Slashdot Mirror
McCain Campaign Protests YouTube's DMCA Policy
Colz Grigor writes "It appears that CBS and Fox have submitted DMCA takedown notices to YouTube for videos from the McCain campaign. The campaign is now complaining about YouTube's DMCA policy making it too easy for copyright holders to remove fair-use videos. I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA."
Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win, they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?
My work here is dung.
Why should McCain be against takedowns? That seems to be the entirety of his election strategy this year.
To think that the DMCA defenders would actually change their minds over this is ridiculous. They wont care about the DMCA since it doesn't affect them for the most part. Once the videos are back, the DMCA will once again be "a much needed weapon to save hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US, it said so right here in this report".
They're only doing it because people are issuing take down notices for their on-line attack ads. They just can't get no love :)
All he is looking for is special treatment. I guarantee if someone posted a video that was not beneficial to his campaign or even detrimental he would not hesitate to thank the DMCA act for taking down the video.
Go ahead and mod this flamebait, I just don't think he should get special treatment just because he's a presidential candidate.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Money != speech
McCain voted for a bill (the DMCA) that made service providers responsible for doing an immediate takedown of content alleged to have been improperly posted regardless of the merits of the complaint if they wanted the fullest protections the law could provide. Complaining when a company is complying in full with that law hardly seems fitting.
It's almost a shame the Obama campaign isn't submitting more content (defensible as fair use) that could be mechanically considered to infringe themselves; if this were the case, there would be less perception that YouTube is pushing a political agenda via their takedown process.
Republicans pushed for this.
Uh, you should look up the DMCA. It's the part in the right column at the bottom, the one that reads
# Signed into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998
I think both parties are in agreement on copyright law, who ever has the cash gets to sue everybody else. Only when two giants like Viacom and Youtube go up against each other are they unsure of what to do.
They don't seem to realize that this is John McCain they're dealing with not some nobody prole.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
...the whole letter. While it's an interesting read - does anybody know if McCain voted pro-DMCA?
If this law is hampering your campaign, why did you vote for it, McCain?!
I'd say you could potentially gain back some of your totally trampled credibility by suddenly proposing a repeal of the DMCA with your senate position, but I somehow doubt that such a miracle would occur...
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
...would be to amend the DCMA to exempt political speech, perhaps by pre-registering certain users as exempt from takedown.
There, now the freedom to post campaign ads is unaffected.
here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.
What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
McCain was a senator when the DMCA was enacted. Did he vote for it?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The letter is available at http://lessig.org/blog/YouTube%20copyright%20letter%2010.13.08.pdf.
If anything happens, they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.
That would be perfect.
Since there does exist an actual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party Pirate Party. Now put a political message in the metadata of your files, and claim your exemption.
I'm certain that The Pirate Party would have no issue endorsing files so that they received DCMA exemptions.
(The Pirate Party of Podunk County has approved this message)
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
I see this going down like this. McCain will complain about fair use and the DMCA, the RIAA and friends will "lobby" and all of a sudden McCain's camp will stop complaining. It would probably go down the same way for Obama. I don't beleive that the candidates are really the issue, just part of the system, I blame the parties. The political parties in this country have really mucked things up.
Hypocrisy is ignorant people who are clueless to the facts. Both parties are culpable in passing this abomination.
here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.
What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.
People like the person you were addressing are a serious impediment to rational discourse on the internet. They are insulated by the web, and have created some sort of cognitive dissonance that hides the real world situation from themselves.
Typical fanboy behavior. Unfortunately, it applies to all aspects of society; Sports teams, cities, nations, ethnicities, OS, and obviously politicians all have their fanboys. What really bugs me is when people like him get so wound up in their own fanaticism that they begin to engage in the old practice of 'If I can't have it, then no one can.'
