House Panel Moving Forward With SOPA 206
itwbennett writes "The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a debate and vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act for later this week. Representative Lamar Smith, the committee chairman and main sponsor of the bill, will offer an amendment that is meant to address some concerns with the bill. Smith's proposed amendment would clarify that the bill applies only to foreign websites, not U.S. sites, accused of aiding copyright infringement."
Fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Mandatory Notice (Score:2, Funny)
Note also that any further discussion of Waggener Edstrom's efforts on behalf of Microsoft will be moderated to -1.
"Monitoring conversations, including those that take place with social media, is part of our daily routine; our products can be used as early warning systems, helping clients with rapid response and crisis management.
http://waggeneredstrom.com/about/approach [waggeneredstrom.com] [waggeneredstrom.com]
http://waggeneredstrom.com/clients [waggeneredstrom.com] [wagg
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, will add this info to my shill-monitoring journal entry.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
I don't know who posted this, but I will point out that who ever it was has no official relationship with Slashdot. No company or external entity has been granted any special authority to moderate discussions on Slashdot.
Re:Mandatory Notice (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that, in the event something like that happens, they won't be posting AC.
Re: (Score:3)
Shit.
In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
Take action at EFF (Score:5, Informative)
I changed the boiler plate text in the email to say the following, which I believe has more of a punch:
_____________________
I am a constituent and I urge you to reject the Internet Blacklist Bills (PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House).
In addition to the danger these bills pose to Internet security, free speech online, and innovation, I am deeply concerned by the risk that these unprecedented assaults on foreign entities will be interpreted as a provocation of war, particularly by leaders who are already hostile towards US policies, such as Putin of Russia. This will be heavily compounded as this inevitably leads to harming sites that many will view as innocent victims of this highly subjective process and clearly biased intent towards increasing corporate profits in Hollywood.
This bill will also re-enforce the image that congress is purchased and own by corporate interests.
Lastly, due to the sweeping level of censorship, this bill will popularize methods of overcoming censorship to the US, technology that is usually reserved for hardship regimes. This will certainly make it difficult for the intelligence community to find real crimes, as their chatter becomes increasingly co-mingled with mainstream on-line anti-censorship technology.
The Internet Blacklist Legislation is dangerous and short-sighted, and I urge you to join Senator Wyden and other members of Congress, such as Representatives Lofgren, Eshoo and Issa, in opposing it.
_________________
Re:Take action at EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
The 44 cents in postage I would waste would pale in comparison to the $68,000 the media industry donated to my representative last year.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand they only want that money so they can get more people to vote for them?
You writing a letter to your representative isn't going to change much. You and a few thousand other people doing it is going to make them realize that you represent a sufficiently large chunk of their constituency that they'll be losing more votes continuing to support the bill than they can buy back with the Hollywood money.
Re: (Score:3)
Never the less, I got off my ass and DID SOMETHING! You should too.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/388571_10150409971002592_700082591_8990585_787157727_n.jpg [akamaihd.net]
Re: (Score:2)
A far, far, far better method of action would be to print this out, and actually snail mail it to your representatives. Emails can be ignored, but snail mail tends to command far greater weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other countries are full of either godless heathens or socialists. Didn't you pay attention in school?
Actually, Fox News expressed doubts that Norway was a democracy. They're fair and balanced, right?
Re:In other words (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the Constitution does distinguish between "Citizens" and "Persons". Meaning that it recognizes that, on US Soil at least, everyone, regardless of nationality, is entitled to certain rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they're not subject to US law, but if the content on the site is unlawful in the US, the US would have the right to block it. At least that's the argument.
The site doesn't have to conform to US law, unless they actually want to do business in the US.
DOH! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DOH! (Score:4, Insightful)
Their are no nationality of a website on the Internet
Thus explaining why I go to so many Chinese-language websites. The truth is that there most certainly are national borders on the web and on the Internet, but the borders are not as arbitrary as the borders on a world map. Borders on the Internet are formed by the identity of groups of people, who are brought together by common cultures, common languages, common needs, etc.
Otherwise I agree, SOPA is so anti-American that any congressman who votes for it should face impeachment proceedings.
