Slashdot Mirror
House Panel Moving Forward With SOPA
itwbennett writes "The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a debate and vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act for later this week. Representative Lamar Smith, the committee chairman and main sponsor of the bill, will offer an amendment that is meant to address some concerns with the bill. Smith's proposed amendment would clarify that the bill applies only to foreign websites, not U.S. sites, accused of aiding copyright infringement."
That.
its ok when the US law affect only to other countries? The only Web 2.0 sites in the world can only be from US now?
"We will only censor foreign websites, we promise!" does not make the proposal any better. Their are no nationality of a website on the Internet, a website is a part of the Internet, no matter where it is hosted.
I mean, who even goes to those foreigner-operated so-called "websites" anyway?
Even during an election year, when the bill before Congress gives rights to wealthy corporations and takes them away from citizens, that's a sure way to win overwhelming bipartisan support. It's one of the effects of government by bribery that we currently have.
I am officially gone from
Note also that any further discussion of Waggener Edstrom's efforts on behalf of Microsoft will be moderated to -1.
"Monitoring conversations, including those that take place with social media, is part of our daily routine; our products can be used as early warning systems, helping clients with rapid response and crisis management.
http://waggeneredstrom.com/about/approach [waggeneredstrom.com]
http://waggeneredstrom.com/clients [waggeneredstrom.com]
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/39304/
so only if it's outside us jurisdiction will the laws be applied? well hot damn.
it will only affect sales of .com addresses though.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You can only complain if you've tried to make your voice heard:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/fight-blacklist-toolkit-anti-sopa-activists
How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government and stops supporting liberals just because they're occasionally expanding an "acceptable" part of government? Give a politician an inch and they'll bend you over and give you 10. The only way to remain free is to slap down anything they don't have the authority to do. If we really need it, then we need an amendment saying so. Otherwise, make them stick to the enumerated powers and made them side with freedom over lobbyist bribes.
Also, when your favorite politician is advocating some new expansion of government power, ask yourself if you'll be so happy when this new power is wielded by the other side. Listen to our Founding Fathers: the only way to be free is not tempt men with power. Historically, government is an oppressor and everything it does should be treated with suspicion or you deserve what you get.
"I think we should tax the incomes of foreigners living and working abroad!"
That should go down well with domestic voters . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Actually, all that will happen is that the US has built exactly what they've been decrying about the Chinese Internet for so long - only the US will be blocked from accessing those sites and they'll carry on being hosted in foreign countries just as before. It's a "Great Firewall of US" instead, that's all. And the feature creep from piracy to other undesirable things is *exactly* what the Chinese do to block sites that disagree with their regime (up to and including Google for mentioning democracy, for example). And who manages those lists? And how hard would it be to put Wikileaks on it, or any site that discloses "secret" details of Guantanamo Bay etc.?
You still won't be able to shut down anything operating outside the US (hosting, domains, or internet access) and it will still carry on regardless, just that the US won't easily "see" it. It's an all-ways-lose for the US, really, trying to box its citizens off from the real world like China does.
The US "pirates" won't suffer (they'll just download from somewhere else, or find a way to join the same downloads bypassing the filters, or buy a VPN in China with Bitcoins), the non-US "pirates" won't suffer at all, the "pirate" sites will lose a few users but also a whole lot of hassle (if the US people can't see the sites like AllOfMP3 that worked by having Russian music-industry licenses anyway, then what's to sue over?) and also still can't be brought to stand in court in the US unless something very serious has been done and they are extradited, and the music/movie industries get the law they've always wanted (and still there'll be no change to overall piracy levels).
The burden of complying will push content providers out of the US (because now they HAVE to filter everything and Google already fled China once because of the cost of that) and that would include everything from international ad networks to search engines to payment methods (you think Paypal.com would be affected if Paypal's EU bank was doing business with SOPA "offenders"? They'd either partition the company, or just stop trading in one or the other, both options of which hurt the business and customer).
