Internet Blacklisting. (COICA)

[Deacon Frost]

Just like the internet 'switch' proposed not too long ago. It's just the US government thinking they rule the world.

Don't be a fool. This isn't just the U.S. government. Our government collaborates with multiple other world leaders in making decisions like this, and I would just like to say that we are the leading nation for internet usage, and most of what we do sets the bar for other countries. That's how it works.

Completely removed from the internet? As in shutting down the server or removing the domain from existence ? ( ICANN is supposed to be an independent organization -_- ) ... either way they have no right whatsoever to do it.

ICANN would have to operate under this law, meaning they would either agree to obey the new regulations, or they would not be allowed to operate on U.S. soil. They would, of course, comply.

This is ridiculous. I can't believe they're even considering this.

It's actually valid, and did you think the internet would remain unlimited forever? I'm glad to see steps being taken to secure the internet, and make it less chaotic. From what I read of the bill, I support it.

Its removing freedom of speech. And making it so that things that I might like using, could be removed. Its giving massive companies power over us. I hate current copyright laws, and these big companies are using their power to become even richer by making laws that destroy the common man.

It's not removing freedom of speech. There's a misconstrued belief of what freedom of speech means on the internet. Not to mention, this law covers copyrights and infringements and such, not limitations of browsing.

Granted, copyright laws are retarded, I do agree, but at least they're staying on the same path of suck .

Limiting what one can view on the internet is something a dictatorship would do. If the pass this there will be even more of push towards broader censorship on the internet.

No it is not something a dictatorship would do. The internet needs to be limited, to a degree. While I believe that limitations should not be too strict, there must be some conformity. It is still a young place, and while some codes of ethics have been enforced, there's not really enough restriction involved when it comes to the internet.

I signed the petition, but didn't they try something like this in Australia and it's impossible?

It's not the same as Australia's blacklist. People misread.

I also signed the petition. This is so stupid. You'd think they know that this violates the 1st Amendment.

It does not violate the 1st amendment. The internet has bastardized the freedom of speech, something our forefathers could not foresee occurring in 1787.

Here is the complete 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say "You can say whatever the fuck you want, however the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want".

I HIGHLY doubt this would be ever put into place.

If it does i honestly think that it will spark up a 3rd world war.

Highly doubtful. The internet generation doesn't know what a revolution truly is or how to go about starting one, let alone a war.

Isn't this a violation of freedom of speech?

Nope.

Ya exactly, it can't pass since it's against the freedom of speech lol.

Just because something is against the constitution does not mean it cannot be ratified.

The government can label anything as harmful and terrorist activity and shut it down, and simply give the reason of homeland security. I am not surprised.

That is not true. That would impose on the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They can try and label it all they want, and sure, it may be a pain to fight them, but you would have a valid case in court if you could show that they were being dumbasses.

 

[Niini]

Technically this isnt removing or even limiting freedom of speech though. Its not prosecuting those who speak out against their government as they may do in China, its simply removing the medium over which people may choose to communicate.

 

[Munus]

They tried to make an internet filter in Australia recently, the idea seemed to have just disappeared though, it was supposed to happen this year but doesn't look like it anymore.

As for the idea of it just being shutdown completely if they think it is inappropriate, isn't that destroying rights and free speech? I mean i understand if it was like cp but yeah..

 

[DrDeath]

They tried to make an internet filter in Australia recently, the idea seemed to have just disappeared though, it was supposed to happen this year but doesn't look like it anymore.

As for the idea of it just being shutdown completely if they think it is inappropriate, isn't that destroying rights and free speech? I mean i understand if it was like cp but yeah..

The one in Australia was just targeted to stop Child Porn, I think. And I think they are still talking about it, but not sure.

 

[Niini]

The one in Australia was just targeted to stop Child Porn, I think. And I think they are still talking about it, but not sure.

Not only child porn but also unfiltered and unrated content, which would include boards like 4chan

 

[Ozaki]

most of what we do sets the bar for other countries.

It's just another American thinking his country rules the world... Europe and Asia would not stand by while the USA does whatever they want to websites outside of their territory. In fact, I want this to go ahead. It would be nice to see America's reaction when a nation finally stands up to them

Highly doubtful. The internet generation doesn't know what a revolution truly is or how to go about starting one, let alone a war.

