MUST READ! The "Child Online Protection Act" and how it could end the internet as we know it, and why Bart could actually go to PRISON over it! (4061 hits)
Category: Computers & InternetLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Essays
Rating: 0.15 on 185 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-03-16 02:50:48 EST
Could Bart Cilfone go to PRISON?
I know this is long, but please bear with me. I promise it'll be worth your time.
In my last post I talked about (rather satirically, I might add) my utter disdain for the Department of Justice for its subpoena of Google and the other major online search engine's databases of what users were searching for while online.
I must admit that post was a bit of an emotional rush to judgement on my part, because the REALITY of the situation is MUCH worse than I thought.
A little more digging into WHY the DOJ is subpoenaing this information has lead me to a Congressional act and a court battle of which I was previously completely unaware.
I will reveal the true motives of the Department of Justice's subpoena and why this COULD spell the end of ubersite, and indeed the internet itself as we know it!
Please pay attention because this is important for ALL OF US...
The real reason for the subpoena is the DOJ's attempted revival of a 1998 Congressional Act called the "Child Online Protection Act" or (COPA).
A little history of the act.... The original act was designed, as you will see, to restrict "offensive" material from being viewed by minors online. The ACLU has, thankfully, managed to tie the act up in litigation citing (rightly so) that the act restricts the communications and free speech of adults by offering a clear defense to those who require their users to pay for entry with a credit card, because child pornography and speech used to lure or entice minors into sexually explicit acts is already illegal under existing law, and because the internet's very nature as the largest single entity of free speech and free learning resources available would be jeopardized under the statute.
(God bless the ACLU!)
The following is a summary of the act itself, the complete text of which can be found here: http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html
``(1) Prohibited conduct.--Whoever knowingly and with
knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or
foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any
communication for commercial purposes that is available to
any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to
minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not
more than 6 months, or both.
``(2) Intentional violations.--In addition to the penalties
under paragraph (1), whoever intentionally violates such
paragraph shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000
for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day
of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
``(3) Civil penalty.--In addition to the penalties under
paragraphs (1) and (2), whoever violates paragraph (1) shall
be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for
each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of
violation shall constitute a separate violation.
This section outlays what constitutes a violation of the statute, which is essentially: making a communication available for commercial purposes that is available and "harmful to minors".
Ok, so what does "communication for commercial purposes" mean? Well, according to this statue it means this:
A person may be considered to be engaged in the business of
making, by means of the World Wide
Web, communications for commercial purposes that include
material that is harmful to minors, only if the person
KNOWINGLY CAUSES the material that is harmful to minors to be
posted on the World Wide Web or KNOWINGLY SOLICITS such
material to be posted on the World Wide Web.
Tell me this... Does Bart Cilfone make money off ubersite? Could it be considered having a "commercial purpose"? To a lawyer, probably.
The fact is, while Bart probably doesn't make much money, he does make this money from our communications, which is all this statute requires. Bart makes money on google ads and he makes money on the uberboard. The statute makes it clear that "it is not necessary that the person make a profit or that the making or offering to make such communications be the person's sole or principal business or source of income."
This section also lays out the penalties for such infractions: $50,000 fine or 6 months in prison or BOTH. The statute goes on to say that the fine is applicable for EACH violation nad for each DAY of violation. I think it's safe to say ubersite couldn't afford even ONE fine, let alone the amount of potential fines stemming from its entire catalogue of posts!
So does this mean that Bart Cilfone could be fined or imprisoned if, say, Mick Ginny continued his 'Redhead' series and the temporary injunction is lifted from this act? To find out, let's look further...
What constitutes "harmful for minors"? Well, according to the statute, it's the following:
``(6) Material that is harmful to minors.--The term
`material that is harmful to minors' means any communication,
picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording,
writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or
that--
``(A) the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and
with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is
designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
``(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner
patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or
simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or
simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd
exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast;
and
``(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value for minors.
``(7) Minor.--The term `minor' means any person under 17
years of age.''.
Notice this isn't just pictures they're considering possibly "harmful to minors". They have included writing as well! How much of uber writings do you figure fall within what some judge might rule as "obscene" or "patently offensive" or "appealing to prurient interests"? How much of that material do you think they might consider as "lacking literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"?
Now you can surely see the source of my personal concern over this statute - a concern shared by a number of entities including the ACLU and companies such as Google.
Luckily for us, the ACLU has managed to temporarily halt enforcement of this law with the present injunction, the very injunction which is the source of the online search engine supoenas from google, msn, and yahoo.
The bottom line is, if this act is allowed to go full force, and the injunction is lifted with no revision to the present statute to secure our first amendment rights on the internet, U.S. citizens and websites based in the U.S. could be in big trouble.
This could change the internet, and modern life, as we know it.
So is there anything in the statute that could absolve Bart Cilfone and other webmasters, or perhaps even the users themselves from prosecution?
``(b) Inapplicability of Carriers and Other Service
Providers.--For purposes of subsection (a), a person shall
not be considered to make any communication for commercial
purposes to the extent that such person is--
``(1) a telecommunications carrier engaged in the provision
of a telecommunications service;
(NOPE. Not that part.)
``(2) a person engaged in the business of providing an
Internet access service;
(NOPE. Not that part.)
``(3) a person engaged in the business of providing an
Internet information location tool; or
(NOPE. Not that part.)
``(4) similarly engaged in the transmission, storage,
retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any
combination thereof) of a communication made by another
person, without selection or alteration of the content of the
communication, except that such person's deletion of a
particular communication or material made by another person
in a manner consistent with subsection (c) or section 230
shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the
content of the communication.
(NOPE. Not this part either.)
There is one section that provides an amendment to Communications Act of 1934 that states that
--A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time
of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of
interactive computer service and in a manner deemed
appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that
parental control protections (such as computer hardware,
software, or filtering services) are commercially available
that may assist the customer in limiting access to material
that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or
provide the customer with access to information identifying,
current providers of such protections.''.
At first glance, this amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, which appears at the end of the COPA bill, absolves Bart of liability so long as he provides a user agreement which provides users with notice of commercially available filtering services. BUT, what this is REALLY talking about are internet service providers (ISPs) such as AOL or MSN.
So, in conclusion, unless this bill fails, or unless Bart either (A) gives up his ad revenue or, (B) starts making the website available only to credit card carrying adults, we could see our fearless leader behind bars and/or paying about $300 million in fines from all our pornographic excesses.
Sleep tight, uber. The Bush Administration, Attourney General Alberto Gonzales, and the U.S. Department of Justice are lookin' out for you.
What's that, you say? Bush has nothing to do with it? Apparently I needn't tell you to sleep tight; you're already there. http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-060352
User Reviews
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-03-20 15:50:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
(God bless the ACLU!)
Submitted by psychodude98 (user info) at 2006-03-19 09:41:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
+1 for being so passionate
-1 for saying "God Bless The ACLU"
-1 because I am a minor :-)
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-19 01:47:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How can you misjudge yourself, elect... Wildman.
I meant Wildman.