Re:DOH! (Score:5, Insightful)
Borders on the Internet are formed by the identity of groups of people, who are brought together by common cultures, common languages, common needs, etc.
As opposed to being formed by nationality. This is why me (a Brit) and you (I'm going to guess an American though you might not be and that would help prove my point) are having this conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some completly lawless places, like Freenet - but this isn't for an legal reason, but sim
Re:DOH! (Score:5, Insightful)
a website is a part of the Internet, no matter where it is hosted.
"A country is part of the world, no matter where it is situated". By your logic, different nations shouldn't exist. It's a nice idea of course, but reality kind of gets in the way.
If anything the fact that sites are not located in the US should be what makes it impossible for them to do anything - apart from create something akin to China's "Great Firewall". If they want to stop people using US owned domains then fine, but they'd better not try to start taking down .ru sites etc.
Note that I don't even agree with Copyright infringment, but neither do I agree with these clowns.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is the general idea. SOPA isn't so technologically sophisticated, but it's blocking provisions are the type of foundation a Great Firewall would need to be built upon.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything the fact that sites are not located in the US should be what makes it impossible for them to do anything - apart from create something akin to China's "Great Firewall". If they want to stop people using US owned domains then fine, but they'd better not try to start taking down .ru sites etc.
It was my impression that was largely what this was trying to do. If PiratePlace.ru or whatever was found to be an unlawful site, they would block it in the US, meaning you couldn't access it from the US. They would also block US banks and stuff from processing payments to it. I would think you'd still be able to access the site in China, or Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Then under this act they can presumably only block the non-US IPs.
2. Doesn't matter whatsoever.
3. They could revoke this.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Then under this act they can presumably only block the non-US IPs.
And if there are any US IPs, then they could go after the person who owns that domain for violating US law inside the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how long the "debate" will last....
Almost guaranteed to pass (Score:5, Insightful)
Even during an election year, when the bill before Congress gives rights to wealthy corporations and takes them away from citizens, that's a sure way to win overwhelming bipartisan support. It's one of the effects of government by bribery that we currently have.
Re:Almost guaranteed to pass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. I hope that eventually Facebook will replace the page for ever representative that sponsors this bill with a page explaining how they are unfit to serve and need to be removed from congress.
Facebook is a private company that can approve or deny users at their discretion. I would like to see the SOPA supports denied its benefits when running for office next time....
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook would sooner court those reps so they can get laws to help them treat their users (and non-users--thank you, Like button) like the shit Facebook thinks they are.
Re: (Score:2)
While I would find that amusing, I would much rather Facebook not be wielding that kind of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is why we need a Constitutional Amendment that defines "human rights" do not apply to artificial legal constructs (Corporations and other legal entities)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted that there's also a decently sized bipartisan opposition.
wtf.. (Score:3)
so only if it's outside us jurisdiction will the laws be applied? well hot damn.
it will only affect sales of .com addresses though.
Exercise your right to complain (Score:5, Insightful)
You can only complain if you've tried to make your voice heard:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/fight-blacklist-toolkit-anti-sopa-activists
How long before the Slashdot crowd... (Score:3, Insightful)
How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government and stops supporting liberals just because they're occasionally expanding an "acceptable" part of government? Give a politician an inch and they'll bend you over and give you 10. The only way to remain free is to slap down anything they don't have the authority to do. If we really need it, then we need an amendment saying so. Otherwise, make them stick to the enumerated powers and made them side with freedom over lobbyist bribes.
Also, when your favorite politician is advocating some new expansion of government power, ask yourself if you'll be so happy when this new power is wielded by the other side. Listen to our Founding Fathers: the only way to be free is not tempt men with power. Historically, government is an oppressor and everything it does should be treated with suspicion or you deserve what you get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... (Score:5, Insightful)
How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd ... stops supporting liberals
You fail. Lamar Smith, the sponsor of this bill is a conservative. The truth is that both liberal and conservative congressional members routinely support draconian copyright laws that give huge amounts of power to large corporations. Snap out of the "small government" brainwashing and realize that the real fight is between those who want to give unlimited power to corporations, who make up almost the entirety of the Republican party plus a good amount of the Democratic party, and those who support protecting consumers from predatory behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and those who support protecting consumers from predatory behavior.