But thanks for looking up the vote totals. I like to see that sort of information tossed back at these fanatics at every opportunity regardless of claims to any political ideology.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Fox and CBS send the notices, but... let's blame youtube, I mean, McCain campaign fighting with Fox News would have been so awesome, but they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot like that...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Anyone remember this article?
Obama Requests Creative Commons for Presidential Debates
That is when I started liking the guy. Seems like he was even more prescient than I thought.
I would love to have this question asked at tonight's debate.
"Senator McCain, your campaign is complaining that it is being unfairly censored by the DMCA. How do you reconcile your complaint when you yourself voted for this exact measure?
I'm no Obama supporter, but I'd love to watch him answer that question.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Administrative exceptions to DMCA as of 2006: "Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2003.)"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Its your bill, in at least the fact that you voted for it?
Since you're a Senator are you going show some genuine spine, and sponsor legislation to change or repeal that POS?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
"Oh, so THAT's what Fair Use means."
It must really suck when a law you voted for doesn't work out the way you like.
The law of unintended results.
Why is it that politicians don't give a damn about an issue even though millions of people protest it, speak out against it, etc, until they are affected? How long have we been saying the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2000 was evil? Since, I don't know, maybe 2000??? And did they ever care?
So politicians don't care, but the second a politician is affected by an injustice, they speak out about it, protest it, etc? Wow, talk about slow. Maybe if the politicians cared about these issues BEFORE the issues are written into injust laws, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with.
How many YouTube videos have been removed using the truly unjust DMCA Act? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Remember those anti-Scientology videos, that used free speech to get the message out about the (cult) of Scientology? The ones that got removed by the thousands because some guy filed 3,000 DMCA takedown notices?
And the politicians don't care about 3,000 protest videos being deleted from YouTube, but they sure as hell get their lawyers and press people to issue statements denouncing the DMCA Act due to a few removed campaign videos.
(I do at least give him credit for issuing a statement)
While most republicans did ignore the looming crisis, McCain not only warned that mortgages needing reform before they imploded, but signed onto bills to do just that - including in 2007 (although it was likely too late by then). He was ridiculed by both sides of the aisle. And yes, I am aware of how Bush fanned the flames of the mortgage mess.
Here's a copy of an email I sent to my fellow Arizonan:
Ah, John. Your ill-advised vote back in 1998 for the DMCA has come back to bite you. It was with great pleasure that I read that Youtube was taking down your campaign videos due to a DMCA demand by Fox and CBS. You helped pass it. Sir, Barry Goldwater was a conservative. William Buckley was a conservative. A conservative wants FEWER laws, not more. LESS government regulation, not more. A conservative encourages a business-friendly environment - NOT a "business gets anything it wants" environment. You have forgotten the difference, and now you are paying the price. Your presidential campaign is all but over. You have lost the conservative base with your poorly-thought-out desperate attempts to please everyone. You had us, right until you took the supremely idiotic step of suspending your campaign - which was a clear political ploy that backfired. Capitalism is vital, but part of the price of capitalism is sometimes suffering failure. Bankruptcy, too is part of the failure process - entrepreneurs and other people need to know that they have a chance to start over if they fail. Your vote on the Bankruptcy Act of 2005, making it MORE difficult for all but the richest Americans to declare bankruptcy was another gift to business. And still, you persist in giving business whatever they want, at the expense of average Americans, with your recent idiotic vote on the "Copyright Czar" legislation. The record companies and motion picture companies have a broken business model that is being supplanted by new technologies, and like your ridiculous bank bailout bill you have chosen to give them what they want rather than letting them pay the price of failure. I will be voting for Bob Barr this election, not out of any hope that he will win, but rather in the hope that Republican political operatives will realize that increasing numbers of their traditional base can no longer stomach voting for so-called "Republicans" who don't seem any different from Democrats. I look forward to supporting your continued efforts in the Senate on behalf of Arizona, but your presidential campaign is over.
Well, I don't know how he'd answer, but I suspect it will involve the phrase, "my friends." :-D
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
Typical fanboy behavior.