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2006-03-19 01:42:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Proper drug use is an art - and one not to be taken lightly"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finally! Someone who understands.
I have seriously misjudged you.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-03-18 19:33:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Would give it a plus two, but a lot of the writing made my head hurt due to grammatical messiness.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-03-18 15:12:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
The vultures are circling, as usual. This didn't make me smile. But it certainly had more care and effort put into it than some OTHER posts on MH. As far as the subject of the post, the truth usually lies somewhere between the extremes. That's all I'll say.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2006-03-18 09:10:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:47:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
97X....BAM! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X....BAM! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X....BAM! The future of rock 'n' roll.
-------------------------
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-18 03:45:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
FA, I am bored to fucking TEARS this week working audit shifts.
All I am doing is amusing myself for 8 hours a night.
I could beat PunchOut for the 20 time, or I could read ANOTHER book this week (3 and counting) or I could do a lot of other things which I *AM* doing, but I could do them more.
And yes, work is already done. I have until 6AM to set up the breakfast bar, and I might just do that now, kill about 20 minutes.
Then I'll be back, amusing myself.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-18 03:26:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How many more times are you going to comment on this, jay, before it sinks in that nobody cares. Seriously, you're getting as bad as inion. If somebody wants to discuss something with you, they will - you don't need to comment on everything everyone else has ever said, seen or done just to get some attention.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-18 03:06:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I just saw your labels, ETS.
You label your "tribute posts"
Man...
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-18 01:30:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I wonder if this is going to go on for a while.
I wanna know if I need to make popcorn for it.
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2006-03-18 01:12:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Some type of scum cleaner.
Submitted by Some_Type_Of_Super (user info) at 2006-03-18 00:41:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You are a tree-hugging, pubic-hair farming, womans libbing, alternative fuel sucking fag, aren't you?
Submitted by Some_Type_Of_Super (user info) at 2006-03-17 19:52:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-17 12:07:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
I encourage everyone to look at as much porn as possible and to fuck whomever they want and masturbate furiously 7 times a day.
-----
Not to worry, good man. #8 will be up tonight.
Teagen Pressley.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-03-17 16:20:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-17 12:07:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
I encourage everyone to look at as much porn as possible and to fuck whomever they want and masturbate furiously 7 times a day.
-----------
ON IT!
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-03-17 15:17:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm beginning to think that ETS is really Cindy Sheehan.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-03-17 15:04:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"The way you're reading it is plausible, but only in the sense that people can take the 'right to bear arms' ammendment as a right to nail the limbs of large woodland creatures on their wall."
bahahaha. i wonder how you're going to justify all this nonsense when a few years pass, this has blown over, and nothing's happened... i mean everyone knows you'll still be spouting off the same old shit on uber, about whomever your current arch nemesis is. so we'll certainly find your excuses entertaining then.
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-03-17 14:38:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Thanks to jesus that the ACLU is stepping in. Wouldn't want to add any extra protection for children against the rampant predators on the internet messing with my freedom to type dick and fart jokes on ubersite.com.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-17 12:07:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I encourage everyone to look at as much porn as possible and to fuck whomever they want and masturbate furiously 7 times a day.
Except for ETS.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-17 11:59:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 17:33:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
I usually admit when I'm wrong.
But the problem is, you haven't convinced me I am yet. As soon as you do, I will be the FIRST to admit I was wrong, or I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I just don't think this is one of those cases.
---------
cuz i saw this and guffawed.
always admit you're wrong when you're wrong. apologizing for a misunderstanding is still refusal to place all blame on yourself. if you're wrong it's all you, you know very well you don't like doing that. misunderstanding implies you and at least one other person. don't dumb it down so you don't have to take all the blame.
and no, i'm not doing that just to be a prick. it just irks me when someone wants to reword something, even an apology, just so they aren't standing alone in fault.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-17 11:54:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah fist but that would put the blame on parents for having shitty children and, ya know, can't have that. fucking indigo bastards.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-03-17 09:56:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's total fucking bullshit. If parents don't want their kids viewing inappropriate things online, then they should be fucking parents and restrict sites and access. Surf the net with your kids instead of expecting the internet to be a babysitter. Because exactly what we need is more government restriction in our lives.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-03-17 09:21:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm still wondering why ETS is saying that Bush wanted this law. He was still jerking cows off in the Capital in Texas when it was signed into law....
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-17 06:24:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.okcupid.com/politics
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-17 05:47:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll have to take that test...
I wonder where I sit...
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-17 04:44:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"eight year olds dude. eight year olds."
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-17 04:44:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
SO DONT FUCK WITH DA JESUS
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-17 04:44:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
hey i took the myspace political test and I'm a hardline centrist.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-17 04:39:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bah.
I use it as a term, not as a feeling.
I could give 2 shits about Bushie or Cheaney, but I do know that if they kick off WW3: Holy War I'm heading for fucking Canada.
That's what gets me, somehow, in succession, 3 nations have ALL OF A SUDDEN become SuperDuperEvil.
All of them are in the same rough region.
All of them are Islamic states.
It's not much, and I don't hang my hat on it as much as ETS does stuff like this, but Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran.
North Korea is basically jumping up and down saying "FUCK YOU AMELICA! FUCK YOU AND YOU HONKY ASSES!" and we're doing nothing.
Missle from Korea is closer than a missle from Iran.
Oh wait, we don't wanna piss of China and start a WAR or anything...
GAH... STOPSTOPSTOP! I'm downloading Office05 again, I don't need to fight!
Let's spoon.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-17 04:12:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yes.
governtment.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-17 04:12:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
pure evil?
you sound like those dudes in governtment you claim to hate so much, with your moral assignments of evil and what not.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-17 03:29:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, just because I'm not up in arms, shouting off of rooftops, getting my guns oiled and stocking canned food for the upcoming civil war doesn't mean I'm any less outraged by our government.
I just think rationally 3-4 steps past the now.
You go step to step and work off of those inferences.
THIS WILL NOT PASS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WEIGHT IT GETS BEHIND IT, MAN!
Sure, the government is just about as close to pure evil as it can get right now.
But that doesn't mean they'll get everything they want.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-17 03:08:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Being an enemy of a corrupt and incompetent government is an honor if you ask me."
----------------
fuck you, I liked bill clinton.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-17 02:53:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
mairano ftw.
fucking PWNED.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-17 02:38:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I give up.
Thanks Bart. Thanks Coyote. Thanks to others who actually get it.
Thanks to those that resisted the urge to mistake my passion for this subject for arrogance.
I'm not gonna sit here and repeat myself over and over again about exactly why this is a problem. All I've wanted to say is in the reviews.
All I've wanted to do here is to present the Act, present the possible ramifications, and have a discussion about it that will hopefully inform people of what I learned the last couple days.
I think I have accomplished that as much as it's going to be accomplished here.
In closing on this post, I'd like to quote Bart from below:
"Being an enemy of a corrupt and incompetent government is an honor if you ask me."
This is what a REAL patriot sounds like.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2006-03-17 02:36:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i haven't read this fully, but hang on, are you saying the us gov is trying to ban commercial porn online????????