And eventually, someone will realise that they can't go onto site X because it's been added to the list and has nothing to do with piracy (e.g. like the Australian filter list did, where perfectly innocent businesses were filtered for no reason), and that the movie/music industry are STILL claiming the same levels of piracy (so the law did nothing) - like they are in New Zealand at the moment - and that they have similar human rights as regards accessing an Internet as the Chinese do. And then it'll make the news one day, get blown out of all proportion, get thoroughly revoked and never mentioned again and people will carry on their lives.
I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
My shiny backside!
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
There's this snooping law that says names of American Citizens[tm] must be blackened out in snooped phone transcripts, but Furriners[tm] do not get such "courtesy". Been there for ages, as have a bunch of others. Victorian Chauvinism with less style and put into law to boot. That's how it treats its allies. You're saying you didn't see that one coming? This empire strikes first.
I changed the boiler plate text in the email to say the following, which I believe has more of a punch:
_____________________
I am a constituent and I urge you to reject the Internet Blacklist Bills (PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House).
In addition to the danger these bills pose to Internet security, free speech online, and innovation, I am deeply concerned by the risk that these unprecedented assaults on foreign entities will be interpreted as a provocation of war, particularly by leaders who are already hostile towards US policies, such as Putin of Russia. This will be heavily compounded as this inevitably leads to harming sites that many will view as innocent victims of this highly subjective process and clearly biased intent towards increasing corporate profits in Hollywood.
This bill will also re-enforce the image that congress is purchased and own by corporate interests.
Lastly, due to the sweeping level of censorship, this bill will popularize methods of overcoming censorship to the US, technology that is usually reserved for hardship regimes. This will certainly make it difficult for the intelligence community to find real crimes, as their chatter becomes increasingly co-mingled with mainstream on-line anti-censorship technology.
The Internet Blacklist Legislation is dangerous and short-sighted, and I urge you to join Senator Wyden and other members of Congress, such as Representatives Lofgren, Eshoo and Issa, in opposing it.
_________________
Open Standards Portal
When some politician firmly stated:
"We will tax all foreigners living abroad!"
http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/Taxing.html
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I don't know what worries me most, that politicians in America really believe this is good for the country, or that politicians in America are so deep in the pockets of the corporations to push this through.
I've heard a lot of bad things about this bill. I don't think it's a good bill, and hope it doesn't pass (even though it most likely will). But I'm hearing so much FUD from the people against this bill that it makes me roll my eyes every time I hear about it . Sites like StackOverflow and the Stack Exchange Network state they their sites could be directly harmed by this bill. PLLEEEAAASE. Get Real. No judge is going to take down a Q and A forum because somebody reports that one of the 8 million questions on the site is infringing on some copyrighted question (can you copyright a single question?) in some way. That isn't going to happen. People complain about the way things are worded, and that it's too broad. But that's what judges are for. Laws have always been broad and judges have always had to interpret them. This is how the legal system works. Otherwise you could argue, "I didn't kill the man, I just locked him in a cage with a lion." There's really no other way to take down access to foreign owned piracy exclusive sites. And there really does need to be a way to take sites like this down.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
American citizens thinks that doing this is wrong, so US will apply it to other people, in other countries, or in outside territories... Torture, or put in prison without trial is ok if done in guantanamo, people that complain against government/stablishment should be protected unless is in US, and only our voters need to have human rights. Heck, how loud are the US complains when other countries filter or censors the internet communication, but this time is ok because the bosses of the ones that are in the government say that their properties are being hurt outside.
Start a revolution already, jeez
I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
I don't know where you've been, but this seems like hyperbole to me. What countries have you been to that are so much more "free" than the USA, and what freedoms do you have in them that you don't have in the USA?
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Congressman Lamar Smith shows his abysmal ignorance once again by failing to address the real problems with SOPA. Instead he merely re-affirms that it is a pale imitation of what China has already done.
Perhaps Mr Smith should move to China, since he likes their Internet policies so much?
