All Americans: Where's your First Amendment now??? (102)
Good point. I read the Huffington Post on-line. Some of the video links are being blocked to readers outside of the US.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I guess if they spend all their time censoring us on the internet, then they won't have the time to screw up the country anymore. 
------ This thread is Archived ------
ladyfingers: I guess if they spend all their time censoring us on the internet, then they won't have the time to screw up the country anymore.
LOL! Either that or they'll work overtime to do it. OH... wait.... they're government employees. Nevermind the working over time brain fart.
Excellent point!
------ This thread is Archived ------
paws4: Good point. I read the Huffington Post on-line. Some of the video links are being blocked to readers outside of the US.
It's started already then.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ladyfingers: I guess if they spend all their time censoring us on the internet, then they won't have the time to screw up the country anymore.
What is driving these politicans. There are huge implications at risk, so my question is:
Where has the voice of the people gone?
------ This thread is Archived ------
paws4: Good point. I read the Huffington Post on-line. Some of the video links are being blocked to readers outside of the US.
Who are the Owners of those Videos?Is Huffington doing it?
If not,who is doing the blocking?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Who are the Owners of those Videos?Is Huffington doing it?
If not,who is doing the blocking?
If not,who is doing the blocking?
Natinol Policy think tanks
Homeland Security
Source out security firms ( like Blackwater or)
Useful idiots ( media, news, company- who know
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Who are the Owners of those Videos?Is Huffington doing it?
If not,who is doing the blocking?
You might need to Update your Flashplayer,Paws!Or enable JAVA in your Computer,possibly both.If not,who is doing the blocking?
I just checked,had no problems playing Vids there.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Vetri32: Natinol Policy think tanks
Homeland Security
Source out security firms ( like Blackwater or)
Useful idiots ( media, news, company- who know
Or maybe just simply Copyrighted Material!Homeland Security
Source out security firms ( like Blackwater or)
Useful idiots ( media, news, company- who know
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Or maybe just simply Copyrighted Material!
Conrad, you're getting 'stuck' on a red herring here.
Move on from the possible reason for paws' youtube access glitch or otherwise.......
So, getting back on track, what do you think of the internet censoring issue in front of the U.S. Senate?
------ This thread is Archived ------
venere08: Conrad, you're getting 'stuck' on a red herring here.
Move on from the possible reason for paws' youtube access glitch or otherwise.......
So, getting back on track, what do you think of the internet censoring issue in front of the U.S. Senate?
Not talking about YouTube!Move on from the possible reason for paws' youtube access glitch or otherwise.......
So, getting back on track, what do you think of the internet censoring issue in front of the U.S. Senate?
United States Supreme Court!
------ This thread is Archived ------
venere08: What is driving these politicans. There are huge implications at risk, so my question is:Where has the voice of the people gone?
the voice of the people left politics from the very start. congress has always been for those that contribute to their re-election.
a great example of government giving the big middle finger to the american people is the Patriot Act. it violates so many of the civil liberties that are garanteed to us by the constitution that it's hard to phathom how the hell it got passed (the second version actually gives the governement MORE power).
OP, they are slick in that they will do it under the guise of national security/defense. And the American people will eat it up without second thought.
Trust me some of us are stuck here. If I could afford to leave, I would have been gone ALONG time ago.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Not talking about YouTube!
United States Supreme Court!
we need more dems on court bench lol.United States Supreme Court!
------ This thread is Archived ------
SEC. 2. INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES.
Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities
‘(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site--
‘(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section 2323; or
‘(2) is--
‘(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--
‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or
‘(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and
------ This thread is Archived ------
Does any think that the FED net crack down might be on Islamic Jhadist websites?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Steve5721: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804SEC. 2. INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES.
Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities
‘(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site--
‘(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section 2323; or
‘(2) is--
‘(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--
‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or
‘(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and
Filesharing will Miraculously stop!Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities
‘(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site--
‘(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section 2323; or
‘(2) is--
‘(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--
‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or
‘(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and
------ This thread is Archived ------
ladyfingers: I guess if they spend all their time censoring us on the internet, then they won't have the time to screw up the country anymore.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Who are the Owners of those Videos?Is Huffington doing it?
If not,who is doing the blocking?
If not,who is doing the blocking?
No I think sometimes they use HULU... which is only in the US, never had a problem myself so far, as they mostly use the bigger news carriers own video... some other sites heavily use this HULU tho... bit rude I think.. as if the rest of us don't exist and sooo against the spirit of the world wide web.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Who are the Owners of those Videos?Is Huffington doing it?
If not,who is doing the blocking?
If not,who is doing the blocking?
No I think sometimes they use HULU... which is only in the US, never had a problem myself so far, as they mostly use the bigger news carriers own video... some other sites heavily use this HULU tho... bit rude I think.. as if the rest of us don't exist and sooo against the spirit of the world wide web.
In case folks want to sign the petition it's here:
let's keep it real------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Why is this shameful?
Kultur-multur
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
beauty of the heart
What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
The Real Stormy Story
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
4,080 Views
101 Comments
Created: Oct 2010
Last Viewed: Apr 24
Last Commented: Nov 2010
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Why is this shameful?
- Kultur-multur
- Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
- beauty of the heart
- What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
- The Real Stormy Story
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
- One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
Below is a recent article from the Huffington Post:
So what is being done about this? If this Bill is passed by the Senate, the U.S. will yet again affect the entire bloomin globe, not just their own backyard! Hasn't the Senate got better things to do?????
By David Segal and Aaron Swartz
When it really matters to them, Congressmembers can come together -- with a panache and wry wit you didn't know they had. As banned books week gets underway, and President Obama admonishes oppressive regimes for their censorship of the Internet, a group of powerful Senators -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- have signed onto a bill that would vastly expand the government's power to censor the Internet.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced just one week ago, but it's greased and ready to move, with a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.
Help us stop this bill in its tracks! Click here to sign our petition.
COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.
The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.
One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.
But if COICA passes, Viacom wouldn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down -- as long as they can persuade the courts that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, the whole site could be censored.
Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn't get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.)
COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet -- and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship. Please help us fight back: The first step is signing our petition. We'll give you the tools to share it with your friends and call your Senator.