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-17 02:21:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, I didn't read all the replies, so if I say something that has already been said, my bad.
Dude.
Chill.
Out.
There is a LOT of legislation that has already been passed in the state and federal levels that makes this look like cookie time with Uncle Georgie, OK?
None of it will stand up in court.
Niether will this.
Even with Alito and Edwards on the SCOTUS, I am not worried.
Sure, they both head WAY right on the "fighting" issues, but we don't know where they stand on a lot of things, and I would guess that at least ONE of them would be against this type of law.
Also, Bart is in no sense of trouble from this.
He is a moderator of a free, not-for-profit site.
If someone were to post objectionable material, say, goatse, how is he liable for it?
That's like saying the mailman is guilty for spreading indecent materials because you have a subscription to Playboy.
Anyway, I know I can't convince you of anything otherwise.
I know no one can.
I know you feel an extreme need to make us "wake up and realize the world is crumbling"
But you need to realize the difference between "probable" and "possible"
Is it POSSIBLE that this act will pass and stand up to court challenges?
Sure, anything is POSSIBLE.
Is it PROBABLE that it will pass and stand up to court challenges?
Nope. Not at all.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-03-17 02:17:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS: In no way did I ever question your intelligence about this at all, so refrain from being so childishly condescending towards me because of the way I disagree with you. I'm going to spell it out, plain and simple: YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER PARANOID AMERICAN. DON'T ACT LIKE YOU'RE THE FIRST TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER BULLSHIT CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE, BUT IS STILL NOT FEASIBLE IN THE END.
Additionally, quit acting like you're above those who make points to disagree with you. It's annoying, and it takes away from your credibility (which is why so many people go off on you in the first place). Arrogance is not received well by others. Keep in mind, I'm trying to have a friendly discussion with you. If you're unable to do that, then just let me know and I'll simply cut it off after this review, and give you a big cookie that says "You win teh internet argument!! LOL".
My overall point can be summed up in one sentence because I too can be a long-winded bastard:
TRY AS THEY MIGHT, THE DOJ SIMPLY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS ACT IN THE WAY YOU SAY THEY WILL.
It's not because I'm too "trusting" or because I'm a "fucking moron". You still have yet to acknowledge the fact that it would take up far too much time and far too many resources to go through with this. Even if this wasn't written in the fashion of a spasmodic paranoid lunatic on a day without his happy colorful candy; and even if you could effectively convince us all that we are DOOOOOOOOMED, you will still be severely disappointed because that day of destruction will never come.
Sorry, man. But there is no way you can ever convince me otherwise, mainly because I'm a realist. I'm going to be unreasonably skeptical of anything as far out as what you're suggesting.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-03-17 02:15:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Being an enemy of a corrupt and incompetent government is an honor if you ask me.
The only thing the current administration can do successfully is plunge the nation into debt and start wars it can't finish. Every other measure of any significance has failed in general because the president is weak and no one in Congress is willing to give up reelection to prop up a failure.
I don't think this law is the end of civilization as we know it, but that's assuming that the checks and balances eventually kick in to torch it as bullshit. The problem is the "meantime", specifically meaning that if the law is passed, there will be some poor sap who is the first target and that sap will have to get a bunch of lawyers and go to a bunch of courts and eventually get to the Supreme Court where the law SHOULD be struck down as unconstitutional. Still, that poor sap will probably end up bankrupt and will probably eventually die alone of a drug overdose or other self inflicted fatal wounds.
That said, if such a law did pass and did stand up to a challenge in the Supreme Court, then I could see the end of US civilization as we know it as every educated or otherwise intelligent citizen bails for Germany and the US plummets into a theocratic state much like the "biggest threat ever" Iran.
You reap what you sow. A _fill_in_the_blank_ form of government is succeptible to widespread corruption and failure primarily due to public apathy and government control of consolidated mass media. We as a people let these psychos take over, so we'll get what we deserve.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-17 01:23:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not in a civil case, Wardy. And besides, all you have to do is find 12 people who find our posts about fucking our 8-year-old daughters or whatnot, or our posts featuring pornography, and present the law to them the way I have presented it in this post and I'm sure they'd have little trouble going with the state and the majority of people who think we need to 'protect the children'.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. It's all academic at this point. By the time I might be able to say "I told you so", I might not even be able to post those words.
What it boils down to is, the people who have no interest in the internet in this capacity for freedom of speech far outnumber those of us that do (at least in terms of voting power), and even among those of us that do appreciate it are people like you, Wardy, who will not believe this is that bad thing until they start going after sites like this one and you can see it with your own eyes.
The problem is, you will probably never even hear about it, and if you do, all you'll know is that the government has taken down websites that were in violation of the law by putting porn at the fignertips of minors.
This is a cultural war. Nothing more.
This legislation needs to be amended or removed as far as I'm concerned because all it does is takes sites like this one down that make money off advertisements and allow free expression with little or no moderation. That's it's only real purpose.
I still maintain that the internet is really no place for children in the first place unless they are being supervised by an adult. And what they 'can' and 'cannot' see should be solely a matter for the guardian to decide. It is their right and responsibility to teach their children as they see fit within reason.
We don't NEED this legislation. It will not accomplish anything but limiting the rights of adults for the 'proposed' benefit of children.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-17 01:14:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
*yawn*
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-17 00:53:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Keep an eye and an ear on your news, and I GUARANTEE YOU you will begin hearing more and more and more about exploited children and the internet's role in it, as well as terrorism and the internet's role in it.
----------------------------------
it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if there was a lot more of this in the news, that's what the act is designed to help us defend against. i'd be pretty pissed if there wasn't. like i said, this is practical law that is designed with the best intentions at heart, i honestly believe that. it has to be written the way it is, like scourge said, so that criminals can't find a loophole around it, but also so that someone who's not a criminal can. remember, even if the judge is corrupt, there's still a jury of twelve peers that would also have to be corrupt.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-17 00:36:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
In an earlier review, I talked about the Child porn ring that was broken upand how that publicity is part of an overall concerted effort to attack and control the internet because that is one of the major sources of politically dissenting viewpoints like blogs and this site...
"""Well well well.... Whaddaya know!
Yesterday = lowest approval ratings of Bush's entire administration
Today = on the day the administration brings out a 'new' National Security policy about preemptive strikes against terrorism...and guess what IRAN. OH, and there just 'happens' to be a 'bomb' at the March Madness.
Smells pretty fishy to me.
To me, it looks like someone is trying to say: "LOOK, YOU'RE IN DANGER! WE'RE ALSO IN A WAR WHERE WE HAVE CONTROL - LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THIS AIR STRIKE! WE CAN WIN! DON'T GO AWAY! LOOK, LOOK AGAIN AT THIS BOMB AT THE BASKETBALL GAME! TRUST US!"
And just wait...Bush's numbers will be back up several points by the end of the week. Just give the pundits on Fox news time to work their business on the idiots in middle America. """
Now read this paragraph coming from a news story about the NCAA bomb scare:
"The scare came less than a week after the Department of Homeland Security said that non-specific threats had been made on the Internet about targeting sports arenas for terrorism."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14117018.htm
The DOJ and the Bush administration are on the offensive against the internet, and they're trying desperately to get their greatest weapon against it off the ground, the COPA Act. And they are pulling out all the stops by subpoenaing the Google, MSN, and Yahoo search data.