You must not be up on your lingo sir. I beleive as of 2007 the correct spelling is fanboi.
either of them win
McCain has no shot. A great many Republicans, including myself do not like his random and inconsistent posturing, are offended by his attack ads, and honestly think he has the sort of speechmaking ability that can sell the USA to itself and to the world.
I think the Republican Party needs to lay low for a few years, be an opposition party, and come up with a new plan and a new message. We've played all the old cards and its time to come up with the something new.
This is my sig.
The reason we hear about the DMCA here on Slashdot is because it has an effect on the typical Slashdot reader. A group who isn't very representative of the population. You think it's based on principle? Hah. Simple rationalization.
My friends, I've always been a maverick and an outsider. So when I voted for the DMCA, I knew that I was sticking it to the man. Because, as a Senator, I am 'The Man'. It was the most logical way for me to stick it to myself.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
There's a difference between voting to have a regulation in place, and having that regulation enforced unfairly. This wouldn't even be an issue if YouTube was taking down Obama videos as well.
It's actually not so much about YouTube not taking them down as it is that Fox and CBS aren't requesting Obama's videos be taken down.
If this was a 30 second video of a baby dancing to a Prince song, McCain wouldn't think that YouTube was doing anything untoward by obeying a take down video. The fact that this is a political message doesn't mean that YouTube pretty much has to comply with a DMCA notice if it actually looks valid, right?
This seems more like it's whining over the fact that it's his video which is being taken down. Maybe he should be pissed at CBS and Fox for ordering the takedown of his stuff and sue them.
This sounds like selective outrage to me. If Di$ney was issuing notices over Steam Boat Willie, McCain would think they're just protecting their interests and that's OK.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I submit as evidence the following list of videos posted by Obama's official campaign including CBS footage:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+cbs++BarackObamadotcom&as=1&and_queries=obama+cbs++BarackObamadotcom&exact_query=&or_queries=&negative_queries=&geo_name=&geo_latlong=&search_duration=&search_hl=&search_category_type=all&search_sort=&uploaded=
Sounds good ranting about fanboys, but when I read the OP it certainly didn't sound that way. It did not sound like he was giving a free pass to non-republicans, only that republicans did vote for the bill by a very large margin and mccain, as a republican is getting his just desserts.
In fact, I think it is just as plausible that electrictoy favors the republicans since he expressly high lighted that Clinton was a *democrat* despite the fact that congress's vote were veto-proof, making the president's signature and thus his party, irrelevant.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I wasn't aware of the 70% (someone else said 2/3) rule. Let's not quibble over a few percent.
Just imagine that it wasn't there and Clinton had vetoed the bill - can you imagine the cries there'd have been from supporters of the bill? Which in a way is understandable, since all that 1776 business was about not letting one guy make all the decisions.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Maybe they could become the party of fiscal responsibility and small government again
I would certainly hope so. I mean, seriously, I see all these ads about how Democrats are in favor of big government and I can't imagine anyone expanding federal power more than Bush has.
Even FDR did not socialize banking the way Bush has. I think conservatives who foolishly support Bush's domestic surveillance will come around when they realize that Obama will have those same tools as well.
This is my sig.
Typical fanboy behavior. Unfortunately, it applies to all aspects of society; Sports teams, cities, nations, ethnicities, OS, and obviously politicians...
You forgot the most vehement categories: editors and shells. :)
I agree with you. While I highly prefer vim and zsh, I have no issue with someone else using Emacs or bash. Another thing to consider is that people are determined to see things in black and white. I am tired of hearing how there are only two options when Congress is deciding something. R's want one thing and D's want another. The two options will of course be (almost) complete opposites. Compromise or another possibility that does not upset either party is not an option.
Maybe the number of options proposed is related to the number of parties present in Congress?