There's really no such thing anymore. Yes, USDA inspections of meat packing factories was once sorely needed. But there hasn't been a single bit of legislation in the last 50 years termed "consumer protection" that was anything but a rule eliminating some consumer choice.
Re: (Score:2)
You fail. Lamar Smith, the sponsor of this bill is a conservative.
According to who? He's a Republican, but there are lots of Republicans that are far from conservative. "Heritage Action" only gives him a 56% conservative rating [netarrantteaparty.com].
I don't really pay attention to party much anyway. To me, you judge a politician only on whether he is working for more government and corporate power or defending liberty for the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smith's liberal; just the wrong sort of liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government and stops supporting liberals just because they're occasionally expanding an "acceptable" part of government? Give a politician an inch and they'll bend you over and give you 10. The only way to remain free is to slap down anything they don't have the authority to do. If we really need it, then we need an amendment saying so. Otherwise, make them stick to the enumerated powers and made them side with freedom over lobbyist bribes.
Also, when your favorite politician is advocating some new expansion of government power, ask yourself if you'll be so happy when this new power is wielded by the other side. Listen to our Founding Fathers: the only way to be free is not tempt men with power. Historically, government is an oppressor and everything it does should be treated with suspicion or you deserve what you get.
You make it sound like only liberals expand government.
If Ron Paul and the other politicians pretending not to be 'just another republican' get their way then government will be made smaller, perhaps, but it will only be the 'liberal' (aka democrat) programs that get cut. Republican programs will be untouched or expanded.
So long as politicians are owned by big money, there will be no fundamental change in the way things work in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
So I should instead support conservatives that expand governments power to spy and detain citizens and gut the separation of church and state?
I don't see either side as having clean hands when it comes to respecting the constraints imposed on them by the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to suggest that any of the GOP members of my state's congressional delegation are any less Hollywood's bitch? Or less inclined to engage in "social meddling"?
I think you should watch less Fox News.
Re: (Score:2)
"Historically, government is an oppressor and everything it does should be treated with suspicion or you deserve what you get."
Read up on the East India Company. And before telling me it was government-connected, think about how much of a difference that made in how it operated or to t
New Income Tax Plan . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
"I think we should tax the incomes of foreigners living and working abroad!"
That should go down well with domestic voters . . .
Re: (Score:3)
The great irony here is that the United States is the only country in the world that DOES this.
All US Citizens, regardless of where they live, what other citizenships they hold or what they are doing... are required to pay income tax to the US on all income, worldwide.
If you are a US Citizen and you move away. If you live in France or China for the REST of your life, you owe Uncle Sam a tax return every year. If you ever set foot in the US again, after living abroad for years, you may be arrested for tax
Land of the Free (Score:2)
My shiny backside!
Reminds me of Monty Python (Score:2)
When some politician firmly stated:
"We will tax all foreigners living abroad!"
http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/Taxing.html [umn.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Better than their proposed tax on thingy [youtube.com] (not quite SFW)
What worries me most. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know what worries me most, that politicians in America really believe this is good for the country, or that politicians in America are so deep in the pockets of the corporations to push this through.
Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
You just have to look at what has already happened without SOPA - abuse of DCMA for the purpose of censorship by private corporations, takedowns of legitimate websites taking a year for the owners to get them back, presumption of guilt with no recourse to defend oneself, subversion of DNS etc. Roll your eyes as much as you want, but there is real reasons behind what you refer to as FUD.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's really no other way to take down access to foreign owned piracy exclusive sites. And there really does need to be a way to take sites like this down
Sorry, but your basic premise is wrong. There does NOT need to be a way to "take sites like this down", if in fact you could accomplish that in any meaningful way. It's the same basic flaw in any argument for censorship - the idea that if you remove people's access to something you think is undesirable, that it solves the problem. Really, the problem is your own: that you think that the thing you want to censor is undesirable/wrong.
c'mon America (Score:2)
Use ACLU to alert your Representatives (Score:4, Informative)
That will take you to a blog post about SOPA and ACLU's opposition to it. The last link in the article is a link to a form where you fill in the blanks and it will send off a letter to your representatives. It is one of the easiest ways to contact your representatives about your concerns. Forget your feelings about the ACLU or other such crap. This bill/legislation/power-grab needs to be stopped, and it is your duty as an American to let your representatives know that you oppose it.
