I think that Mike Lee wasn't happy about the decision to put a state law exception into CDA 230 with this bill. I hope he decides to hold, too. Especially because this means that Graham lied to him about discussing this in a floor debate last month.
The problem is, right-wingers (And this applies to a TON of Democrats, too; most are right-wing) tend to go "Ban it and screw the consequences!"
We saw a similar thing with the war on drugs; the only thing it accomplished was a dramatic increase of non-violent prisoners in the US and the militarization of our police force, all without making much of a dent (if at all) in drug-related crime. And yet, they refuse to admit that they were wrong because "Drugs should remain illegal because I think they're immoral". That's pretty much their only line of thinking.
Am I the only one concerned, in light of the fact that Graham has made a more direct attack on encryption with a fresh bill, that the purpose of EARN IT is to do something like bringing back the aspects of the Communications Decency Act that were struck down by Reno v. ACLU?
You clearly didn't read the whole article:
"In the meantime, as law professor Annemarie Bridy correctly points out, even if this is about legislation for the EU, it's crazy to think that people in the US have no stake in the outcome. First off, EU legislation can reach well beyond the borders of the EU and into the US: witness GDPR and the Right to be Forgotten (remember, in France, they've been arguing that the RTBF, as applied in the EU, must be global in nature). Second, as we've seen for decades, copyright maximalists push ever more crazy copyright policies in one region of the world, and then demand "harmonization" elsewhere, pushing that the same rules be applied in other places. Going to Europe to get a crazy copyright law put in place, and then rushing back to the US to demand matching laws is not a new idea. It's literally how we got the DMCA in the first place."
I actually had the misfortune of interacting with this Volker Rieck fella on Twitter. He tricked me into giving out the URL's of one of my favorite forum websites, and when I expressed anxiety, after having found out about his anti-piracy site, he told me that I should stop taking drugs and that I ought to see a doctor. What a chud!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by JFoxworthy.
Second Guy?
I think that Mike Lee wasn't happy about the decision to put a state law exception into CDA 230 with this bill. I hope he decides to hold, too. Especially because this means that Graham lied to him about discussing this in a floor debate last month.
Re: Communications Decency Act
The problem is, right-wingers (And this applies to a TON of Democrats, too; most are right-wing) tend to go "Ban it and screw the consequences!"
We saw a similar thing with the war on drugs; the only thing it accomplished was a dramatic increase of non-violent prisoners in the US and the militarization of our police force, all without making much of a dent (if at all) in drug-related crime. And yet, they refuse to admit that they were wrong because "Drugs should remain illegal because I think they're immoral". That's pretty much their only line of thinking.
Is EARN IT *Actually* About Encryption Now?
Am I the only one concerned, in light of the fact that Graham has made a more direct attack on encryption with a fresh bill, that the purpose of EARN IT is to do something like bringing back the aspects of the Communications Decency Act that were struck down by Reno v. ACLU?
The Blame Game
Is there ANY chance at all that CDA 230 will survive now, since The New York Times has directly blamed the El Paso shooting on the law's existence?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. The goal is to turn the entire internet into a passive broadcast medium like Netflix or Spotify.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, it's not possible to do that. Sooner or later, you'll slip and then it's a lawsuit.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, they're directly repealing the European equivalent.
Re:
You clearly didn't read the whole article:
"In the meantime, as law professor Annemarie Bridy correctly points out, even if this is about legislation for the EU, it's crazy to think that people in the US have no stake in the outcome. First off, EU legislation can reach well beyond the borders of the EU and into the US: witness GDPR and the Right to be Forgotten (remember, in France, they've been arguing that the RTBF, as applied in the EU, must be global in nature). Second, as we've seen for decades, copyright maximalists push ever more crazy copyright policies in one region of the world, and then demand "harmonization" elsewhere, pushing that the same rules be applied in other places. Going to Europe to get a crazy copyright law put in place, and then rushing back to the US to demand matching laws is not a new idea. It's literally how we got the DMCA in the first place."
I Know This Guy!
I actually had the misfortune of interacting with this Volker Rieck fella on Twitter. He tricked me into giving out the URL's of one of my favorite forum websites, and when I expressed anxiety, after having found out about his anti-piracy site, he told me that I should stop taking drugs and that I ought to see a doctor. What a chud!