Slashdot Mirror
Sir Tim Berners-Lee Speaks Out On SOPA
natecochrane writes "Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee called for Americans to protest SOPA and PIPA, laws he says violate human rights and are unfit for a democratic country. Sir Tim's condemnation came on the day an editorial in Australia's leading broadsheet newspapers pointed out that although the laws ostensibly applied to U.S. interests they could overreach to impact those in other countries."
"an editorial in Australia's leading broadsheet newspapers pointed out that although the laws ostensibly applied to US interests they could overreach to impact those in other countries."
The laws were written specifically for that purpose. They have clauses that (supposedly) prevent them being used on US sites and site owners. What's left? The rest of the world!
That's why it disgusted me every time I saw someone overseas saying to get this junk off their news sites because it didn't apply to them.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Father of the web? Wait 'till Al Gore hears about hears about this poser!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I hope it does pass, I waste far too much time on the Internet.
Freedom of communication, speech, association, congregation are not human rights?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
All these voices coming out against these Bills, yet the Congress and Senate still push as if they really have a shot.
All that money spent on paying of politicians says one thing to me. We don't want to give people access to movies and music. If this wasn't the case the movie studios and music companies would have used that money to develop online distribution websites. How hard would it have been to take all the works you have copyrights to and set up a site where people can buy them and download them.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Increasingly, "democracies" are passing all sorts of stuff which is repugnant the tradition of liberty:
-Panopticon street cameras in England
-Patriot Act in the US
-Web censorship and the RIM affair in India
What's needed is an emphasis on "liberal democracies", democracies that promote (classical) liberal values.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
This is an extremely fitting description of why the bill shouldn't passed, considering that it will put us under the same umbrella as Iran, China, and Syria...at least when it comes to the DNS blocking part of the bills and internet censorship in general if SOPA/PIPA are passed
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
The problem is The Internet is rapidly becoming the best way to get The Word out.
i can see in our lifetimes as different government services go online it becoming almost impossible to do anything of real value without being online somehow.
we are even now seeing places that have job applications only online and some jobs also require you to already have a phone with text messaging.
wanna be forced offline (because you have been blackballed due to being a dirty thieving pirate) in a world where business offices either 1 have 5 hour lines just to see anybody 2 are only open Mon-Wed from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (with a semi random 45 minute Lunch) 3 some combo of both
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
This just came out yesterday......
"For the past several months, Sen. Rand Paul has opposed and led the charge against both the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Yesterday, Sen. Paul issued the following statement.
"The Internet, as we know it, has had a profound impact on job creation, the global economy and prosperity. It has accelerated wealth creation and facilitated a more connected world. But the Internet's development is based on the free flow of information, innovation, and ideas, not central government control," Senator Paul said.
"Both PIPA and SOPA give the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional power to censor the Internet. These bills enable the government to shut down websites that it deems guilty of violating copyright laws. While we support copyright protections, we are also concerned about websites being shut down without their day in court, and making innocent third parties bear the costs of solving someone else's problems."
Sen. Paul concluded, "I will not sit idly by while PIPA and SOPA eliminate the constitutionally protected rights to due process and free speech. For these reasons, I have pledged to oppose, filibuster and do everything in my power to stop government censorship of the Internet.""
Libertas in infinitum
A limitation on the means of exercising a right is a limitation on the right. Saying you have the right to free speech, but not the right to exercise that right is silly.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Freedom of the press is specified in the first amendment specifically because it was the method of exercising free speech beyond the reach of your voice. It specifically refers to the device, the printing press, and in concept all devices and methods of spreading speech. That concept of freedom of the press would equally apply to internet access as it is the modern medium of mass communication.
...is his first mistake. Once you realize that the country is run by corporate overlords, it all makes perfect sense.
I expect this round of the bill will get shot down. Then someone will attach it as a rider to some BS terrorist or child pr0n bill later in the year with little media coverage.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
Why *shouldn't* the internet be a right? Is there some compelling reason we should restrict our civil liberties instead of expanding them to meet the reality of today's world?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
http://weknowmemes.com/2012/01/lamar-smith-is-a-copyright-violator/ that man is ridiculous
"Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?"
No rights were violated, they just took the means to exercise them...
So if we shut down television, radio, and all digital networks - we haven't violated free speech, because people can still speak. If we ban printing presses, we haven't violated free speech because people can still speak. If we ban all writing and recordings, because recorded information allows piracy, we haven't violated free speech because people can still speak. If we ban words and ideas, we haven't violated free speech, because people can still speak. If we ban speech entirely, we haven't violated free speech, because we can still use grunts and gestures. We don't need to be more advanced than dolphins, that's why we should only use grunts and gestures.
So as long as you have one method of exercising a right, all others can be removed? Then I can deny you the use of a specific method of communication, and not have that considered a limitation of your right to free speech and/or association. What's to stop me throwing you into solitary confinement. That's not an infringement of the right to free speech, as long as you are allowed to scream your protests ... where no one will hear. Sorry, but you not only need to be free from interference in exercising your rights, but also in exercising them effectively, i.e. you have to be allowed to scream where others can hear you. In the modern age, that means the right to publish on the internet. I too am not saying internet access is a right. But I am saying that selective or discriminatory limitation of access to the internet is a violation of the right to free speech.