Move to darknet (Score:2)
Move to one of many darknets and say goodbye to government regulation of, by, and for the big corporations. I'm not a big corporation, so the government should have no interaction with me... if only it worked that way...
Personally, in my infinite spare time, I'm working (slowly) on a openvpn and quagga based exclusively ipv6 darknet. Don't peer with me, peer with someone already there, preferably far away from your home. An independent project is resurrecting ye olde usenet with a twist... all "peering"
Full page ad in The Wall Street Jounal (Score:5, Informative)
Full page ad in The Wall Street Journal for the passage of PROTECT IP and SOPA to "protect American jobs" signed by
ABC, AFTRA - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFM - American Federation of Musicians, AAP - American Association of Publishers, ASCAP, BMG Chrysalis, BMI, CBS Corporation, Cengage Learning, DGA - Directors guild of America, Disney Publishing Worldwide, EMI Music Publishing, ESPN, Graphic Artists Guild, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Hyperion, IATSE - International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States its Territories and Canada International Brotherhood of Teamsters (WTF), Kaufman Astoria Studios, Macmillan, Major League Baseball, Marvel Entertainment LLC, Mcgraw-Hill Education, MPA - The Association of Magazine Media, NFL - National Football League, National Music Publishers' Association, NBCUniversal, News Corporation, New York Production Alliance, New York State AFL-CIO, Pearson Education, Penguin Group (USA) Inc., The Perseus Books Group, Producers Guild of America East, Random House, Reed Elsevier, SAG - Screen Actors Guild, Scholastic, Inc., Silvercup Studios, Simon & Schuster, Inc., Sony Music Entertainment, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Time Warner Inc., United States Tennis Association, Universal Music Group, Universal Music Publishing Group, Viacom, Warner Music Group, W.W. Norton & Company, Wolters Kluwer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find any info on that ad (if it exists). That said, should large media conglomerates [wikipedia.org] be allowed to list multiple subsidiaries as supporters of measures in political ads like that? (This is just one of many problems with that sort of ad, but one I quickly noticed.)
SOPA violoates the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
Natural laws of the internet (Score:2)
Copying can not be legislated on the internet. Period. Put the laws in place if you like, but it is meaningless. The RIAA and MPAA missed it, but the power has already passed from them to the audience. No longer can they dictate release windows (theatrical, DVD, VOD, etc.) or decided which version are public and which are not (bootlegs, old seasons of TV shows, special 'limited' editions).
Simply put there is no argument that wins, it is now a physical law of the internet. The only way forward that is actua
Do you have to do more than find a foreign DNS? (Score:2)
It looks like this bill just forces ISPs to change their DNS information to not have sites in it. As horrible as that is (and it IS ridiculous), what would stop people from using 206.47.244.61/206.47.244.103 (Those are from Toronto via a quick Google look up. They're perhaps not the best ones available, but it's the kind of thing that you can search for.) or something at which point the Internet is exactly the same? Am I missing something?
Re:Just another provocation of war (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, all that will happen is that the US has built exactly what they've been decrying about the Chinese Internet for so long - only the US will be blocked from accessing those sites and they'll carry on being hosted in foreign countries just as before. It's a "Great Firewall of US" instead, that's all. And the feature creep from piracy to other undesirable things is *exactly* what the Chinese do to block sites that disagree with their regime (up to and including Google for mentioning democracy, for example). And who manages those lists? And how hard would it be to put Wikileaks on it, or any site that discloses "secret" details of Guantanamo Bay etc.?
You still won't be able to shut down anything operating outside the US (hosting, domains, or internet access) and it will still carry on regardless, just that the US won't easily "see" it. It's an all-ways-lose for the US, really, trying to box its citizens off from the real world like China does.