"People like the person you were addressing are a serious impediment to rational discourse on the internet. They are insulated by the web, and have created some sort of cognitive dissonance that hides the real world situation from themselves."
Funny, I think the same about people only reading newspapers and watching tv, missing all the suppressed information only available on the net that the MSM won't show. But well, the DMCA, much like the recently passed PRO-IP Act and following laws will end this last resort of uncontrolled information soon. What, you thought this is all about copyright and piracy? Wake up already!
They don't love Obama, if they did, they would be crowing about how the election is already in the bag. Democrates have over 270 electoral votes, within the margin of polling error. It's a done deal, we've won the presidency. The only question is, will Democrats take a filibuster proof supermajority in both houses? If the media were really liberal, instead of greedy, they would tell the truth. But a tight race means more viewers, so they continue to make it seem closer than it is.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
All those YouTube videos showing him putting his foot in his mouth. I can understand why they want to get those videos yanked.
And now we've got the PRO-IP Act / Copyright Czar crap to deal with now.
I wonder how many elected officials have open Wi-fi or even simple WEP protection. Time to start torrenting of their connections...Muwahahahaha !
Sadly, any infractions on their part will probably get swept under the rug.
I find it funny that if you chance "McCain" in the title to "Obama", this would be one giant outrage. As it stands now, people only care about the DMCA when it affects them.
In fact, I think it is just as plausible that electrictoy favors the republicans since he expressly high lighted that Clinton was a *democrat* despite the fact that congress's vote were veto-proof, making the president's signature and thus his party, irrelevant.
While one must either commend or pity you (depending on one's level of jaded cynicism) for being willing to give the benefit of the doubt, you're pretty much way off base here. Up above, electrictoy proved to be a rather vitriolic troll.
It was the most logical way for me to stick it to myself.
I heard the GOP was moving away from courting the rabid religious, but come on... that's a bit much. There's not enough Draino in the world to get that image out of my head.
you bastard...
The caption says all I want to say here.
Perhaps the Republican Candidate's response is linked to all the hell they got in for attempting to fraudulently use all those songs in their campaign ads that were later pulled because the artists who owned the songs had not given their consent? Perhaps the party had been downloading them..
But, what do I know. I just watched the rest of my country re elect the same bozo into the same minority government Proving that people everywhere get their IQ's lopped off at the knees when elections star. . At least the Head Bozo didn't get the Majority he wanted, Things remain pretty much the same as they were yesterday. Except Prime minister Bozon gets to be happy he keeps the key to the club pool house.
Down South on the other-hand, Oh jeez I am so happy I am not having to live through the election poop you guys are having to go through with the Wicked witch of the way up norther than here. If she gets to be your new VP you can bet Shiny new apples will be on his desk every morning. **insert high pitched cackle, poof of badly animated smoke with the word *POOF* written on it in big bold 24p letters, hairpins clattering to the ground here**, and she'll be *GONE!* off to speed back to the the community centre to see how her 'babies without birthrights' Christis (silent T of course) meeting, to see about housing for these misguided young 'mothers to be' Freedom Centres to borrow from Margaret Atwood, a Freedom 'From' Centre more likely: "We would provide for all her needs and expenses, she would have access to doctors, counsellors and peers on call for her 24 hours a day, in a safe, secure environment, free from stresses that might unduly effect the health of the mother or the baby she is carrying!" in Palinese it sounds nice, but translated into English our 'scenario gets a tad more complicated: Forced Confinement, Constant 24 hour monitoring, 24 hour full propaganda assault, total control of her environment,
I know, I am not an American, but I may in fact have far more experience that she in foreign policy. While she can say she can see Russia from her house. Not only can I see the USA from my house, but I have been to it several times and also, I can speak the language, and oddly 'some of my best friends are American. ;
-m
-Magdalene --"there are 10 types of people in the world, those who read binary, and those who don't"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403343_pf.html today was also fairly interesting to read, even though it does lack (references to) some background info needed to fully understand the impact..