Too much hyperbole from the people against this bill. It sounds like the ramblings of a madman, or some conspiracy nut. What it's going to allow them to do is take down access to sites like The Pirate Bay that are "dedicated" (this word appears a lot in the wikipedia article) to copyright infringement. It's not going to be used to take down legitimate sites. You can twist the words in the law to make that possible, but no judge is going to take down legitimate sites because somebody posted a single copyrighted item on them which was promptly removed.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
I don't know where you've been, but this seems like hyperbole to me. What countries have you been to that are so much more "free" than the USA, and what freedoms do you have in them that you don't have in the USA?
Most of Europe for instance. ;)
I have two words for you: Scope Creep.
Once the government has access to something, they kind of try and stretch that authority to fill other perceived needs. Sounds like a slippery slope argument to me, but unfortunately, history seems to have vetted this one.
That will take you to a blog post about SOPA and ACLU's opposition to it. The last link in the article is a link to a form where you fill in the blanks and it will send off a letter to your representatives. It is one of the easiest ways to contact your representatives about your concerns. Forget your feelings about the ACLU or other such crap. This bill/legislation/power-grab needs to be stopped, and it is your duty as an American to let your representatives know that you oppose it.
That's just nonsense. Freedom of speech is somewhat restricted in most European countries. You can't carry firearms (without a great deal of hassle, if at all) in most European countries. Some European countries restrict your freedom to wear religious items of clothing. etc etc
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Ok, I'm feeling your angst, but your arguments make little sense. First, SOPA isn't law. It hasn't gotten through committee, let alone gotten to the full House, let alone been passed by both houses and signed into law. There's lots of objections to this law, many from some heavy hitters with lots of lobbyists. Its passage is far from assured. You've setup a large series of events in your prediction, but the first stone hasn't even been cast.
Your assertions that the US is least "free" pace you've ever been indicates a serious lack of travel (I've been to far worse places). Much also depends on how you define "free". For instance: I love Germany. I've been there twice, enjoyed the Hell out it, think the health care system is great, find their attitude on things like sex, food, drink, and body image refreshing. It's also very clearly a "free" country by most reasonable definitions of the word. On the other hand, they have some severe restrictions on certain areas of speech. You practically can't mentions Nazis (I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much). Weapons laws are much more restrictive than in the US (Not a big deal for me, but I have friends who would find this onerous). I also recall a recent article about the German Government installing spyware on people's computers as they cross the border.
Is Germany "more free" than the US? In some ways yes, in some ways no. The thing is, as Americans, we see the problems in our system much more prominently. To an extent, due to the influence of the US on world politics, even non-Americans see those problems more prominently. I'm not saying that the US is the best place to live on Earth; I haven't been everywhere for one thing, and I can't deny that I wouldn't mind living in Europe or Canada for a time at least. On the other hand the US is hardly an awful place to live. There are far far less free places out there, and far far worse situations to be in. Of course, we should fight things like this wherever we can to maintain (or even improve) that situation.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Move to one of many darknets and say goodbye to government regulation of, by, and for the big corporations. I'm not a big corporation, so the government should have no interaction with me... if only it worked that way...
Personally, in my infinite spare time, I'm working (slowly) on a openvpn and quagga based exclusively ipv6 darknet. Don't peer with me, peer with someone already there, preferably far away from your home. An independent project is resurrecting ye olde usenet with a twist... all "peering" done over ssh between individuals instead of hub-spoke with big central providers, all non GPG signed articles in some hierarchies are autocancelbotted, completely new hierarchy structure, dramatically different file length limits segregated by hierarchy (so if you can't afford the BW for .binaries. then its much easier to filter), mandatory utf-8 support, and more, another "don't talk to me, talk to someone far away from yourself who's already peering with me". I'm a network guy so I mostly care about design, but WRT content I'm at least hoping its more like I2P than freenet (freenet seems to be mostly CP, I2P seems to be mostly filetraders)
You can have a lot of fun prototyping stuff like this with a stack of old computers in your basement all running linux and some other stuff...
