11/30/2011 11:50am, #11
Maybe the best route for all is to read the bill and send SUGGESTIONS to your representative, daddykata.
That is how a representative democracy is supposed to work.
If you want to Just Say No to everything, the Republicans need fresh blood.
11/30/2011 11:55am, #12
Thanks, another example of the failure I'm talking about. I'd rather say no to everything than deal with a clustefuck like the war on drugs that America lost.
Who ended up getting hurt by the Drug Kingpin laws? Low level people and regular citizens.
11/30/2011 12:11pm, #13
The thing I don't like first of all is that they can shut down a site, and then you have to fight to have it put back up. How is that innocent until proven guilty?
Another thing is that this may have good intentions to be used to stop companies from selling fake viagra(or whatever), but it will inevitally make it tougher on smaller sites and companies.
I personally don't like the fact that the government thinks that it has to regulate everything. That we can't make decisions for our selves. People sometimes need to face the consequences of our actions and don't need the government to protect us from ourselves.
Also, I like the one year thing. After one year we will:shall conduct a study and report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
11/30/2011 12:18pm, #14
Regulation, no, this is a criminal problem that is already costing the American economy quite a lot.
Funny, but there is nothing in this law about regulating speech or YOUR content whatsoever, but specifically allows the DOJ authorities if they believe you are violating the law involving OTHER people's content.
Wait...the DOJ believes you are violating the law? Then you have much bigger problems than Protect IP and SOPA, my friend.
I still don't see the point of crying fire about censorship, the purpose of this law is to go after criminals overseas by allowing action against them domestically, something that can already be done to some extent.
In the absence of laws like this it is very difficult to protect American consumers from overseas threats online, and they are legion.
Last edited by W. Rabbit; 11/30/2011 12:23pm at .
11/30/2011 12:36pm, #15
11/30/2011 12:38pm, #16
You need to step back, consider how internet peering works, and in that context what power the DOJ would have under this legislation over domestic providers and how that would limit your access to overseas content from Illinois.
Considering the amount of overseas internet content that poses both direct and indirect threats to you and the US economy, personally I think you might just reconsider if you are smart.
Last edited by W. Rabbit; 11/30/2011 12:45pm at .
11/30/2011 12:44pm, #17
11/30/2011 12:49pm, #18
So if you think I'm doing something wrong, come to me, ask me to justify my actions. Then if I can't, take down my site. Don't just take down my site, and then make me have to jump through beurocratic red tape to get it back up. In the mean time I lose money and have to spend more money to fight about it.
11/30/2011 12:49pm, #19
11/30/2011 12:50pm, #20
The target here is generally foreign servers - the US Government cannot go after foreign servers directly, so these bills were written to give them a way to go after foreign servers by granting immunity to US servers and services who "play along," with their little blacklist. IiF said it right, that is just plain coercion, and it's not the offshore piracy sites that would be getting shut down - it's the US sites that link to the foreign piracy sites that would be getting shut down. The action taken will be taken against Americans.
Now, the mods and staff of Bullshido do a fantastic job of policing the site content based on Bullshido's (and google's) policies. Those policies are by choice of the parties involved.
SOPA and Protect IP introduce a content policy that is not by choice of the parties involved, it is by coercion. The scope of what constitutes infringing content is not defined in any way that could be considered narrow enough to not have a chilling effect on free speech. Essentially, this leaves it up the the Department of Justice to choose which content is infringing and which is not. If you don't understand how that is censorship, then I cannot help you.