I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: Ladystardust24 on January 18, 2012, 09:27:25 AM
-
As many of you may be aware there has been a frenzy about the bills "PIPA" and "SOPA"
This is government censorship at it's best.
Now, I had someone ask me "Well, I don't go to "those" sites, why should I care?"
Allowing our government to control what content is "good" for us and what is not? How could that possibly be okay?
These bills do not just apply to say Wikipedia, they apply to ALL of the internet. Even our own site.
If we allow this bill to pass, we're basically saying to our government "We are not people. We are not to be trusted with our own ability to control ourselves. Please choose the content we see. "
If you cannot imagine how this bill would effect you personally think of this:
Why was this site created?
To allow patients say what we had to say. To not be silenced on other sites. Have our say. Right or wrong, we have an ability here to say how we feel.
Think of how would you feel if this site was blocked from you.
I suggest everyone look up/ Google "SOPA" and "PIPA" to find out more.
(Also, if you go to Google, their logo is blacked out, and they themselves explain the bill)
https://www.google.com/ (https://www.google.com/)
http://protestsopa.org/ (http://protestsopa.org/)
As Mr.Benjamin Franklin said
"give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty"
-
These bills remind me of China and North Korea. Don't they censor what their citizens can see and do on the internet? I thought the USA was against communism?
And yes, LadyStardust24 has a point. There are companies that would probably love to shut a site like ours down. We NEED to have our freedom to view the information we seek on the internet. Isn't that what it's all about???
KarenInWA
-
Sorry - but I don't see where (reading the summaries) it states sites like this one will or could be shut down. I read it is aimed at hackers and those sites that want to infringe on valid sites or to sell stuff they don't own the rights to. It also takes a court order for actions to be taken. I would hope that our justice dept. is noble enough to see right from wrong. It reminds me of search warrents. The police or authorities just can't come bust down your down with out a judge determining that there is valid cause.
While I don't wish our Government to take over our lives, I would expect them to protect me and my family. Just my thoughts - OK I have my fire suit on.... Grumpy
-
I just read where obama refused to sign it.
-
Sorry - but I don't see where (reading the summaries) it states sites like this one will or could be shut down. I read it is aimed at hackers and those sites that want to infringe on valid sites or to sell stuff they don't own the rights to. It also takes a court order for actions to be taken. I would hope that our justice dept. is noble enough to see right from wrong. It reminds me of search warrents. The police or authorities just can't come bust down your down with out a judge determining that there is valid cause.
In theory, the laws were aimed at stopping internet piracy and offered net protection against copyright violations. These are good ideas, but the implementation was the problem. The laws were very broadly written and put all the burden of proof on the accused. Whenever anyone claimed in court that a website was showing copyrighted material, the complaining party could get an injunction that would shut the entire sight down until the matter came to trial, not just require that the site remove the copyright material. The burden of proof would be on the website to prove in court that the material was not copyrighted or somehow violated copyright laws.
IHD could get shut down with one small complaint about an article copied from a medical journal without adequate source links, or by a single complaint about one of the pictures we have posted on any of the humor threads. Wikipedia wouldn't stand a chance - every line that is followed by a "Needs Source" notation would be an open invitation to its own destruction. Etsy, ebay, and Craigs list would all fall, due to pictures or descriptions of items offered for resale that included phrases or images used by the original companies. Youtube wouldn't last more than a few seconds. Pinterest would vanish just as fast. All of these sites would need to hire a staff to carefully examine every post currently on or newly submitted for any possible copyright violation. It would simply not be possible to keep these sites up and running under the laws.
-
Well said LSD!!!! :2thumbsup; :bow;
-
Its a huge deal- and it has been supported by both democrats and republicans, some of whom are backing off their support. Obama has said he will veto- I hope he does if it gets that far.
-
Censorship of most anything is offensive to me. Adults should have the ability to choose what they view and read, etc, etc. And parents are the ones most responsible for 'censoring' what their children view and see. I resent any government intrusion into individual rights (and I can go to my 'RANT' thread about this as well .... but it also really bothers me when (on other message boards) people enter a thread to complain about the topic, etc ... if you see a subject line or content you don't like...... SKIP IT .... JUST DON'T GO THERE !! Why take the time to make a random whiny comment ?? Which by the way .... BUMPS UP THE THREAD so that other people can read it Ignore the thread and it won't stay to the top of the board !!)
-
Sorry - but I don't see where (reading the summaries) it states sites like this one will or could be shut down. I read it is aimed at hackers and those sites that want to infringe on valid sites or to sell stuff they don't own the rights to. It also takes a court order for actions to be taken. I would hope that our justice dept. is noble enough to see right from wrong. It reminds me of search warrents. The police or authorities just can't come bust down your down with out a judge determining that there is valid cause.