I suppose islanding the internet into many independent country sized networks would pretty much stop darknets. Maybe only registered multinational corporations with pre-arranged FBI/NSA/MI5 bugging arrangements would be allowed to VPN across the firewall. I suppose we may as well start planning our workarounds for that, too.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I don't want to give the government anymore power than they have now.
Let me ask you: why do they need this power? If they show a website to be dedicated to offering copyrighted material for download, then can't they already ask a judge to take it down/seize the domain (right now they're just taking them away without any oversight)? What more power do they need? Seriously.
What it's going to allow them to do is take down access to sites like The Pirate Bay that are "dedicated" (this word appears a lot in the wikipedia article) to copyright infringement.
They're humans, not saints. Mistakes happen. Sometimes they're corrupt.
Banks won't let you hide your face and Health and Safety require cleanliness in the clothing for caterers. Both require that some religious clothes are not allowed.
Whereas the USA has Free Speech Zones.
You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
And in many states in the USA you have a lot of hassle to try (and fail) to carry firearms.
Part of the problem is they are essentially outsourcing the decision making, giving private companies a big piece in the say regarding what a legitimate site is and what is not. It is also structured in such a way that site owners do not have a very good mechanism for challenging a shutdown, in fact they might not even have standing since people in other countries do not always have access to the US legal system. So there is very little reason to apply any real standards to what gets shut down and given how badly abused the DCMA's takedown notice has been it is not that much of a leap to picture this law being used the same way.
So even if the law is well intentioned and billed as being used only against dedicated sites, it can and will be abused due to its low barrier of review and high barrier for defense.
Freedom of speech is somewhat restricted in most European countries.
And what are you going to accomplish with your freedom of speech if you don't own a media empire? Censorship is never directed against disseminating information (this is what secrecy is for), it's used against editorials and placing information in "trustworthy" sources.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Who said anything about a judge? That's one of the major problems with this bill. It lets rights holders cut off funding to any site accused of copyright infringement without having to go through the courts. That's exactly what Hollywood wants to avoid. The legal system is actually starting to get wise to the sheer idiocy of their anti-piracy legal cases, so they're going around it.
I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
The definition of "dedicated" is up to interpretation. Already under the "Operation In Our Sites" that ICE is performing, many legitimate websites have been caught in the crossfire while being claimed as "dedicated" to copyright infringement. Several were accused of copyright infringement and had their websites taken down, only to find out that the videos were given to them by the copyright owners as promotional material.
We don't give the government right to take down a website without due process, no matter what. Not only that, but even The Pirate Bay has some legitimate, non-infringing content on it.
The government and big-business do not get to decide what is and is not allowed to be accessed. If the law is being broken, then charge or sue the people who are breaking the law, that is it.
And what are you going to accomplish with your freedom of speech if you don't own a media empire?
There is no "right to have other people listen to you".
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Full page ad in The Wall Street Journal for the passage of PROTECT IP and SOPA to "protect American jobs" signed by
ABC, AFTRA - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFM - American Federation of Musicians, AAP - American Association of Publishers, ASCAP, BMG Chrysalis, BMI, CBS Corporation, Cengage Learning, DGA - Directors guild of America, Disney Publishing Worldwide, EMI Music Publishing, ESPN, Graphic Artists Guild, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Hyperion, IATSE - International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States its Territories and Canada International Brotherhood of Teamsters (WTF), Kaufman Astoria Studios, Macmillan, Major League Baseball, Marvel Entertainment LLC, Mcgraw-Hill Education, MPA - The Association of Magazine Media, NFL - National Football League, National Music Publishers' Association, NBCUniversal, News Corporation, New York Production Alliance, New York State AFL-CIO, Pearson Education, Penguin Group (USA) Inc., The Perseus Books Group, Producers Guild of America East, Random House, Reed Elsevier, SAG - Screen Actors Guild, Scholastic, Inc., Silvercup Studios, Simon & Schuster, Inc., Sony Music Entertainment, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Time Warner Inc., United States Tennis Association, Universal Music Group, Universal Music Publishing Group, Viacom, Warner Music Group, W.W. Norton & Company, Wolters Kluwer.
