RowdyRebel’s Techdirt Profile

rowdyrebel49

About RowdyRebel

I am a blunt and honest individual, and have been considered (and tagged) as an over-opinionated motherfucker. My political views are those of an Anarchist, as I find all parties to be null and void. If current politicians were to follow the number one rule of governing, they would all be scandal-free, honest to a fault, and actually believe they are defending the American people in their advocacy against the system. However, all politicians only care about themselves, how much money they can steal and squander, and to hell with the American people whom elected them for fair representation.



RowdyRebel’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 9th, 2011 @ 2:58pm

    Re:

    It isn't about piracy or copyright infringement so much as it is about the illegal shut-down of websites as per the governments fundamentals or ideals. It is a blocking of mainstream media via the internet. SOPA isn't anything more than the governments newest multi-billion dollar spending machine at work to destroy the creativity of people who enjoy cyberspace.

    I think if the government was truly intent on securing the web from cyber-pirates, then they would work on a specific firewall design that would track any form of breach detected, instead of just spying on people attempting to voice their public views on stupidity and ironicisms.

  • Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:19pm

    Follow up

    I had a great comment that for some reason is not posted. So, I will sum it up for all of you:

    Is the US Government guilty of the violation of Freedom of Speech? No.

    Is the US Government guilty of the violation of Freedom of the Press? Yes.

    That alone should be a good enough retainer for any attorney with the gumption to sue the US Government for infringement of any form of media, be it the news or a blog on an artists website, domain.

  • Sep 22nd, 2011 @ 9:21am

    Well, if one cannot take the heat of trial...

    ..then one should not practice law in a courtroom. Lawyers should remember that the "neutral" judge still is the court 'over-lord' and can rebuke any argument said lawyer has. If the lawyer puts forth a stammering ability in said court, why isn't the judge allowed to tell said lawyer that he/she needs to go back to school to "learn to be a real lawyer"? Court is not for the weak minded. Granted, too many judges these days believe television is mainstream, and good drama rhetoric deserves to be publicly acclaimed, however, and unfortunately, no lawyer is worth an Oscar outside of the movie industry.

  • Sep 22nd, 2011 @ 8:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Uh, sort of like you, no?

  • Sep 22nd, 2011 @ 8:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Dur, it wasn't advocating violence, or anything else. It was asking a generalized question. People who take generalized questions to the extreme, believing that said question advocates direct action, need to step back from their computer, take a deep breath, and realize that the reality of the situation is this: It is the internet. A place where there are more virtual soldiers and mercenaries, than real soldiers and merc's, in the entire world; where someone can be anonymous and be extreme, without really worrying about being targeted. To advocate a violent act it would firstly have to be a statement (not a question), and secondly, it would have to be directed at a specific individual or entity. If you do not understand that, pack up your system and take it back to the place you bought it, and tell them you are too stupid to own a computer.