I dislike the term veto proof. A supermajority means that the veto is likely to be overridden, and when the margian is as great as it was for the DMCA it would greatly weaken the president to veto it, and force them to override it, but the president CAN veto any bill. It requires a separate vote to override it. Andrew Johnson vetoed many bills he thought were bad bills, and because the congress was overwhelmingly against him had more than half his vetos overridden, but he still vetoed them. Please be more careful with such terms in the future.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
What really bugs me is when people like him get so wound up in their own fanaticism that they begin to engage in the old practice of 'If I can't have it, then no one can.'
Off-topic: where I grew up, that was known as a "dog in a manger". The dog didn't want to eat the hay, but barked and growled at the cows who did want it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Wow it really sucks when the rules that you agree to come back to bite you in the butt..
next up I hope every senator and congressmen have to use the normal (what most people have) health insurance. Then maybe they will start to look at the health insurance companies and fix that.
and no I do not be live in socializing medical treatment, but something should be done with the health insurance companies.
love the taste, hate the texture
huh? At first you sound like you are disagreeing but then you agree?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The RIAA and MPAA have successfully created a tremendous opportunity for some totally obnoxious person to exploit the hell out of the DMCA and recently enacted IP legislation. These things always have unintended consequences, and this one really seems prone for huge ones. Rather that fight it, look at ways to get rich by restricting the distribution of "something that shouldn't be restricted" such as EULAs, news stories, terms of service agreements, proper names, religious texts, or anything else that has been copyrighted yet gone nowhere commercially.
The fastest way to end this is to find a way that the little guy (read: unemployed lawyer) can get rich off it.
So? Republicans still pushed for it. When Obama starts bitching, we can make fun of the Democrats too. But today is "Mock the Republicans" day, because they are the ones who are whining about the unfair laws they voted for. The Democrats aren't doing that. They're still pretending that the law is fair, so we can't call 'em on their hypocrisy just yet.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Meanwhile, HBO and Comedy central with their far left leaning show hosts are still readily available to my liberal european eyes (and they are funnier too)
The difference is, when you do get to see them it can bankrupt you (even if you thought you had insurance).
My wife had to have a very expensive procedure done. Twice. I'm not going to get into it but it did wind up costing more than the house we live in.
The doctor would not proceed with the procedure until after we contacted our insurance carrier and got a letter of confirmation from them. We told them what we wanted done, they said ok, and once the doc had the letter in hand the procedure would commence.
All you really need to do is contact your insurance beforehand and CYA. It's not such a big deal.
BTW, my wife's condition is ultra-rare, there are only 3 or 4 specialists in our entire state, and we've never had to wait more than a week. Hell, they'll call us if they think we should have a checkup and schedule it for us. I don't know where you go for your medicine, but if they're making you wait for months on end you should shop around more and find some people who care.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
My friends, for five and a half years in Vietnam, I didn't have copyright at all. And as a POW, I will lead this nation to victory, not shameful defeat.
I want less regulation, not more, except that time with Fannie and Freddie, when Obama's cronies wanted that.
Iraq, Iran, POW, GOOD NIGHT!
The only way for the Republicans to still win this election would be to erase all Palin videos from the collective memory. They should file takedown notices against those and shut up.
And Clinton still defends it, and says it has nothing to do with the current crisis:
And though I despise Bill Clinton with every fiber of my being, I have to admit he makes an excellent point about the bill allowing some of the mergers that are now saving banks without the need for government to step in and help.
Um, disregard that. I thought we were still taking about... nevermind.
You are mistaken. Ignorance is when ignorant people are clueless to the facts. To an extent, ignorance is forgivable. Hypocrasy is when someone has the facts and chooses to ignore them.
"Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -- George Carlin
I was disagreeing with your apparent qualifying electrictoy as a non-fanboy. :)
Republicans have talk radio and I guess liberals have YouTube and all other types of media. I wonder what would happen if the Fairness Doctrine was brought back?