The internet is used by all generations and for more than the purpose of perusing the web. The military and government of countless if not all countries rely on servers from across the world. It's one step from removing copyrighted content to terrorizing countries' net access, and THAT would start a war. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if exactly that happened.

No it is not something a dictatorship would do. The internet needs to be limited, to a degree. While I believe that limitations should not be too strict, there must be some conformity. It is still a young place, and while some codes of ethics have been enforced, there's not really enough restriction involved when it comes to the internet.

That's the whole point of the Internet. It is a free place - the only restrictions are set individually by webmasters and the local laws of wherever the content is hosted. Add in foreign laws and take-downs and it becomes yet another weapon for the bloated superpower known as the United States.

Technically this isnt removing or even limiting freedom of speech though. Its not prosecuting those who speak out against their government as they may do in China, its simply removing the medium over which people may choose to communicate.

And in 'removing the medium over which people may choose to communicate', it is limiting freedom of speech.

 

[Niini]

And in 'removing the medium over which people may choose to communicate', it is limiting freedom of speech.

But its not limiting the creation of websites. When a debatign auditorium or Uni coffee house are demolished to make way for something else people do not jump up saying their freedomg of speech has been compromised.

This change wouldnt prevent the discussion, only where it taeks place, and hence it wouldnt be in contradiction to the First Amendment.

 

[SuF]

It's not removing freedom of speech. There's a misconstrued belief of what freedom of speech means on the internet. Not to mention, this law covers copyrights and infringements and such, not limitations of browsing.

Granted, copyright laws are retarded, I do agree, but at least they're staying on the same path of suck .

The law, could shut down any site that has user posted content. One person posts a illegal song, and the website could be blacklisted, which denies everyone else the right to post their thoughts, which is a violation of my freedom of speech.

 

[Niini]

The law, could shut down any site that has user posted content. One person posts a illegal song, and the website could be blacklisted, which denies everyone else the right to post their thoughts, which is a violation of my freedom of speech.

Thats incorrect. Which part of this do you think is violating freedom of speech?

In order to violate freedom of speech the government has to effectively say "You are not allowed to say X" or "We will prosecute you for saying Y". Thats not what the governement is proposing. What they are proposing is similar to this scenario-

If graffiti were legal and I were to go and paint my name on a wall, which was then painted over the next week.

The act of painting over my name isnt limiting my 'freedom of speech', if they were to ban the painting of the word "niini" that would be.

Shitty example I know but it makes sense in my head

TL;DR
BANNING THE MEDIUM OVER WHICH YOU EXPRESS SOMETHING =/= BANNING THE THING ITSELF.

^^ Fail caps will retype later if it offends.

 

[Ozaki]

Thats incorrect. Which part of this do you think is violating freedom of speech?

In order to violate freedom of speech the government has to effectively say "You are not allowed to say X" or "We will prosecute you for saying Y". Thats not what the governement is proposing. What they are proposing is similar to this scenario-

If graffiti were legal and I were to go and paint my name on a wall, which was then painted over the next week.

The act of painting over my name isnt limiting my 'freedom of speech', if they were to ban the painting of the word "niini" that would be.

Shitty example I know but it makes sense in my head

TL;DR
BANNING THE MEDIUM OVER WHICH YOU EXPRESS SOMETHING =/= BANNING THE THING ITSELF.

^^ Fail caps will retype later if it offends.

You're an idiot.

Just because they're only blocking ONE communication pathway, it's still limiting freedom of speech.

If the government made talking in public illegal, would you argue that it ISN'T a violation of freedom of speech, because people can always write things down?

 

[DrDeath]

Well it goes in front of the Committee on the Judiciary today. Lets see what they have to say about it.

 

[Bubba Fuzz]

I hope this is never enforced. I can't believe they are thinking about such things. Do they remember what us Americans hold most high? Our freedom of speech!

 

[sneaky82]

f*** this I'm telling everybody I know to sign this petition its violating are rights most political shit doesn't affect me but this does and I'm mad!

 

[Meowmitch]

The internet cannot be destroyed

[CONNECTION LOST]

...Oh fuck.