And this is why freedom of speech is worthless without access to mass media.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You can twist the words in the law to make that possible, but no judge is going to take down legitimate sites because somebody posted a single copyrighted item on them which was promptly removed.
You're joking, right? They already have. Well, I suppose that's not quite right; dajaz1 didn't infringe any copyrights before they were taken down.
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
Interesting article written by a Harvard Law professor detailing specific cases show how SOPA violates the constitution. http://www.scribd.com/doc/75153093/Tribe-Legis-Memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1
An internet where only corporations are allowed to disseminate information might be something that the people of the world are clamoring for, but judging by the constant "intellectual property" litigation affecting market access of even the most legitimate corporations, it's hard to believe that the law won't disrupt the big corporations internet presence as well.
Not everyone considers the right to carry lethal weapons so sacred.
Does Germany require you to register with their government before you visit?
If you are not a citizen of their meta-country (the EU), they do. The only reason you think they don't is because you don't realize that they consider your country to be part of theirs. Germany is a state in the EU the same way that California is a state in the USA.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Copying can not be legislated on the internet. Period. Put the laws in place if you like, but it is meaningless. The RIAA and MPAA missed it, but the power has already passed from them to the audience. No longer can they dictate release windows (theatrical, DVD, VOD, etc.) or decided which version are public and which are not (bootlegs, old seasons of TV shows, special 'limited' editions).
Simply put there is no argument that wins, it is now a physical law of the internet. The only way forward that is actually logical and effaceable is accepting the laws of the intent and embracing them. Torrent is a new distribution channel, with a huge number of benefits. Viral marketing, and free bandwidth are just a couple. Innovate or die. The audience has control now, deal with it.
I don't even have to argue the point, and you don't have to agree with me it WILL happen. Unless the RIAA and MPAA change tactics they will die. Apple showed one way to solve the problem, and nearly 10 years later still no one is willing to monetize torrent.
--> How exactly is it my fault if I decided I want to see or listen to something right now that I can have easily but not legally only because the seller refuses to sell it to me? --
The internet changed the game (a long time ago), time to learn the rules.
f
No it isn't, because the value of freedom of speech is not measured by how many people you can convince to agree with you.
What other value can it possibly have? Freedom of speech only applies to public speech, so the purpose of freedom of speech is dissemination of ideas, in other words, access to propaganda.
By your logic, freedom of speech is also "worthless" for the unpopular.
If they can't use freedom of speech to make their ideas popular -- of course!
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Not everyone considers the right to carry lethal weapons so sacred.
But many people know better.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
It looks like this bill just forces ISPs to change their DNS information to not have sites in it. As horrible as that is (and it IS ridiculous), what would stop people from using 206.47.244.61/206.47.244.103 (Those are from Toronto via a quick Google look up. They're perhaps not the best ones available, but it's the kind of thing that you can search for.) or something at which point the Internet is exactly the same? Am I missing something?
The fact of the matter is, you cannot guarantee that. And the second you give the US the power to take down any sites, you've given them the power to take down all sites.
There is absolutely no justification, nor any reason whatsoever, that the US should be involved in blocking access to any site whatsoever. Allowing them to do so only increases the possibility of abuse by government for the purposes of censorship.
What other value can it possibly have?
Would you rather not be able to disseminate these ideas at all? I'd far rather have the right to post my video on the internet and have it ignored than to not be able to post it at all.
Its passage is far from assured. You've setup a large series of events in your prediction, but the first stone hasn't even been cast.
Stuff like that is just begging for this to be passed. We have to come out in full force now. Saying that there's all this stuff still in the way is just asking for people to be apathetic about it until it's too late.
Does Germany require you to register with their government before you visit? No.
Are you trying to tell me that you don't need a visa to visit Germany from outside the EU?
Who gets to define which sites are legitimate and which are not?
Keep in mind that SOPA allows for websites to be blocked and denied financial support without so much as a trial. If there's any doubt about a website's involvement in copyright infringement, a trial would resolve that. Under SOPA, however, the government no longer has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a website is guilty of infringement. This makes it a great deal easier for either the government or copyright holders to shut down allegedly infringing websites, the website having little or no opportunity to establish its innocence.