While I don't wish our Government to take over our lives, I would expect them to protect me and my family. Just my thoughts - OK I have my fire suit on.... Grumpy
Just so we're clear, as others had pointed out. ANY kind of content (Someecards,LOLcats,comics,medical journals,news articles...ect) that we post on the site, could be a reason to shut this site off. And, same goes for the ones they had posted. Facebook,Youtube.. anything.
Also, so I can clarify up the term "Hackers" that due to say stereotype can get a "bad rep". Not sure if you have ever heard of "Anonymous". It is a group of "Hackers" Who are complied of "every day people" anyone could be part of Anonymous and you would not know it.
To explain Anonymous: Recently a very large internet child pornography ring was busted, thanks to Anonymous. I cannot say I agree with everything, every hacker has done. And I personally enjoyed it because it's a a puzzle to be solved. Not do break, not to do anything to just challenge myself.
That being said. I still do not reallyy agree with piracy.
But, I must say, one big thing I stand by and even have a shirt "F**K CENSORSHIP". I'm an adult. I make a decision what I am capable of viewing. When I was younger, my dad had iron clad controls on the internet, and even with that. When I somehow stumbled onto perhaps the NSFW things, as we discussed, he told me: "I looked at what you were looking at, I figured you were of a certain age, and your maturity. And realized, it's not so horrible to let you explore. Had I felt it was not okay, I would have blocked it." I couldn't watch many Rated R movies until I turned the age of 17. (Unless my parents thought it was a valid reason, like a good movie. Documentaries for the most part were free game.) I attribute all this to the reason I'm not HUGE into raunchy films. Why I prefer docs to other stuff. But, as a grown up, I now make my own choices on what content I view.
I would not be okay with as an adult being told what is or is not safe for me.
And, I do not trust or have faith into our government.
I don't trust it due to seeing people denied medication they need, healthcare they need to live.
I don't trust it when a policeman who gets payed with my taxes tells me to "go back to Mexico". Or "If you're a Jew, why are you not in Israel?".
When being told "Back in my day, "reds" like yourself would have been already thrown in jail". I don't enjoy knowing speaking out about my opinions might get me thrown in jail, might get me peppered sprayed. I don't enjoy when I speak in my families native tongue being told to speak "American/English" because I'm not in another country. That what I have to say is not valid because I don't own a Business empire worth Billions.
(Just to clear up: Yes, I consider myself an Anarchist. But, that being said. Anarchy, itself, is a bit far too idealistic. At least as many see it. But, by saying so. I do not trust government. I also don't fully trust humans to be able to dicate themselves. I believe in letting my government know that "No. You are NOT listening to your people. You are not speaking for the majority. So no. I will not trust everything you say, just because you are government. You are still humans. Humans capable of mistakes, ignorance. Wrongdoing. I will not treat you any differently than any other human that had done wrong.)
I will like I have done since the age of 18 vote. I am neither a registered democrate nor republican. I am registered as "independent". So they will have to prove "why" I should vote. Not just blindly get my majority vote.
-
LadyStardust
Thanks for your reply and feelings. I respect all you say. I too am not in favor of censorship and especially Government censorship. Government has enough to do already. "Hackers" is a general term - I agree. but most folks define it as the bad guys. Even the Gov has "hackers" that work to find and take down the bad guys.
I do have one question for you You call me a "RED" define that please.
Someone here had said this and I agree - that the law is very broad and the impletation is always the hard part. But, for me I have to trust government and government officials to do the right thing. If I can't trust people then I will be come paranoid about everything. And a paranoid person is a dangerous person.
Grumpy
-
@Grumpy-1
Thank you, I do understand you. We must all maintain SOME trust. (Hence why I vote, I speak out.) going to washington about health bills, I was able to be RIGHT there, speaking to the people representing me. I have seen the difference it makes when they DO listen. But, sadly, there are times, when such times, when I have peacefully spoke up against things I disgree with. And my government felt it was okay to allow people to get hurt. To do their best to shut us up.
When I was told that comment, he meant it in the term of me being Russian-Jewish. I am first generation here. I was with my parents. Who have a thick Russian Accent (Actually, my town is very populated with Soviet immigrants. And perhaps this person was bothered by this)
The policeman didn't like something, and decided to throw his commentary of how "Reds" (At the time referring to "Red" as in "Communists") would have already put in jail (As the person was older and endured the "cold war")
-
LadyStardust
Thanks for the reply. First let me say that I think we are on the same side with this issue. If I were voting on this bill, I would not support it. for these reasons:
1) we don't need more laws. There are enough already to keep the internet safe (as much as possible)
2) the law as written is too vague. As are most laws now days. While the intent is good, the enforcement would be hard to do and it leaves too much to interpretation. Opening the door to misuse...
3) there was a third, but I'll be danged if I can remember it now.
BUT going back to my original statement, the summaries, I read, have the check and balance of the courts. While it could be misused, it still doesn't say that someone can shutdown a website, just because they don't like the contents. It will take a court order for that to happen.
Grumpy