Slashdot Mirror

It seems that speech isn't really "free"

It seems that speech isn't really "free"

You have to realise that game companies don't have a lot of money to spend on legal defence, and they're playing it very safe.

But that's moot -- this FAA action/plan has *nothing* to do with using old planes in games. Perhaps you (and some previous posters) were thinking of the Military Toy Replica Act instead?

Contact your representative and support the Paper Ballot Act of 2006.

Requires the use of paper ballots for Presidential races.

Slashdot alone has run numerous stories that make it clear that U.S. elections are regularly stolen. We will never have a real presidental election again. Because of human nature, people are oblivous to this and will deny the problem until it is too late.

Now now, I sympathize, but don't fly off the handle. It is at least possible that while the Republicans have a heavy finger on the scale, they may not be able to always tip the balance completely. You want to watch out for that kind of defeatism: a heavy turnout is the first defense against attempted fraud, so don't go around telling people voting is useless.

Here's a fantasy for you: while the Republicans will barely maintain control of the house (due to a few surprisingly strong wins in races that had looked close, possibly, oh, Tennessee and Virginia), the House will go overwhelmingly Democratic. Emboldened by this victory, the Democrats may miraculously develop some spine and begin pushing for authentic election reform, like say The Paper Ballot Act of 2006. The Republicans, seeing that the Democrats have some serious momentum, choose not to block this effort -- which after all is a push for fair elections, not for any particular Democrat advantage.

Like I say, a fantasy. You got anything better?

I don't have time to put up all the stories about election fraud now, but I'll give you my favorite: Gore's negative vote tally in one county. What are your favorite voter fraud stories?

"just about as liberal as it gets when it comes to free speech - you are allowed to say anything you want about a group, but you are never allowed to call for violence"

But you are allowed to shoot someone as long as the gun manufacturers get imdemnified againsd being sued by the surviving relatives.

You do have freedom of speech, just as long as you don't exercise it. Now that the commie label can't be used to demonize whole groups, it's saving us from the terr'rists that's the pretext. Now y'all don't go accusing me of being in cahoots with people who think like the following.

'you accuse us of being warlike, intolerant and un-peacefull, in that case we must kill you', signed Abd-AL-Latif

Here's some people exercising their right to free speech.

Lawyer gets locked up for defending client.

Nurse gets fined for bumper sticker.

Librarian served with lifetime gag order.

was Re:greater or lesser evil

He would never have shot them if he didn't have access to the gun either. Simply put, since gun makers aren't accountable for unintended actions carried out with their products, neither are game makers.

That would certainly make sense, were it true. Unfortunately, common sense is all but dead in this country, buried under too many ideological struggles.

However, the same sort of reasoning that's letting folks legislate away violent video games has also been used -- and frankly I'd argue was brought to near-perfection by -- the anti-gun lobby in its crusade to drive gun manufacturers into bankruptcy. After all, if you can't make something illegal by way of the legislative branch (democracy is such a pain in the ass, isn't it?), well there's always tort law.

Basically, the various anti-gun groups, assisted by the Attorneys General of various cash-strapped locales, attempted to do exactly what you're claiming is so ridiculous: take firearms manufacturers to court and win huge judgments against them, because of the ways that their legitimate products had been misused by criminals.

To be quite frank, except that the pro-gun lobby in the U.S. is better funded and better organized than the anti-gun one, I think they probably would have been successful; and from there, it's nothing but a downward slide into the pit of strict liability. If you thought that there were an obscene number of warning labels and disclaimers on products now, when you remove any sense of logic for placing blame for an incident on the person who actually made the choice to commit the crime, and instead just get judgments from anyone whose products or services might have been even peripherally involved, I can only imagine we'd end up living in a world of soft rubber hammers, dull knives, and safety scissors.

The only reason that the firearms industry didn't get itself ruined by such "strict liability" nonsense, is because (principally through the efforts of the NRA and its members) Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents suits from being brought against a legitimate firearms manufacturer for relief against harm committed by others.

The problem is that video game companies don't have friends like the NRA, at least not yet. They also don't have the public goodwill and support that firearms do. A whole lot of people will show up at the polls if the vote is going to significantly impact their ability to own or buy guns -- more than a few elected officials have ended up on the wrong side of some issue, and found themselves out of office. Like it or not, it's a major political force. And why shouldn't it be -- it has 4.3 million members and has been around in various incarnations for over a hundred years (although admittedly its role as a PAC doesn't date back that far). There is nothing close to that scale to protect the rights of computer users or gamers, although the EFF is probably the most likely candidate and they do try hard. But they're just not big enough yet.