Is this just another ETS conspiracy theory?
Keep an eye and an ear on your news, and I GUARANTEE YOU you will begin hearing more and more and more about exploited children and the internet's role in it, as well as terrorism and the internet's role in it.
This is CLASSIC PR and politics, and in all liklihood the tactic will work because not only are most Americans very malleable and unified on the subject of child pornography, but because the very people that could potentially educate people about what's really going on here (the people on this and other websites) are and will brush this off as a 'conspiracy theory' that's 'nothing to worry about'.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-17 00:09:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
goddammit, i can't take any of your emo bullshit right now. i'm in the middle of like sixty billion important things and my dog just pissed all over my foot again and the last thing i need is for you to start calling me twelve times a day complaining about your gross roomate or your chocolate earings. enough with the goddamned shit, lisa. not now.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-17 00:04:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
it means nothing to have been appointed by a given president. the supreme court is filled with justices that have been appointed by different presidents, and who all somehow another have been able to keep this country from crashing into the moon.
like i said, it's a little early to be getting all worried yet. now is not the time. our government is based on a system of checks and balances, and it has worked pretty good so far. you have to realize that the law needs to find a way to keep up with the technology, and they're still trying to figure a way out to do that. believe me, the government is not coming after this site. i talked to god yesterday, and he said everything was going to be okay.
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2006-03-17 00:03:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bart's going to jail over porn? Damn, I can't wait to see what they do to him once they find the jars of cured hooker ovaries. YOU THINK I'M KIDDING, BUT I'M NOT! No one takes me seriously...
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2006-03-17 00:02:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:57:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Prison time Bart.
:'-(
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:56:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:50:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
right, but that's where the supreme court comes in, if such a case occurs. and the supreme court is on such a national stage that injustices cannot be hidden.
---------------------
You mean the same Supreme Court that ruled in favor of eminent domain? The same Supreme Court that now features 2 newly-appointed Bush neo-cons both of whom have radical views on presidential power?
I really hate to keep sounding like a doom-sayer here, but the way I see it, if there's a wolf outside, it doesn't hurt to cry wolf.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:50:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
right, but that's where the supreme court comes in, if such a case occurs. and the supreme court is on such a national stage that injustices cannot be hidden. i wouldn't worry too much until you actually see a site like this go down, until then this act is for the greater good.
don't get me wrong, i'm well aware that even hitler came to power legally and that the nazis took control legally because of laws that were in effect. but i also have enough faith in my supreme court that has proven time and time again to be fair and just and without persuasion, to handle any such injustices. that, and there's a billion government watchdog groups, like the ones you mentioned, that are always on top of this sort of stuff.
*kisses*
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:42:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, Wardy, but federal jurisdiction means that they could file the charges from ANY STATE in the union, and ANY JUDGE THEY CHOOSE could preside over the proceedings.
All it would take to collapse most websites like this one would be ONE SINGLE civil plaintiff in ANY STATE.
I know the entire government is not evil. No one is saying every man who works in government is inducted into this secret evil society.
All I'm saying is, they don't all NEED to be on the inside of this 'mafia' for it to be effective in keeping control. All you need is an umbrella of power that goes high enough to protect you in carrying out your agenda.
make sense?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:27:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
except that i know a few judges. real close family friends. i'm pretty sure they're not a part of this "mafia" that you speak of. you have to realize that there are a lot of people that are in government, and i know this is going to be shocking for you to hear, but they're just like you and me. they're just people with morals and opinions and penises.
once the supreme court backs this act up on what any normal person would see as a huge injustice, that's when the outcry occurs, that's when it always occurs, that's when it's supposed to occur. until then, you have to look at the good that this act is going to incur. as long as it is going to bust child porn rings and things of that nature, i'm okay with it, just like any other rational human being. if it starts infringing on our personal liberties to the extent where it's persecuting a website such as this, that's when i expect the courts to take action.
and trust me, they will. they always have. remember, big business used to be a lot bigger than it is now...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:22:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
A federal judge?
Our government is more or less the mafia. The not only own the judges...they ARE the judges.
Wardy, don't you realize that our government makes people 'disappear'? That people are currently being held in military prisons without charge, without legal council, INDEFINITELY!?
I just don't know what to say to all this except, man...I think you're living in a dream world.
Submitted by blueboy (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:18:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I like your posts like these.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:14:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
there's also people in front of the capital, white house, and supreme court almost every day of the year. it's just that nothing big enough has occurred to give it national attention like it did in the sixties. trust me, the world is not coming to an end with this... yet. even in the strictist, most pessimistic reading of this, there's still a good chance a judge would not allow a a site like uber to be construed under the contexts of the law.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:13:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
dude, they still have marches. there's one here in milwaukee tomorrow.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 23:07:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-03-16 19:31:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
Even if Ubersite and thereby I were in violation of this law, no harm would come to me until the day I became a political opponent of those in power.
The point of this law is not to protect children. The point of this law, like nearly all of US law, is to make everyone a criminal. Every citizen is a criminal in one way or another, so when the government needs money or just feels like coming for you, they have a legal reason to do it.
In all honesty, they may as well just declare the entire country a corporate communist state and seize all individually owned posessions and civil rights because that's where we already are and we're not headed back any time soon.
Individuals get nothing and corporations get everything. It's illegal to throw an empty can out your car window or to smoke pot at home, but it's legal to wiretap citizens without warrants and charge oligopolist inflated prices for oil and healthcare.
---------------------
Fucking SPOT ON.
The problem is, Bart, you don't even have to be the primary target of the political agenda... It could very easily be any one of us. They would just take it out on you.
I hate to draw parallels to the 1960s, but this is where we are right now. We're back in the days of J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon. The only difference is, dissenters aren't taking to the streets like they did then to congregate and share ideas, they are RIGHT HERE! ONLINE!
I've often wondered why, in a time our rights are being stolen from us and our presidents and other leaders are openly defying and evading the law with little or no repercussion, why we're not out marching in the streets and getting PISSED THE FUCK OFF.
That's because our speech can be heard right here in places like this. Thank you for creating this place where I can say the things I think and feel and have at least the potential of worldwide publication. I think this is an important part of our society, one we seem ever increasingly willing to give up and shrug off as 'nothing to worry about'.
Read the reviews of this post! That's about all people seem to have to say for this, and I just don't understand why we all insist on being so blind.
The only hope left...the ONLY hope...is that our right to vote will not be compromised. But we are being propeled toward a situation as well where that right is threatened as well with the all-computer voting system that's set to replace the more tracable paper methods. Hell, even with the paper method, we have a sitting president who should have lost his ass in 2000.
I fear it's swiftly approaching time where 'talk' is no longer going to be effective, where the only alternative will be to leave these monitors and get in the fucking streets... I don't think the powers that be that have created this law have considered fully.
