Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Your Rights Online

SOPA and PIPA So Far 273

Posted by samzenpus
from the getting-the-scoop dept.
Since their inception SOPA and PIPA have raised concerns about blacklisting from online freedom advocates, and tech industry giants. Law professors worry that they could stifle growth and innovation. Other's have warned that the legislation would hurt scientific debate and open discourse on the internet. SOPA and PIPA are not without support however. In fact a wide variety of companies have backed the proposed laws, bringing together an eclectic group. After months of debate, the removal of one of the more controversial provisions, and The White House expressing its own concerns over the law in its current form, Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced that he was shelving SOPA. PIPA however remains, and it is likely that a re-worked version of the House bill will be brought up soon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SOPA and PIPA So Far

Comments Filter:
  • SOPA not dead (Score:5, Informative)

    by Vicarius (1093097) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @09:58AM (#38737206)
    as of yesterday SOPA was resurrected in the House [house.gov]
  • by Liam Pomfret (1737150) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @10:02AM (#38737250)
    It's going to resume in February. http://judiciary.house.gov/news/01172012.html [house.gov]
  • Re:Screenshots (Score:4, Informative)

    by jellomizer (103300) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @10:04AM (#38737286)
    Geekculture.com is blacked out too. Their version is fairly cool.
  • Wikipedia Workaround (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @10:09AM (#38737340)

    I accidentally discovered that if you disable JavaScript on Wikipedia, you don't get the blackout notice. You can browse just like normal.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @10:13AM (#38737380)

    The Hollywood studios behind these bills are some of Obama's biggest contributors. His "expression of concern" is just a pathetic attempt to play both sides of the fence. He would as soon deliver a State of the Union speech in the nude than to veto one of these bills (or anything similar).

  • by markhb (11721) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @10:33AM (#38737614) Journal

    If you aren't using script blockers, any page on English Wikipedia will come up and then immediately be replaced by a blacked-out page explaining the protest.

  • Re:Whoo! Ten Points! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nixoloco (675549) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @11:08AM (#38738062)

    Eric Cantor is Speaker of the House, and he's the one who 'tabled' SOPA yesterday, according to the stories we've been reading. The Speaker controls the House by controlling the schedule. He decides what gets floor time, and if he refuses to schedule something for a vote it can't become law.

    Small correction, Eric Cantor is House Majority Leader. The current speaker of the house is John Boehner.

  • Twitter too (Score:2, Informative)

    by biodata (1981610) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @12:13PM (#38738830)
    I hear lots of celebs use it
  • by Vectormatic (1759674) on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @02:29PM (#38740428)

    If you want to get really cynical, there is another bill up for discussion in a few months or so, PCIP (Protect Children from Internet Pornographers), whatever doesnt pass in SOPA/PIPA can just get tacked onto PCIP, and anyone who dare oppose that bill will get called a pedophile and a child porn supporter.

    Good luck with that land of the free thing guys

  • Re:2nd Amendment (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Wednesday January 18, 2012 @02:49PM (#38740640)

    As a Brazilian, I'm disgusted at how some (maybe most) Americans value and money property over life.

    You may be misunderstanding the situation to a degree, so I will expand on it a bit.

    Let's use a real-life example. A friend of mine was robbed while walking home from a party at about 2:00AM in my city. Four men jumped out of a car and held him at gunpoint. (Heading this argument off at the pass, but it just as easily could have been knives or improvised weapons such as pipes or baseball bats.) They took his wallet and his cell phone.

    Usually you'll be told to "just cooperate". You'll lose some money, maybe, but you'll be alive so long as you don't resist.

    Except my very good friend followed this advice exactly. He gave the thieves his money and phone, and they shot him in the leg for fun.

    What if they had killed him? What's to stop them? You have to understand that someone who is willing to break many laws (robbery, armed robbery, assault, etc.) would just as likely have no problem killing you if you felt like it. This is why all humans have a fundamental right to defend themselves. (Whether or not your government supports it is another thing.)

    The threat of violence acts as a deterrent when it comes to persons wishing to steal, cause harm, and/or invade your home. I think it would be overkill to just kill someone because they broke into your home (unless you are so in fear for your life that you cannot think straight), but I have absolutely zero problem harming somebody or killing them in order to defend my home and my property.

    You also forget that sometimes home invasion has nothing to do with robbery. What if someone is invading your home but they don't want to rob you?

    Britain, for example, is rife with examples of people being jailed for defending themselves. There's Munir Hussain [telegraph.co.uk] who was jailed for beating home invaders with a Cricket Bat [wikimedia.org]. They were not there to rob them but rather to injure or kill Mr. Hussain and his family because they are Muslim. Granted, he chased a man down and beat him, but I would honestly do the same if someone had threatened my family or friends with harm or death.

    So it's not about going Rambo on somebody and shooting them as soon as they step into your doorway - it's about using reasonable force. The problem is that if someone is in your house to rape your daughter/wife/etc., or they're crazy, or they're out to kill you, etc. the only reasonable response is lethal force. Kill or be killed. The other problem is that you can't really know what an intruder's intent is. The reasonable thing to do in my opinion is announce that you're armed and try to hold them for the police. If they run, let them go (depending on the situation). If they come at you, then kill them.

    In addition, I really don't get how a mostly Christian country likes death penalty and wars so much.

    Despite my strong stance on self defense, I am very serious about preservation of life. I think the death penalty can never work right - there is always a chance an innocent person can be convicted. It troubles me greatly that we as a country have yet to entirely abolish it. Thankfully, it seems to be disappearing by and large - one of the (few) points of pride about my state is that we haven't executed anyone since 1963 [wikipedia.org].

    "Mostly Christian" doesn't count for shit when it comes to violence as I'll explain below.

    "Thou shalt not kill." doesn't have exceptions I know of.

    Sure it does.

    Romans 1:32 - Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but hav

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long

Working...