The US "pirates" won't suffer (they'll just download from somewhere else, or find a way to join the same downloads bypassing the filters, or buy a VPN in China with Bitcoins), the non-US "pirates" won't suffer at all, the "pirate" sites will lose a few users but also a whole lot of hassle (if the US people can't see the sites like AllOfMP3 that worked by having Russian music-industry licenses anyway, then what's to sue over?) and also still can't be brought to stand in court in the US unless something very serious has been done and they are extradited, and the music/movie industries get the law they've always wanted (and still there'll be no change to overall piracy levels).
The burden of complying will push content providers out of the US (because now they HAVE to filter everything and Google already fled China once because of the cost of that) and that would include everything from international ad networks to search engines to payment methods (you think Paypal.com would be affected if Paypal's EU bank was doing business with SOPA "offenders"? They'd either partition the company, or just stop trading in one or the other, both options of which hurt the business and customer).
And eventually, someone will realise that they can't go onto site X because it's been added to the list and has nothing to do with piracy (e.g. like the Australian filter list did, where perfectly innocent businesses were filtered for no reason), and that the movie/music industry are STILL claiming the same levels of piracy (so the law did nothing) - like they are in New Zealand at the moment - and that they have similar human rights as regards accessing an Internet as the Chinese do. And then it'll make the news one day, get blown out of all proportion, get thoroughly revoked and never mentioned again and people will carry on their lives.
I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
Re:Just another provocation of war (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
I don't know where you've been, but this seems like hyperbole to me. What countries have you been to that are so much more "free" than the USA, and what freedoms do you have in them that you don't have in the USA?
Re:Just another provocation of war (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just another provocation of war (Score:5, Informative)
I have two words for you: Scope Creep.
Once the government has access to something, they kind of try and stretch that authority to fill other perceived needs. Sounds like a slippery slope argument to me, but unfortunately, history seems to have vetted this one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't want to give the government anymore power than they have now.
Let me ask you: why do they need this power? If they show a website to be dedicated to offering copyrighted material for download, then can't they already ask a judge to take it down/seize the domain (right now they're just taking them away without any oversight)? What more power do they need? Seriously.
What it's going to allow them to do is take down access to sites like The Pirate Bay that are "dedicated" (this word appears a lot in the wikipedia article) to copyright infringement.
They're humans, not saints. Mistakes happen. Sometimes they're corrupt.
Re:Just another provocation of war (Score:5, Insightful)
So even if the law is well intentioned and billed as being used only against dedicated sites, it can and will be abused due to its low barrier of review and high barrier for defense.
Re:Just another provocation of war (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just another provocation of war (Score:5, Informative)
The definition of "dedicated" is up to interpretation. Already under the "Operation In Our Sites" that ICE is performing, many legitimate websites have been caught in the crossfire while being claimed as "dedicated" to copyright infringement. Several were accused of copyright infringement and had their websites taken down, only to find out that the videos were given to them by the copyright owners as promotional material.
We don't give the government right to take down a website without due process, no matter what. Not only that, but even The Pirate Bay has some legitimate, non-infringing content on it.
The government and big-business do not get to decide what is and is not allowed to be accessed. If the law is being broken, then charge or sue the people who are breaking the law, that is it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is, you cannot guarantee that. And the second you give the US the power to take down any sites, you've given them the power to take down all sites.
There is absolutely no justification, nor any reason whatsoever, that the US should be involved in blocking access to any site whatsoever. Allowing them to do so only increases the possibility of abuse by government for the purposes of censorship.
Re:Just another provocation of war (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
I don't know where you've been, but this seems like hyperbole to me. What countries have you been to that are so much more "free" than the USA, and what freedoms do you have in them that you don't have in the USA?
Most of Europe for instance. ;)
Re:Just another provocation of war (Score:4, Informative)
What a load of tripe (Score:2, Insightful)
Banks won't let you hide your face and Health and Safety require cleanliness in the clothing for caterers. Both require that some religious clothes are not allowed.
Whereas the USA has Free Speech Zones.