Frankly, I think we need something like the PLCAA universally. The doctrine of strict liability has gone too far, and it's too dangerous to let go unchecked. Suits like this could easily have bankrupted and paralyzed an entire industry (they were meant to), and it's not as though they could only be brought against gun companies. We need protections like this across the board. If you manufacture and sell your product in compliance with the laws of the United States, and a do not attempt to actively mislead consumers or hide the risks of using a product from them, so that a reasonable consumer acting with reasonable prudence, could learn the risks of the product if they chose to care, then you should be exempted from liability springing from that individual's misuse of your product, if they end up harming themselves or others.

People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. They shouldn't

RTFA, it answers your question. Someone can monitor all of your communications (wiretaps of any type) for 90 days without a warrant.

There is a good chance that Coal-To-Liquid will gain quite a bit in popularity. The US is not lacking in coal
and the technology to convert coal into a clean burning fuel has been around for a long time (Fischer-Tropsch).
I believe South Africa started using this type of fuel when they were isolated over Apartheid.

    CTL as an option to replace gasoline is on the radar:

        http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s3623.html

So would the TV Consumer Choice Act, which is a bill for clarifying that the FCC does not have the authority to "require, or prescribe any schedule for the implementation of, digital television reception capability in television broadcast reception equipment"

and

"The requirements and schedule established by the Commission for the implementation of digital television reception capability in television broadcast reception equipment as contained in section 15.117(i) of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 15.117(i)) as modified in FCC 02-230 (August 8, 2002), shall not be effective except as expressly hereafter provided by Act of Congress."

help or hinder the FCC broadcast flag agenda?

cells in animals before they can try the therapy in humans.

I know it is a personal pet peeve of mine but it just makes my skin crawl when people separate humans and animals. Humans ARE animals!

On a slightly more ontopic note: This is the breaking point for future scientific study specifically biomedic/stemcell research in the United States. There are two bills in the house about to be voted on - The Cord Blood Stem Cell Act 2005 HR 596 and Stem Cell Research Act 2005 HR 810 in the house, which surprisingly has *bipartisan support* which even more surprisingly is more than likely to pass and most surprisingly (well...not so much for some of us) is very likely to be vetoed (first time ever for GWB) by the President. Unbelievable.

cells in animals before they can try the therapy in humans.

I know it is a personal pet peeve of mine but it just makes my skin crawl when people separate humans and animals. Humans ARE animals!

On a slightly more ontopic note: This is the breaking point for future scientific study specifically biomedic/stemcell research in the United States. There are two bills in the house about to be voted on - The Cord Blood Stem Cell Act 2005 HR 596 and Stem Cell Research Act 2005 HR 810 in the house, which surprisingly has *bipartisan support* which even more surprisingly is more than likely to pass and most surprisingly (well...not so much for some of us) is very likely to be vetoed (first time ever for GWB) by the President. Unbelievable.

Isay this entire thread is quickly becoming irrelevant. Hr1268 sec 102 http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr1268.html Congress legislated the judiciary powerless. If it works this once there is nothing to stop it from working on everything. The supreme court is the only body that has been keeping this good old U.S. of A. constitutional for some time at this point. When The SCOTUS is powerless the U.S. turns into one of those crappy south american republics with a great constitution and a horrible government that regularly craps on it. Game over.

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:58:45 -0800 (PST)
From: spatch3
Subject: Opposition to bill HR4077
To: feinstein, boxer

Dear Senators,

I realize it is an ongoing, uphill, losing battle to
continually oppose more egregious and draconian
copyright bills that keep cropping up in both the
house and senate. I believe, as do the courts, that
the DMCA of 1998 has many un-constitutional provisions
in it and bill HR4077, presently going to the Senate,
is no different than the DMCA in this respect.
I strongly encourage you to vote against the bill referred to here:

To enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, to educate the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and for other purposes.

Please see the following sites for dissenting voices
about this legislation:

Senate May Ram Copyright Bill

Your Rights Online: Senate May Rush Copyright Legislation

Bad: HR4077 Passed the House


Thank you for your consideration.

Chris


PS: Links to court cases that have struck down or
clarified significant portions of the 1998 DMCA:

Court strikes a good balance in file swapping case

Lexmark loses printer toner cartridges lawsuit; DMCA dives, consumers win big

Lexmark Loss Good for Consumers

United States: Circumvention Provision Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Is Not A New Property Right

Guess what! You do have to worry about a draft. There are a pair of bills (HR 163 and S 89) in congress now, which would require service from all young persons (18-26).

The bills are "languishing in committee" and appear unlikely to pass (and their existence has been used to stir up a lot of political noise by folks willing to exaggerate the facts), but they do exist, and if you want to express your opinion about them, now is the time..

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr163.html
http://www.house.gov/stark/documents/108th/univdra ftstate.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/? billnum=H.R.163&congress=108&size=full

-Brian

Call and get your Local Reps to Co-sponsor the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" or HR2239.