You left out the part about being a POW in Vietnam.
I am officially gone from
The original poster did NOT say it was a "Republican bill". The original poster said "Republicans pushed for this" which you seem to agree with.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
It's actually not so much about YouTube not taking them down as it is that Fox and CBS aren't requesting Obama's videos be taken down.
And that's what is beautiful about the takedown requests. Fox and CBS don't have to request Obama's videos come down if they don't want them to. They can, however, use it to selectively silence the ads of those they do not support.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
You must not be up on your lingo sir. I beleive as of 2007 the correct spelling is fanboi.
I did have to supress the urge to use that spelling. However, I like to post comments which could also be read aloud without sounding like it came from the internet. Fanboy cuts it close, but I do love the sound of the good old fashioned, fanatic.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Simplicity itself. The key is right there in the question: "unfairly censored". Any politician worth the title will be able to argue that the law is sound and just, but that it's being applied incorrectly. This immediately shifts the blame to the other guy, and makes the politician look like the poor maligned victim of unfairness by the commie-pinko left-wing press.
Really, after the outright lies told every day in the campaign (by both sides, I might point out) this question wouldn't even cause McCain to break a sweat. In fact, he probably even believes something very close to what I just wrote.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
You know considering that he rarely mentions this I don't get the joke. Is the joke that all of the sudden having military service is a disqualification for being President? Please explain it to me because I am anxiously awaiting your intelligent response.
Let's look at the 105th United States Congress (January 3, 1997 to January 3, 1999):
SENATE: 55 Republicans, 45 Democrats (Republican majority)
HOUSE: 228 Republicans, 206 Democrats (Republican majority)
And, of course, the President was a Democrat. But, as you readily admit, the Senate and House passed the DMCA with a veto-proof majority.
The OP sounds like one of those rank and file dems who are going to suddenly get real quiet and tolerant about government abuses if they start occuring while Obama is in power, much the same way they did when Clinton was in power.
I am really hoping that the majority of dems have learned that what you let your guy get away with, sets precedent for the next guy. As a proud Obama supporter this election, I intend to not sink into the partisan retardation of the past. When he is elected, he will be held accountable, exactly as the republicans should have held Bush accountable. I hope the OP and other partisan democrats understand the importance of holding their leaders accountable, as opposed to acting like rank and file republicans, pointing to the "other side" and saying "they did it, I'll do it too!"
One thing we need now more than ever in this country, is accountability in government. We won't get it as long as partisans close their eyes to the steaming piles produced by their "side".
You'll fucking say anything to appear to be in the right, won't you.
You'll fucking say anything to appear to be in the right, won't you.
No, but I will say anything to appear to be in the left.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Well, I thought I was saying there is a good chance that he is one.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
And what's the waiting time for that same surgery in the US if you have no money to pay for it?
I know of someone who was 79 yrs old, basically destitute and living on a fixed income of only Social Security, no health insurance, only Medicare. He was diagnosed with kidney cancer and needed emergency surgery to remove one of his kidneys which had a large malignant tumor on it that was in danger of bleeding internally and he was accepted into MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston immediately and his surgery was completed in under three weeks from his first visit there. That was two years ago and he's alive and doing well today at age 81.
He mentions his military service in just about every campaign stump speech he's given.
"I've served my country since I was 17 years old, and I've got the scars to prove it!"
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/09/new-twist-for-m.html
Nothing that can't be fixed with a small tactical nuke (or even a large one).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Followup:
Whenever you consider granting someone a power, such as the power that was granted by this law, you have to evaluate it not on what you intend it to do, but by the consequences which would result if it were abused.
It goes to show that those that voted for this measure, did not fully understand the consequences of their actions.
(This is a followup, but if you wanted to make it harder for them, simply don't use the term 'unfairly' when you ask the question)
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj