Attorney General may be able to shut down web sites without a court hearing

[Chris B.]

Thanks to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont), we have a new bill in congress that would allow the Attorney General to shut down any website they want without any legal process as logn as the attorney General thinks they are related to piracy.

"On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime."

"Among the sites that could go dark if the law passes: Dropbox, RapidShare, SoundCloud, Hype Machine and any other site for which the Attorney General deems copyright infringement to be “central to the activity” of the site"

"In short, COICA would allow the federal government to censor the internet without due process."

I wouldn't call Sen. Pat Leahy unbiased at all:
"Over the course of his career, Leahy has received $885,216 from the TV, movie and music industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

Basically, this allows government censorship of the internet and skips the entire legal process. No court hearings, the site is just turned off.

Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee

[jpalamar]

Thats gay. Gov't is def overstepping their boundy. Just like with Four Loco... but you can still go to a bar and order a Redbull and Vodka, ect...

Guess sites are just going to start hosting overseas now.

[Scapegoat]

Originally Posted by jpalamar

Guess sites are just going to start hosting overseas now.

most of the torrent sites are.

[3rdGenMr2Girl]

yeah that's easily avoided anyway. it's not really a concern for those websites.

[rodder]

Originally Posted by 3rdGenMr2Girl

yeah that's easily avoided anyway. it's not really a concern for those websites.

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Apply that to any group the government puts limitations on or attempts to ban or silence and see if it's still something you support.

[Scapegoat]

Originally Posted by rodder

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Apply that to any group the government puts limitations on or attempts to ban or silence and see if it's still something you support.

it's ok... it's just a fact of life

[Foolinaround]

Im now interested to see what all the meme kids at the Xchan sites are going to do about this.

[c0nfl1kt]

Committees have zero power. Why are you all freaking out? Even if something like this got through Congress the president would make use of his ink. lol at all the nerds freaking out when they don't have all the facts.

[Elliott18t]

yet even vetos can be overruled..

[c0nfl1kt]

Originally Posted by Elliott18t

yet even vetos can be overruled..

With a majority that doesn't exist on neither side. Why didn't you guys cry wolf when patriot act started filtering all traffic coming in and out of the US(voice, data)?

[rodder]

Originally Posted by c0nfl1kt

With a majority that doesn't exist on neither side. Why didn't you guys cry wolf when patriot act started filtering all traffic coming in and out of the US(voice, data)?

there actually were plenty of us who did... you just didn't notice it because you were either a)blinded by partisanship or b)haven't been paying attention.

and if you think this is something Obama would actually veto, I have some waterfront property you might be interested in...

Now instead of trying to change the subject how about continuing the discussion like a rational person?

[c0nfl1kt]

Originally Posted by rodder

there actually were plenty of us who did... you just didn't notice it because you were either a)blinded by partisanship or b)haven't been paying attention.

and if you think this is something Obama would actually veto, I have some waterfront property you might be interested in...

Now instead of trying to change the subject how about continuing the discussion like a rational person?

I joined this website in 2008. You could check that if you possessed the brain power to think on that level(look at me, I can attempt to insult you the same way you attempt to do me), but it's obvious you don't. The Patriot Act was passed a good 9 years ago. You talk about being rational? I know PLENTY of hardcore fiscal conservatives that say they are rational about our president and when presented with facts are VERY much biased. President Obama has said time and time again he is for a FREE and OPEN internet(also known as Net Neutrality). He has been as hardheaded about the things some of us consider good as the things some of us consider bad.

[rodder]

I'm not sure what the date the so-called "Patriot Act" was signed into law or what "hardcore fiscal conservatives" have to do with the discussion here. Nor do I have any idea why my "brain power" is being called into question for not looking into your join date, or why your join date has now been added to the discussion either. Lastly, I'm curious as to which part of my post you took as an insult that deserved a retaliation on my intelligence.

PS, one sign of intelligence is the ability to carry on a rational and logical argument with someone without resorting to straw man arguments or personal attacks.

So, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

[rodder]

oh, and also, if Obama is all for a free and open internet, why was he pushing so hard for bill S.773 last year?

http://www.examiner.com/blogosphere-...us-senate-bill

Kinda like how he said he's not gonna try to take anyone's guns away during the campaign trail while explicitly stating on his campaign website that he planned to reinstate the assault weapons ban and make it permanent.

I can't believe there are still people that actually believe anything that comes out of this fool's mouth.

You've been duped. The emperor has no clothes.

[nuTinmuch]

Originally Posted by c0nfl1kt

With a majority that doesn't exist on neither side. Why didn't you guys cry wolf when patriot act started filtering all traffic coming in and out of the US(voice, data)?

Why does a majority matter?

The bill isn't partisan.

Also...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/o...nsorship-bill/

This doesn't mean the fight is over, but someone is at least listening.

http://www.examiner.com/blogosphere-...us-senate-bill

this link seriously quotes prison planet

excuse me while i hysterically laugh