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.
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.
You all are a tad off the main subject. Censorship of public domains and war criminology are two totally different forms of justifiable justice. Maybe, one should look into the original affidavit that stated said site was unlawful, and hit the courts with a diminished jurisprudence suit. Otherwise, that the government willingly and unlawfully violated the Constitution of the United States by using its Gestapo-like force to disuade the usage of a public site for artists. As per the "Freedom of Speech" argument, that won't fly. Freedom of Speech is only prudent provided said speech is used AGAINST or FOR the US Government as a whole; it has very little to do with personal opinions stated against or for an individual. The Bill of Rights is the statement that ALL citizens have rights to utilize against a GOVERNMENT that depicts, or issues, or stands-for anything that doesn't resemble the freedoms it was created with. With that said, any action taken by the government against any citizen or business that is considered prejudicial or biased, in any form, is illegal.
What does this mean? It means, a citizen is unable to use the Freedom of Speech motiff to call another citizen names or falsely accuse said citizen of violations of copyright, but a citizen CAN use Freedom of Speech to do said name calling of any governmental objectification, (aka the Prez, VP, HSA, NASA, etc).
So, is the government guilty of violation of Freedom of Speech? No. Is it guilty of violation of FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? YES.
..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.
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.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by RowdyRebel.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
You all are a tad off the main subject. Censorship of public domains and war criminology are two totally different forms of justifiable justice. Maybe, one should look into the original affidavit that stated said site was unlawful, and hit the courts with a diminished jurisprudence suit. Otherwise, that the government willingly and unlawfully violated the Constitution of the United States by using its Gestapo-like force to disuade the usage of a public site for artists. As per the "Freedom of Speech" argument, that won't fly. Freedom of Speech is only prudent provided said speech is used AGAINST or FOR the US Government as a whole; it has very little to do with personal opinions stated against or for an individual. The Bill of Rights is the statement that ALL citizens have rights to utilize against a GOVERNMENT that depicts, or issues, or stands-for anything that doesn't resemble the freedoms it was created with. With that said, any action taken by the government against any citizen or business that is considered prejudicial or biased, in any form, is illegal.
What does this mean? It means, a citizen is unable to use the Freedom of Speech motiff to call another citizen names or falsely accuse said citizen of violations of copyright, but a citizen CAN use Freedom of Speech to do said name calling of any governmental objectification, (aka the Prez, VP, HSA, NASA, etc).
So, is the government guilty of violation of Freedom of Speech? No. Is it guilty of violation of FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? YES.
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.
Re: Re: Re:
Uh, sort of like you, no?
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.