If you take our voice from here, it will only move somewhere else... And that might just be in their own back yard!
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-16 22:52:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
This is as interesting as a jgreening post.
Submitted by AudaciousDuck (user info) at 2006-03-16 22:46:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Did research on an applicable topic: commendable, even if you *are* a bit paranoid about it.
Relax, man. Have a joint. Anyhow, there's plenty of social science on this site, and I'd consider much of it to be art. I'm sure we could get away with that.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-16 21:31:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
didn't mean to -2 that.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-16 21:02:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
this act alone means nothing. precedents are everything. even if this does get passed, it still means nothing for the "law abiding" citizen. there have been countless times in our nation's history where laws have existed that were considered to be injustices.
that's what we have the supreme court for, captain dipshit.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-03-16 19:37:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-03-16 19:31:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
Even if Ubersite and thereby I were in violation of this law, no harm would come to me until the day I became a political opponent of those in power.
The point of this law is not to protect children. The point of this law, like nearly all of US law, is to make everyone a criminal. Every citizen is a criminal in one way or another, so when the government needs money or just feels like coming for you, they have a legal reason to do it.
In all honesty, they may as well just declare the entire country a corporate communist state and seize all individually owned posessions and civil rights because that's where we already are and we're not headed back any time soon.
Individuals get nothing and corporations get everything. It's illegal to throw an empty can out your car window or to smoke pot at home, but it's legal to wiretap citizens without warrants and charge oligopolist inflated prices for oil and healthcare.
------
Holy shit, ETS, you need to learn from the conspiracy master here.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-03-16 19:31:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Even if Ubersite and thereby I were in violation of this law, no harm would come to me until the day I became a political opponent of those in power.
The point of this law is not to protect children. The point of this law, like nearly all of US law, is to make everyone a criminal. Every citizen is a criminal in one way or another, so when the government needs money or just feels like coming for you, they have a legal reason to do it.
In all honesty, they may as well just declare the entire country a corporate communist state and seize all individually owned posessions and civil rights because that's where we already are and we're not headed back any time soon.
Individuals get nothing and corporations get everything. It's illegal to throw an empty can out your car window or to smoke pot at home, but it's legal to wiretap citizens without warrants and charge oligopolist inflated prices for oil and healthcare.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-03-16 18:35:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 05:00:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
I just hope Bart looks into this and takes proper precautions and it doesn't drive him to do exactly what they want him to do, which is restrict our free speech by moderating our posts. """
I wish he'd restrict your free speech.
How's life in the bunker?
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-03-16 18:26:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-03-16 17:11:16 (#)
Ambiguity is the point Coyote. Law is purposefully written in ambiguous terms. Unless it is going to be direct regulatory language, and there IS a difference in regulatory language and legislative language, in which case it is very carefully worded.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Yes, I realize this. Statutes are not infrequently struck down for being TOO broad, however. And are you attempting to argue that the ambiguity written into the law prevents an overzealous prosecutor from pursuing a case he might ultimately not win for the sole purpose of causing trouble for someone who's politically inconvenient?
And speaking of misperception, I suggest you read my initial comment more carefully and check to see exactly what part of the post I was agreeing with.
Submitted by ih8u2man (user info) at 2006-03-16 18:13:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You rule.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 17:56:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This illustrates the hypocracy in telling children it's ok to look at something as long as you don't desire it.
This whole religious/guilt thing is just too far if you ask me. But fine, if you don't want porn, deal with the side effects of it, or wait for better filters.... OR
You can create whitelists or exceptions to most any web filter. All you have to do is add a user list of whitelisted websites to the filter as you go.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-03-16 17:38:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Filters are not an answer because they block more legitimate content than "bad" content.
That's why libraries were in an uproar a few years back. Governmental sites about breast cancer were blacklisted by the filters because the word breast appeared along with pictures of them.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 17:33:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I usually admit when I'm wrong.
But the problem is, you haven't convinced me I am yet. As soon as you do, I will be the FIRST to admit I was wrong, or I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I just don't think this is one of those cases.
I understand this is what you do...you help write these laws, etc. I understand that legislation is always in the broadest possible terms to prevent loopholes. I'm not an idiot in that I don't understand the REASON legislation is broad. What I'm saying is...this type of legislation, by its very nature of trying to 'SAVE THE CHILDERN FROM THE SCOURGE THAT IS THE EVIL PRONOGRAPHIC INTARWEB' is misguided and doomed to be open to this vast grey area of possible abuse.
My solution, make the parents take responsibility for their fucking children while they're online. There are TONS of filters out there on the market. There are even filters build right into virtually all browsers. If parents are this concerned about protecting their children by suppressing their sexuality as long as possible, they're going to have to act themselves.
The internet is not fucking Disneyland. It is a reflection of the real adult world which is full of all things both good and bad. No amount of legislation is going to fully rid the internet of that, particularly since all a website has to do is move to another country that doesn't comply with this law.
It's pointless, and it will do nothing but promote this witch hunt mentality in politics and law enforcement.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-03-16 17:11:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ambiguity is the point Coyote. Law is purposefully written in ambiguous terms. Unless it is going to be direct regulatory language, and there IS a difference in regulatory language and legislative language, in which case it is very carefully worded.
ETS- you always jump on the first person who agrees wholeheartedly and trumpet that they understand. A fellow knower of truth , yada yada blah blah blah Agreeing with you doesn't make them correct. They just share some of your misconceptions.
This is what I do.
I AM right about this. Don't believe me if you don't choose to. That just makes you more the fool.
I'm done with this because you'll shout about how correct you are until you die. Like arguing with a wall. Pointless
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:53:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85422#1887611
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:53:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
eh
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:31:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i realize that, but you asked scourge to define porn. and i'm probably the most qualified to discuss that very large area of the statute. he's the legal department, i'm the as yet practical application.
and yea low and behold if my mother could see me now...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:27:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:14:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:07:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yea, just like eminent domain wouldn't pass.
Keep dreamin'.
----------
the porn industry has better lawyers than oj and more friends than bush. the entire state of california tried to out law it once and that lasted a whole thirty seconds before everyone was in an uproar. this country will not stifle one of its biggest money makers. if you want a rough idea of how weak the government is compared to the porn industry and the first amendment defense attorneys they have, watch people vs larry flynt. it's not far off when it comes to the power struggle. porn is as old as art, really you don't understand human nature.
--------------------------
Inion, listen to me very closely...
This statute is NOT about the porn industry. There are already laws, as you must well know, IN PLACE that deal with this. The entire thing they're saying this act is about is already covered in other laws.
In fact, the injunction filed by the ACLU and others spells that out plainly:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/complaint.html
This isn't about the porn 'industry' the way you or I would think of it. They're going after any site that makes money and has material that is "harmful to minors", which, if you read their definition of that, could be just about anything.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:20:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Hey, inion, the point is not that porn is going to be outlawed-- I don't think anyone is arguing that.
I think what ETS is trying to do is get people thinking about what happens if the government decides to use a very broadly written law to go after people it finds unpleasant for some reason. For which there is more precedent than you can shake a stick at.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:20:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:09:51 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm gonna buck the trend and give you a +2 for making people argue again.