For more information go here: http://verifiedvoting.org/resources/hr2239_volunte ers/hr2239_effort.asp/

Or to read the bill in full: http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr2239.html

Let's get this passed so we don't have to worry about anyone monkeying around in quite possibly one of the most important elections this country has seen in decades-with two very divergent paths for the American people.

Ah forget it, this sucks.

As if the DMCA wasn't bad enough. And the Patriot Act. Christ, there's even serious talk about reinstating a draft in the US just so we can conduct this perpetual "war against terrorism."

Anyone ever notice the United States has been almost continuously at "war" with something/one or another since WW2? First the Germans, then the Koreans, then the North Vietnamese. When they couldn't find anyONE to pick on, then Reagan came up with the war on drugs. We all know how successful one's been.

This bill, if it passes, gives corporations the power to effectively repeal the first amendment. Oh, wait, that's been done before, too...

Note to mods: before modding me off topic or flamebait, read this.

In keeping with Red Hat's naming pattern of color-garment, I suggest "Green Headband Linux" and "White Sheet Linux."

Largely, the non-slashdot concerns about e-voting seem to center around unintentional inaccuracies, like those mentioned in the FA. In other words, the worst problem typically mentioned is about errors causing disenfrachisement or delays in voting. While I don't want to discount these problems, they are fixable, either by a paper backup system or timely software or hardware repairs, likely getting better and better as the machines become more widely used.

Personally, my real concern is about intentional vote fixing by the makers of the machines. I know this has been talked about at great length on /. and elsewhere, but I think it needs more attention in the real world.

I know I'm naive, but the thought that somebody would try to steal the election infuriates me. There is no pit deep and black enough for someone so unpatriotic and dishonest. We must fight to protect one of the greatest experiments in personal freedom in the history of humanity.

Please, take the time to write your CongressCritters about e-voting in the House and Senate.

Largely, the non-slashdot concerns about e-voting seem to center around unintentional inaccuracies, like those mentioned in the FA. In other words, the worst problem typically mentioned is about errors causing disenfrachisement or delays in voting. While I don't want to discount these problems, they are fixable, either by a paper backup system or timely software or hardware repairs, likely getting better and better as the machines become more widely used.

Personally, my real concern is about intentional vote fixing by the makers of the machines. I know this has been talked about at great length on /. and elsewhere, but I think it needs more attention in the real world.

I know I'm naive, but the thought that somebody would try to steal the election infuriates me. There is no pit deep and black enough for someone so unpatriotic and dishonest. We must fight to protect one of the greatest experiments in personal freedom in the history of humanity.

Please, take the time to write your CongressCritters about e-voting in the House and Senate.

Their have however been attempts to introduce legislation pertaining to ATM safety in general, both on the federal and on the state level (the only example that I'm personally familiar with being NY (see here and here) .

Write your CongressCritters!

Write your CongressCritters!

They also discussed the proposed bill "Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003". I'm sure you gamers will like that one.

As usual, their discussion didn't solve anything, but they did highlight the salient points in the ongoing discussion.

I, for one, don't understand why adults believe kids can't distinguish between a game scenario and real life. One "concerned mother" used the example that when kids encounter a roadblock/barricade in a video game, their first response is a violent one (crash it). Encountering the "same" roadblock in real life she said, would thus cause them to have the same first response (violence of some sort). She more or less implied that such kids would run the real roadbloock because they'd seen/crashed one in a virtual situation.

I think kids can distinguish. When you played cops & robbers as kids, did you really think you were shooting-to-kill your playmates? (Those of you that did, are you now a psychopath?)

If you think an auditable paper record is important, contact your representatives and voice your support for the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003.

Section 2: Findings spells out their beef with p2p software and it seems to be the same beef people have with that pesky first amendment.

Peer-to-peer file trading software has been very widely distributed. The most popular of these programs has been downloaded over 200 million times, and at any one time, there are over 3 million people using it.

Strange that they want to outlaw something that a substantial percentage of the public find useful enough to download. The people behind the bill obviously carry some heavy political currency.

(2) Peer-to-peer systems are emerging as a conduit for the distribution of pornographic images and videos, including child pornography. Child pornography is easily found and downloaded using peer-to-peer systems.

Emerging as a CONDUIT?!? Sense when do we go after the conduit. Speech is a conduit for unsavory ideas as are the radio, magazines, books, our minds. Shall we outlaw those too?

If the RIAA is behind this it is really the hight of hypocrisy. This is an organization that is happy to dress up a teenage Brittany Spears in next to nothing and pay here to wiggle around in front of a bunch of horny boys, but threaten their profits and suddenly they are the keepers of the moral flame. What a crazy world.

More permanent link to the Music Online Competition Act

HR 2724.