Would YouTube still exist had SOPA been in effect when Viacom decided YouTube was guilty of copyright infringement?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Until a new law is passed that "clarifies" this one by allowing it to apply to U.S. sites.
Question everything
There are simply too many voices. Free speech will "magically" regain its value in the face of mass media once it acquires a message embraced by an overwhelming plurality.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Are you prepared to deny people the right to carry a tool to defend themselves with?
Seems like the right to defend oneself would be right at the foundation of the pyramid of rights, no?
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
And how hard would it be to put Wikileaks on it, or any site that discloses "secret" details of Guantanamo Bay etc.?
Wikileaks is clearly in violation of the copyright of some of the documents it posts. I'm not sure the U.S. Government can have internally-created material held by copyright against U.S. Citizens, though I suspect not (it seems like public-funding should default to public-domain), but any company's internal memos or other sensitive documents it exposes could legitimately be considered in violation of copyright. Thinking of it now, I'm actually surprised that hasn't succeeded as a shut down method yet. Do they get some sort of safe-harbor under the Freedom-of-the-Press mantle?
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Would you rather not be able to disseminate these ideas at all?
If everyone will ignore them, I would not see a difference as far as public speech is concerned.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The Netherlands :)
I can say what I want, I can smoke weed if I want, I can visit a prostitute if I want, all without fear of being arrested or ticketed.
In the US prostitution is outlawed here and there if I am not mistaken, marihuana is illegal and we don't have no stupid stinking free speech zones.
For living normally, the US is fine, no problem and those examples I gave, I don't do them anyway, but I could if I wanted and that's freedom good sir.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
You must remember that rights can conflict. There are times when the rights of one person are in conflict with those of another, and at that time some form of compromise is unavoidable. Shooting someone dead - even a criminal of obvious guilt - is still an execution without trial.... and that's in the event that it really is self defence. There is another approach: Let the mugger run off with the wallet, then focus on catching them through policing, giving them their fair trial and due process of law, and then throwing them in jail or some other sentence proportionate to the crime.
On the contrary. It is mass media which makes freedom of speech lose its value.
There are simply too many voices. Free speech will "magically" regain its value in the face of mass media once it acquires a message embraced by an overwhelming plurality.
More like it's the other way around.
At the time when all those nice ideas about free speech originated, there were few people capable of writing anything in a manner that anyone would bother reading. A person who went to the trouble of writing a book or newsletter about anything relevant to current events will inevitably reach countless readers in various privileged positions in society, if for no reason then because such speech was rare, and people had no other sources of it. Seeing a somewhat well-argued point would convince many people just by virtue being said and included in those people's experience that they would discuss among themselves while opposing point will not get such luxury until expressed by someone else in a similarly convincing manner -- and even then the opponents will have to change an established opinion because writing and dissemination of it would take weeks if not months.
Now there is no shortage of opinions expressed in a readable manner. Mass media has the benefit of being the same "shared experience" -- it reaches multiple people simultaneously so they discuss things in a way framed by mass media's expression. However remove mass media, and all you have is many weak voices, all with their own opinions, having no influence, no mechanism for shared discussion, and no advantage over each other. Anything valuable (from whatever point of view) will just drown there, and eventually a new set of "leaders" will be in the position of "mass media" that drowns out everything else. It's pointless to pretend that such situation accomplishes anything comparable with a small bunch of 18th century philosophers being able to publish their then-revolutionary views.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
[...] It's not going to be used to take down legitimate sites. [...]
You do not spend much time on Slashdot, do you?
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Let me explain how this works. Congress passes a law with very specific wording. They may have a specific intent, but they are not required (allowed?) to state their intent. The wording is what goes into the federal statutes.
Years later, someone decides to do something. They ask a lawyer if the lawyer can justify their actions based on the wording (not the intent) of the law. Then judges get to decide if the lawyers have made a good case, on one side or the other.