I think bart's OK unless he starts participating in some technically legal activity that inconveniences or embarrasses the government, and they need to tie him up in court for awhile.
I tend to agree with you in that the language in the bill is overbroad, which is why there was an injunction on it in the first place.
I'm not sure I agree with scourge that section 4 of the culpability part lets bart off the hook, because the posts are scrutinized and some content is altered or changed (offensive images altered to links) without being removed. I think it could be argued that he's contributing to the content, or at the very least knowingly allowing it to be posted. And I believe the government, if it chose to go after bart because they knew he was up to something serious, would argue that there's an implicit condoning of the material that does get posted here, because he enforces standards on -2 flaming, NSFW, Urbane's festering kebab meat, etc.
But, as other people have noted, it's precisely the kind of ambiguity in the law that makes it unlikely to be successfully used in this kind of way.
Mind you, if anyone was going to violate the spirit of a law to further their own ends, it would be this administration, but the future of the internet? Anyway, nice job stirring the pot, as always.
---------------------
My God....THANK YOU! At last, someone who understands that's all I was trying to say. Be cautious!
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:14:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:07:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yea, just like eminent domain wouldn't pass.
Keep dreamin'.
----------
the porn industry has better lawyers than oj and more friends than bush. the entire state of california tried to out law it once and that lasted a whole thirty seconds before everyone was in an uproar. this country will not stifle one of its biggest money makers. if you want a rough idea of how weak the government is compared to the porn industry and the first amendment defense attorneys they have, watch people vs larry flynt. it's not far off when it comes to the power struggle. porn is as old as art, really you don't understand human nature.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:09:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
and really all bart would have to do is put a different home page that has you fill in your birthday to enter the site. not that hard and probably a good idea anyway cuz we're all demented. so far porn magazines, video distributors and websites are not liable for retards selling their mags to minors or for asshole children lying with their parents' credit cards and there's little they could do to ever change that.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:09:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm gonna buck the trend and give you a +2 for making people argue again.
I think bart's OK unless he starts participating in some technically legal activity that inconveniences or embarrasses the government, and they need to tie him up in court for awhile.
I tend to agree with you in that the language in the bill is overbroad, which is why there was an injunction on it in the first place.
I'm not sure I agree with scourge that section 4 of the culpability part lets bart off the hook, because the posts are scrutinized and some content is altered or changed (offensive images altered to links) without being removed. I think it could be argued that he's contributing to the content, or at the very least knowingly allowing it to be posted. And I believe the government, if it chose to go after bart because they knew he was up to something serious, would argue that there's an implicit condoning of the material that does get posted here, because he enforces standards on -2 flaming, NSFW, Urbane's festering kebab meat, etc.
But, as other people have noted, it's precisely the kind of ambiguity in the law that makes it unlikely to be successfully used in this kind of way.
Mind you, if anyone was going to violate the spirit of a law to further their own ends, it would be this administration, but the future of the internet? Anyway, nice job stirring the pot, as always.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 16:07:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yea, just like eminent domain wouldn't pass.
Keep dreamin'.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:58:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
read the meese commission report to see how retarded the government is when it comes to porn. this is seriously not a big worry, we'd lose half the nation's gdp if they decided to really do anything about it. anything that required a model release and two forms of id, at least one government issued photo id, is porn. defining porn according to the government is simple. defining obscene porn is not. this really won't pass.
Submitted by FunnyAsCancer (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:51:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It bart goes to jail, I'm organizing the prison break.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:51:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:35:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS- I read, write and analyze legislation for a living. It's what I do. And I'm good at it. That section WILL get him off if this was ever to be an issue. It WOULD apply in the eyes of a court.
I wonder how I could possibly know that? I guess it couldn't be because I've actually served as an adviser to people testifying in front of the Illinois Supreme Court, could it? Probably not. No not at all.
It's called legislative intent, and it's successfully argued in court when legislation has unintended consequences. This piece of legislation is aimed at porn distributers/sites/whatever.
Uber's fine, the sky's not falling in this particular instance. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes you're ideas hold water. This one doesn't.
bah, I'm done with this post.
----------------------------------
What is a 'porn site'?
Define that one for me. Until you can DEFINE what constitutes a 'porn site', I will not be satisfied no on will attack uber (or any other similarly structured websites) using this legislation as ammo.
Even if someone argued 'intent', there is still the matter of defining what is meant by a 'porn site' in the 'intent' argument.
What percentage of this site's content do you reckon would be considered under the definition "harmful to minors"?
I'm listening.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:47:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
97X....BAM! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X....BAM! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X....BAM! The future of rock 'n' roll.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:44:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
not actually Thomas Jefferson, but saying that he said it is kinda fun
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:40:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
'your' not 'you're'
Jesus. Stupid.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:39:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You make an assumption on the definition of the term service provider. There isn't one provided in the legislation nor is their a reference to another statutes definition of the term.
Now I'm really done. Maybe
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:35:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS- I read, write and analyze legislation for a living. It's what I do. And I'm good at it. That section WILL get him off if this was ever to be an issue. It WOULD apply in the eyes of a court.
I wonder how I could possibly know that? I guess it couldn't be because I've actually served as an adviser to people testifying in front of the Illinois Supreme Court, could it? Probably not. No not at all.
It's called legislative intent, and it's successfully argued in court when legislation has unintended consequences. This piece of legislation is aimed at porn distributers/sites/whatever.
Uber's fine, the sky's not falling in this particular instance. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes you're ideas hold water. This one doesn't.
bah, I'm done with this post.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:33:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS posting on Uber isn't fighting anything. You call most people sheep sitting on their asses, but I am sure you are sitting on your ass in a nice comfy easy chair when you posted this.
---------
awwwwwwwwww snap!
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:28:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
For petes sake don't you EVER STOP?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:22:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 14:40:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
You don't question your goverment. You are content to just sit back and let the pundits on TV do that FOR YOU. That's why I think you're all a bunch of fucking sheep for the most part. You will sit on your asses and say nothing right up to the point when someone just hijacks ALL your rights, but by then it will be too late.
If you're not on the front lines, better rest assured someone else will be...problem is, they'll be the ones on the other side.
------------------------------------
I remember Bill O'Rielly saying this about Christmas trees not being allowed on public land.
Giving one group protection will always take rights from another group.
Yes I think this law has some disturbing language, but it looks like there are a number of "loopholes" (not the correct word because I don't think shutting down uber would be in the spirit of this law) that will protect sites like Ubersite.
ETS posting on Uber isn't fighting anything. You call most people sheep sitting on their asses, but I am sure you are sitting on your ass in a nice comfy easy chair when you posted this.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:16:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
To quote Mr Burns "My God! Are you ALWAYS on?"
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:15:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So.....
Google isn't a service provider? It doesn't charge, and makes ALL of its money on ads, and yet I doubt they have to do credit card verification in order to turn off safe search or provide links to filtering software.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:14:10 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
AGAIN....JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, YOU PEOPLE ARE MORONS.""