You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
And in many states in the USA you have a lot of hassle to try (and fail) to carry firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
Banks won't let you hide your face and Health and Safety require cleanliness in the clothing for caterers. Both require that some religious clothes are not allowed.
How about the full Burqua in France?
Whereas the USA has Free Speech Zones.
Of course there are free speech zones. How else could you do it? You can't simply allow people to demonstrate and protest wherever they want... My right to free speech doesn't mean I can stand in the middle of the Holland tunnel and giving a speech (and thereby prevent everyone else from getting to their jobs in New York City).
You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
I'll agree that the do-not-fly list is a rather messed up thing, mainly because it seems to have an utter lack of oversight. But again, hyperbol
Re: (Score:2)
My right to free speech doesn't mean I can stand in the middle of the Holland tunnel and giving a speech (and thereby prevent everyone else from getting to their jobs in New York City).
Blocking traffic is not speech. But you sure as hell ought to be allowed to stand on the side of (not in) the road holding a sign so that passing motorists can read it. Or do the same outside of some corrupt politician's event in a way that your signs have some hope of making it into the media coverage, instead of being corralled into some fenced area where you can be conveniently ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
Is not a sovereign country permitted to decide who they want to allow to come inside?
And you don't think Europe has similar provisions? If you don't, why not ask Fred Phelps what a wonderful time he had in the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech is somewhat restricted in most European countries.
And what are you going to accomplish with your freedom of speech if you don't own a media empire? Censorship is never directed against disseminating information (this is what secrecy is for), it's used against editorials and placing information in "trustworthy" sources.
Re: (Score:2)
And what are you going to accomplish with your freedom of speech if you don't own a media empire?
There is no "right to have other people listen to you".
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why freedom of speech is worthless without access to mass media.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't, because the value of freedom of speech is not measured by how many people you can convince to agree with you.
What other value can it possibly have? Freedom of speech only applies to public speech, so the purpose of freedom of speech is dissemination of ideas, in other words, access to propaganda.
By your logic, freedom of speech is also "worthless" for the unpopular.
If they can't use freedom of speech to make their ideas popular -- of course!
Re: (Score:2)
What other value can it possibly have?
Would you rather not be able to disseminate these ideas at all? I'd far rather have the right to post my video on the internet and have it ignored than to not be able to post it at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone considers the right to carry lethal weapons so sacred.
But many people know better [jpfo.org].
Re:Just another provocation of war (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I'm feeling your angst, but your arguments make little sense. First, SOPA isn't law. It hasn't gotten through committee, let alone gotten to the full House, let alone been passed by both houses and signed into law. There's lots of objections to this law, many from some heavy hitters with lots of lobbyists. Its passage is far from assured. You've setup a large series of events in your prediction, but the first stone hasn't even been cast.
Your assertions that the US is least "free" pace you've ever been indicates a serious lack of travel (I've been to far worse places). Much also depends on how you define "free". For instance: I love Germany. I've been there twice, enjoyed the Hell out it, think the health care system is great, find their attitude on things like sex, food, drink, and body image refreshing. It's also very clearly a "free" country by most reasonable definitions of the word. On the other hand, they have some severe restrictions on certain areas of speech. You practically can't mentions Nazis (I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much). Weapons laws are much more restrictive than in the US (Not a big deal for me, but I have friends who would find this onerous). I also recall a recent article about the German Government installing spyware on people's computers as they cross the border.
Is Germany "more free" than the US? In some ways yes, in some ways no. The thing is, as Americans, we see the problems in our system much more prominently. To an extent, due to the influence of the US on world politics, even non-Americans see those problems more prominently. I'm not saying that the US is the best place to live on Earth; I haven't been everywhere for one thing, and I can't deny that I wouldn't mind living in Europe or Canada for a time at least. On the other hand the US is hardly an awful place to live. There are far far less free places out there, and far far worse situations to be in. Of course, we should fight things like this wherever we can to maintain (or even improve) that situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Germany require you to register with their government before you visit?
If you are not a citizen of their meta-country (the EU), they do. The only reason you think they don't is because you don't realize that they consider your country to be part of theirs. Germany is a state in the EU the same way that California is a state in the USA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)