One problem is the interim, where low level judges basically throw dice to decide what is legal or not. Some good comes of it, some bad.
Ultimately, the second harm comes when a case makes it to a high enough level that it establishes a citable case which others can reference. Typically, these go with the wording, not the intent, of the law. If it says the government can block sites based on illegal activity, the judge really has no choice but to allow it. I've seen many opinions where the judge clearly disagrees but says that is the way the law is written, so it must be allowed.
Only at the point where it can be called unconstitutional (at the federal level by the US Supreme Court) or otherwise thrown out (at the state level, if it is a state law), can it be reined in. The harm between the first case and when it is thrown out, including financials incurred by many defendants, is the real crime against individuals.
Overall, society can work these out. But individuals have to have standing to complain, to fight back, to pay the court costs and lawyer fees to establish the law for the rest of us.
I guarantee this law, as written, will be misused. That's the problem. If it is worded a bit better, clarified with amendments, maybe these intermediate effects won't happen. Better wording in laws, in the first place, will prevent potential harm. Maybe we will get lucky, and this won't be misused.
But if anyone sees some advantage in taking this literally, word for word, and can justify their actions with someone who has passed the bar in one state, why wouldn't they take that advantage? Go ahead and ask for examples, I'm sure whoever replies to you will have more than I care to put together.
When I read that the US is the least free country in the world, here's what I compare.
What does the constitution or equivalent document say, versus what does the country allow?
If a country chooses to implement Sharia law, in accordance with the votes of their citizens (legitimately, for the sake of argument), are they free? I would argue yes, they decided this is what they wanted. Many would say no, Sharia is very restrictive. The citizens have certain expectations, and as long as they have the same expectations as the government, they feel free.
The underlying theme of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, writings of the Founding Fathers, and history of the pre-Declaration arrivals, has been "If you have no reason nor proof, then leave me alone."
Freedom to practice Catholic and/or Reformed Christianity as you wish, instead of bowing to the rules of the Church of England's hybrid methodology is a big sticking point, and has since been expanded to any religion. Unless you are Muslim, then you get profiled and denied rights. Unofficially, and under the guise of safety of course.
Freedom from search and seizure, a common practice of intimidation of the early British forces. Unless you posess controlled substances, which you might use, and which you might become addicted to, and which may cause you, and small numbers, to commit crimes to be able to purchase. So to prevent all that, the pre-crime DEA will remove your posessions before you actually commit a crime, and put you in jail despite having no proof or reason.
Freedom of speech, unless someone, without due process, decides you are violating the perpetual copyright. Civil disobedience is not possible, and the fine line between infringement and fair use gets decided not in a court, but in a simple complaint. Currently, the DMCA requires a "good faith" complaint, and the responder has to reply under penalty of perjury, that the original request was mistaken. If I believe it is fair use, but a trial proves otherwise, I do not have a good faith defense. But if I am proven correct, at most I get restoration of my content. The clear incentive is to simply give in, unless you have deep pockets.
Compared to its goals, USA is very much not a free country at this point. Compared to their goals, other countries are surprisingly permissive. This is the standard to which I hold the country. How closely do you hold to your own stated goals?
And that's why you will never understand free speech. They may be ignored, but I can still get it out there. If I couldn't, then if there was something that actually was important, and would be listened to, that could come down as well.
And that's why you will never understand free speech.
If I can't understand it, chances are, most people can't use it, either.
They may be ignored, but I can still get it out there.
Public speech does not work this way. If it's "out there" but no one listens, it has no effect whatsoever.
If I couldn't, then if there was something that actually was important, and would be listened to, that could come down as well.
Even if people could make any reasonable decisions about importance and validity, the sheer amount of speech that results from such freedom, will make it impossible to find anything worthy of being analyzed in such manner in the first place. In reality, people listen to mass media that is forced upon them and does not look outrageously wrong, plus some subset of things they find to be most comfortable to listen to. All other "speakers" just cancel each other in noise -- their attempts to out-shout their opponents end up creating more noise, and make them sound less trustworthy.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.