DUDE, SERIOUSLY....GET THE FUCK OFF UBER
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST ON A HOCKEY STICK MAN...PEOPLE COME HERE TO GET ENTERTAINMENT NOT BE DRAGGED DOWN BY YOUR PESSIMISTIC MORBIDITY.
FUCK YOU, WE DEAL WITH PROBLEMS EVERYDAY...IN THE REAL WORLD ASSHOLE...NOT ON SOME 'FOR FUN' WEBSITE.
IF I WERE YOU I'D KILL MYSELF RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T HANDLE THE RIGORS OF YOUR MONTHLY CYCLE
TOOL.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:12:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Scourge and Hadley:
Ok, I've thought of all that. What you're both missing is the heading of that entire section which is "Inapplicability of Carriers and Other Service Providers."
That subsection you're quoting is dealing with people in the service carrier side of the internet like ISPs, web hosting, email hosting, etc.
A very clear argument would be made to that effect.
I've thought of every bit of what you're talking about. That was my initial reaction as well "well, this section seems to get him off the hook", but it doesn't. You have to look at the heading of the section. This website wouldn't be considered a "service provider" because it doesn't charge us for the service. It makes its money on advertisements.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:09:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Bart doesn't have to host his site in the US, now does he?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-16 15:06:10 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
we do question our government. pacifists are not dumbasses they just don't get in a tissy every time anything, at all, ever, happens. it's not stupid to weigh the the importance of an issue. just because something's important to you doesn't mean it is to anyone else or even important in the long run at all. and even then if you try to cover everything at once you're not doing anything helpful anyway. try focus instead of splattering half-assed attention all over every issue that happens to filter into your brain in one day.
bitching and moaning about every single thing does absolutely no good, nor does arguing with subjective and easily refuted proof. denying that something else might be right instead of your own opinions or data you found doesn't mean you're right. sometimes it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other and you NEVER see that. a million links for your side does nothing. a better way to argue is to read up on your opponent's views, and deal with them individually and thoroughly instead of just saying you're right because of this, this and this. wait a few days to research something before debating it. accept that alot of people know alot more about alot of things than you do no one man alive today holds all knowledge in the palm of his hands. you probably never know as much as every combined intellect on this website or in your real life. you're a cup of water compared to the ocean, everybody is.
as to us being all sheep, everyone is a sheep. you are a sheep. there's more than one herd out there. you place yourself on a pedestal as if you're the shepherd instead of seeing that all the great minds you quote are remembered for holding the crook and leading the masses while you're standing at their feet waiting for the pieces of wisdom they drop. you will never ever convince anyone of anything with your method of persuasion.
you should never go into politics because you can't deal with people saying no. as much bullshit as politics in general is filled with, they still have learned the art of intelligent conversation. honey and vinegar. life is still a popularity contest and it's easier to get people to give your ideas a chance if they don't think you're an asshole.
i really really really REALLY hate to agree with caul, but, get over yourself.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 14:40:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-16 09:52:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 02:59:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-03-16 02:58:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
Extremist?
---------------------
DUDE, READ IT!
Seriously, this is the real deal.
------------
you are still an extremist, at least a sensationalist. i guess this is the one time i'll ever support the aclu's side of an argument.
-------------------------
You know, if I'm an 'extremist', I'd much rather be that right now than a pacifict, overly-trusting dumbass like most of you people see to be.
You don't question your goverment. You are content to just sit back and let the pundits on TV do that FOR YOU. That's why I think you're all a bunch of fucking sheep for the most part. You will sit on your asses and say nothing right up to the point when someone just hijacks ALL your rights, but by then it will be too late.
If you're not on the front lines, better rest assured someone else will be...problem is, they'll be the ones on the other side.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-03-16 14:40:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
``(b) Inapplicability of Carriers and Other Service
Providers.--For purposes of subsection (a), a person shall
not be considered to make any communication for commercial
purposes to the extent that such person is--
``(1) a telecommunications carrier engaged in the provision
of a telecommunications service;
``(2) a person engaged in the business of providing an
Internet access service;
``(3) a person engaged in the business of providing an
Internet information location tool; or
``(4) similarly engaged in the transmission, storage,
retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any
combination thereof) of a communication made by another
person, without selection or alteration of the content of the
communication, except that such person's deletion of a
particular communication or material made by another person
in a manner consistent with subsection (c) or section 230
shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the
content of the communication.
#4 IS applicable to bart, and would be used, and used successfully, in court on the long, long, long shot chance that someone decided to try and take on Uber.
You don't know how to interpret legislation, and you don't know how the courts interpret legislation. This wouldn't touch Uber or bart either one.
Swing and a miss.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-03-16 14:40:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Jesus christ man. Get out of the house.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 14:36:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
maiorano84:
You know, I might understand you people's arguments against me if I did nothing on this post but quote what some website had to say about the law, but I didn't. I went through the letter of the law and spelled out in some detail exactly how lawyers and prosecutors could use this law against sites like ours, and you STILL DON'T GET IT.
I am fucking baffled by the idiocy.
I know what they SAY the law is supposed to be for, but I have layed out rather fucking clearly in the post as well as the reviews exactly how it could be used against virtually ANY website like this one where material exists that could be "harmful to minors".
If they were ONLY after porn, they wouldn't include "writing".
There are other laws ALREADY IN PLACE that deal with clild porn.
"What you saw on CNN is exactly NOT what you were talking about in this post."
I KNOOOOOOOOOW you're not this fucking stupid... I didn't say it WAS what *I* was talking about in this post. The sad fact is, it doesn't fucking matter if two issues are ACTUALLY related, all that matters is whether middle American can be DUPED INTO THINKING they are!
Just like Loki said, all most American Neanderbeasts out there need is something to get behind, "IT's FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!! NURRRRRRRRR"
Do you WATCH the news? Have you SEEN these pundits on there beating these ideas into people's skulls that arent' even related to the issue? That's what I was talking about.
I can't fucking stand it when something I CLEARLY said gets MISREAD and then MISREPRESENTED. No wonder this post has a fucking NEGATIVE rating. I can't believe that.
Maybe I should have put a fucking "haha rabbit" picture at the fucking end, huh?
"When you see the DOJ actually crack down on free speech websites instead of ILLEGAL pornography rings, then say something."
It'lll be too late by then.
No, I'll say something now, because I already know what they're gonna use this law for.
AGAIN....JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, YOU PEOPLE ARE MORONS.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 14:16:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by VelvetElvis (user info) at 2006-03-16 12:38:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why wouldn't they throw cable tv into the ludicrous lawsuit? Cable has porn accessible to children etc, and ways to block it from them, just as there are ways to block kids' access to internet adult sites.
//
Off the subject, but U.S. and Iraq this morning launched the largest air assault operation since the invasion of Iraq three years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/16/iraq.main/index.html
Not the best news source, but easiest to link to.
------------------------------
Well well well.... Whaddaya know!
Yesterday = lowest approval ratings of Bush's entire administration
Today = on the day the administration brings out a 'new' National Security policy about preemptive strikes against terrorism...and guess what IRAN. OH, and there just 'happens' to be a 'bomb' at the March Madness.
