Informative)
Do you even know what socialism is? Because it isn't this.
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:3, Informative)
Change to socialism
We doing this now? Last time I checked, there are literally hundreds of thousands of privately owned businesses, and you can't name me a single solitary industry which government controls every aspect of it, including marketing, distribution, R&D, and everything else (which is the definition of socialism.)
There have been flutters of socialism in this country for decades...completely independent of anything else, we aren't really any more "socialistic" now than we were 10 years ago.
Theocrats in Congress (Score:1, Informative)
The U.S. Congress has a large number of Christian fundamentalists particularly in the Republican Party but some are in the Democratic Party as well that belong to a group called 'The Fellowship'. Author Jeff Sharlett has a book about them titled 'The Family'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)
The craziest legislation comes from the members of this organization.
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:2, Informative)
Err, no, it's not.
You sure about that? [merriam-webster.com]
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:5, Informative)
Education is your friend.
Re:Root servers located in the US would be orphane (Score:2, Informative)
That is generally a right-wing attitude, the "I love my country, but I fear my government", many vehicles that have that slogan as a sticker also have something about right to bear arms.
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that they called themselves socialist doesn't mean they were, they were fascists
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:3, Informative)
Rights are not granted, they are inherent to free people and given up by those not willing to fight for them.
Re:Due Process? (Score:2, Informative)
>>>Under President Bush, assassinations by Hellfire missile in crowded city streets was standard practice.
How on earth is this modded +1 insightful? I don't recall Bush sending any Hellfires down the streets of Baltimore or Richmond..... or ordering the assassination of US citizens abroad. I'm aware of ONE case where he held a US citizen without trial at Gitmo, but the american was let go. He was not assassinated.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No, not worse than the old boss (Score:3, Informative)
I count 6 candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008 [wikipedia.org]
Re:No, not worse than the old boss (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:2, Informative)
Nazi Germany was not at all socialist. Today's China is barely socialist. Education is your friend.
Try some education yourself; many socialist principles were employed by the Nazis during their reign. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (emphasis mine):
To rescue Germany from the effects of the Great Depression, Nazism promoted an economic Third Position; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist. The Nazis accused communism and capitalism of being associated with Jewish influences and interests. They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation...
But maybe it's just easier for you to pretend you're knowledgeable by making a completely unsupported statement with a snide remark, hoping that others are as ignorant as you and won't call you out.
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that they called themselves socialist doesn't mean they were, they were fascists
Exactly! Most people who claim Nazis were socialists because they called themselves socialists should be informed that the coalition of Marxists, Anarchists, Syndicalists, and Liberals who fought together in the Spanish Civil War called themselves...Republicans!
The left always stifles your speech (Score:3, Informative)
Conservatives are afraid you don't understand what they're talking about, liberals are afraid you do.
The 1st amendment was first for a reason, and when you start censoring anyone by fiat, and by an unelected political appointee no less, you've opened the flood gates for abuse of power. Why is it that the democrat party and the federal government no longer have a clearly defined line, but rather act in each others own best interest. For example the EPA: The EPA rules by fiat and is a political ally of the democrat party. The EPA does what it can do make sure democrats do well in the polls because the EPA - a branch of the government mind you - knows that when democrats are elected that more money and power will flow into the EPA apparatus. And that's just the EPA. All agencies in the government, unless specifically labeled 'conservative' are run by the democrat party. Many of the agencies are so large that they have taken on a life of their own and operate as a company that seeks power and glory rather than to serve the greater public good. And to that end they know that a vote for democrat is a vote to increase funding, scope and power of the federal government.
The only problem is that the government does not produce anything. All the government can do is tax people who do produce something and spend it on something else, filtering through a never-ending maze of bureaucratic red tape, nepotism and corruption and when it finally reaches its destination, only a fraction of what was taken from the taxpayer actually goes towards the problem in the first place.
No, really, I'm going somewhere with this.
I'm sure there are tons of people who want to rip holes in my argument and tell me that the EPA and the federal government aren't part of the democrat party. Whatever, you have your right to be wrong. Others will say that there is a military industrial complex that is beholden to conservatives. That's wrong too. You have privately owned defense contracting companies that actually produce something. Even if what they produce rubs you the wrong way, they are a hell of a lot more productive than the EPA. They are also private citizens and corporations of the US that are totally within their rights to lobby congress to their own best interests as it is every citizen and corporations[group of citizens] right in this country. Besides all that, Boeing isn't run by the RNC and doesn't really care who is running the country so long as they keep buying death rays from them they are happy to do business with whatever party is in the WH. I'm sure they are very happy with Obama because Obama means more sales for them. And it's hardly controlled by conservatives.
In the supreme court, the last bastion of conservatism. The two ideologies play out here with one side, the conservative side claiming to be strict constitutionalists. And the liberal side of the court is more happy to say the constitution is a living document [wikipedia.org] that can be reinterpreted from time to time as the language changes - in direct contradiction of the framers. I'm not saying that the court shouldn't revisit old decisions and undo precedent, Dred Scott v Sandford [wikipedia.org] for example. But we must adhere to some rule of law. Long ago liberals stopped adhering to the constitution and only bring it up as a weapon to strike out at their opponents with and is something to be ignored while it suits their agenda.
How can you say that the changing meanings of words in a language changes the sprit of the contract that was written long ago? When you
Re:Civil Rights For Friends Only (Score:4, Informative)
Burning Qurans is not "free speech" --- it's hate speech, and you fucking know it.
The protections of the First Amendment apply to unpopular, distasteful, and disgusting speech just as to any other. Popular speech doesn't need protection.
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:3, Informative)
They are not allowed access to mailboxes, and they lack the legal protection afforded to the post office. It is a federal crime to tamper with US Postal mail, but not FedEx.