Smells pretty fishy to me.
To me, it looks like someone is trying to say: "LOOK, YOU'RE IN DANGER! WE'RE ALSO IN A WAR WHERE WE HAVE CONTROL - LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THIS AIR STRIKE! WE CAN WIN! DON'T GO AWAY! LOOK, LOOK AGAIN AT THIS BOMB AT THE BASKETBALL GAME! TRUST US!"
And just wait...Bush's numbers will be back up several points by the end of the week. Just give the pundits on Fox news time to work their business on the idiots in middle America.
Submitted by VelvetElvis (user info) at 2006-03-16 12:38:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why wouldn't they throw cable tv into the ludicrous lawsuit? Cable has porn accessible to children etc, and ways to block it from them, just as there are ways to block kids' access to internet adult sites.
//
Off the subject, but U.S. and Iraq this morning launched the largest air assault operation since the invasion of Iraq three years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/16/iraq.main/index.html
Not the best news source, but easiest to link to.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-03-16 12:28:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Now that I've gotten some sleep, I think I can clarify one other point I failed in making:
The Child Online Protection Act can potentially be used against websites such as Ubersite when reading the act word for word. However, this is just another example of different takes on the same reading. The Child Online Protection Act's main purpose is to protect children from pornography, be it free and unmonitored viewing (www.free6.com), or actual participation (kiddie porn).
The word choice may be slightly generalized, hence the people screaming bloody murder. What you saw on CNN is exactly NOT what you were talking about in this post. A major kiddie porn ring was broken up. Thank fucking God. But how in the hell does that exemplify anything you've written about free speech websites being a target? Do you feel that child pornography is an example of free speech?
The way you're reading it is plausible, but only in the sense that people can take the "right to bear arms" ammendment as a right to nail the limbs of large woodland creatures on their wall. Sure, you're making a point, but there is no "I told you so" in this case.
When you see the DOJ actually crack down on free speech websites instead of ILLEGAL pornography rings, then say something.
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-03-16 12:23:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I just saw the title on MRR and new it was you, ETS. I'll read it later. I just made cupcakes.
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2006-03-16 12:00:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Well, I read it. I'd probably normally give a 0, but I hear you're whining about ratings so bad these days you auto retaliate on anyone who doesn't give you a good one, so have a -2.
I don't think any of my posts have been reviewed in nearly a year, but do be sure to pick one of the good ones. Not many of them (why I don't post...wish you'd also take the hint) but I'm sure you can figure it out.
Submitted by digdug (user info) at 2006-03-16 12:00:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"(God bless the ACLU!) "
You know they would probably sue you for that.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-03-16 11:43:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You know it's interesting that it's safer, legaly speaking, to say that you hate kids than that you love them.
Makes you think.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-03-16 11:27:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
but think of the children
Submitted by SPECIALk (user info) at 2006-03-16 10:22:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-16 09:51:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-03-16 04:47:41 (#)
Ranking: 2
It'll be fine. Teeph's a lawyer. He'll keep Bart free.
_____________________________________________
Don't drag me into this. If Bart goes to jail because of ETS's wacky theories he's on his own.
Besides Cilfone would never take my help anyway, I'm a registered Republican.
I've also just misplaced my diet wild cherry pepsi.
Where the hell did that thing go? IT WAS JUST RIGHT HERE!
Fucking DoJ, taking my shit for illegal DNA comparisons, I'll bet.
*********
hahahaha
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-16 10:06:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
LODI, Calif. - When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey's car, he decided to sue the city for damages. Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck. But that minor detail didn't stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for the December accident, even after admitting the crash was his fault.
After the city denied that claim because Gokey was, in essence, suing himself, he and his wife, Rhonda, decided to file a new claim under her name.
City Attorney Steve Schwabauer said this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey can't sue her own husband.
"You can sue your spouse for divorce, but you can't sue your spouse for negligence," Schwabauer said. "They're a married couple under California law. They're one entity. It's damage to community property."
But Rhonda Gokey insisted she has "the right to sue the city because a city's vehicle damaged my private vehicle."
In fact, her claim, currently pending at Lodi City Hall, is for an even larger amount — $4,800.
"I'm not as nice as my husband is," she said.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-16 09:52:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 02:59:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-03-16 02:58:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
Extremist?
---------------------
DUDE, READ IT!
Seriously, this is the real deal.
------------
you are still an extremist, at least a sensationalist. i guess this is the one time i'll ever support the aclu's side of an argument.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-16 09:51:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-03-16 04:47:41 (#)
Ranking: 2
It'll be fine. Teeph's a lawyer. He'll keep Bart free.
_____________________________________________
Don't drag me into this. If Bart goes to jail because of ETS's wacky theories he's on his own.
Besides Cilfone would never take my help anyway, I'm a registered Republican.
I've also just misplaced my diet wild cherry pepsi.
Where the hell did that thing go? IT WAS JUST RIGHT HERE!
Fucking DoJ, taking my shit for illegal DNA comparisons, I'll bet.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-03-16 09:38:10 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Alright, douche, here's my points.....
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 05:41:12 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-16 05:33:28 (#)
Ranking: -1
Except we happen to have the antichrist in office at the moment.
-----------------
Oh come the fuck on. Take the joke.
The fact that it's true shouldn't hamper the hilarity either.
Face it. The guy is a fucking FACE, a NAME. That's it. He's a shell and a puppet, not to mention an ADMITTED felon. He is arguably the simgle WORST thing that has ever happened to this country in terms of our rights and freedoms, our environment, our budget, and our international relations. This administration has been nothing short of disaster, and thank god Americans are finally catching on to what the rest of the world has known for years.
But that is another post...another day.
-----
This is all of your posts, every day.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 05:48:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-03-16 05:42:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
"``(4) similarly engaged in the transmission, storage,
retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any
combination thereof) of a communication made by another
person, without selection or alteration of the content of the
communication"
i don't know why you think that doesn't apply.
--------------------
Because it doesn't. It might be argued that it does, I'll give you that. But what they're talking about here are companies that do webhosting, webdesign, email hosting, web-based file storage like photobucket, etc.
-----
It doesn't, because you say it doesn't? With all of your legal background? Or are you the only one who is allowed to interpret it? You shouted down maiorano down there for doing the same thing. You called it paraphrasing, so let me run you through this part.
All THIS site does is engage in transmission/retrieval (when someone chooses to load a page), storage/hosting (when someone posts), and formats a communication made by another person (the poster) without selection or alteration of the content of the communication. Now, read what Ubersite does. Now read the text that you said doesn't apply. Note the "or any combination thereof" clause. Now, I'm not a lawyer (and don't pretend to be one when I post) but that sounds pretty spot on to what the text of the Act says.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-16 09:33:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
this -2 is for you
you can put it in your shoe
and stew
on how much your post blew
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-03-16 09:17:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And by the way, this is Clinton's law, not Bush's. He's just trying to enforce the laws he was given.
Submitted by angryrob (user info) at 2006-03-16 09:16:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
thats what happens when people depend on the government to raise their kids... parents wont watch the little bastards so lets make laws