Slashdot Mirror
NRA Complaint Takes Down 38,000 Websites (vice.com)
Sarah Jeong, reporting for Motherboard:38,000 websites hosted by the automated publishing service Surge went down today, after the National Rifle Association sent a legal notice over a parody website created by the Yes Men. A few days ago, the Yes Men released the parody video, "Share the Safety" -- announcing a supposed NRA program to deliver firearms into the hands of those too impoverished to afford guns. The opening frame of the video says "Paid for in part by the National Rifle Association of America with additional support from Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation." "Systemic poverty and dumb laws keep the urban poor unable to acquire life-saving firearms," says the video, which is available on YouTube. "That's why we at the NRA are teaming up with Smith & Wesson to share the safety.â The YouTube description includes a link to the "official" website, ShareTheSafety.org.
PARODY videos are protected by current copyright laws. I am not sure how they won this case, other than by legal bullying and intimidation. The NRA has need pockets, filled with gold, from the morons of the heartland.
Watch the video. The disclaimers at the bottom expressly state that they do indeed represent the NRA, which is false. The one at the beginning even says "Paid for in part by the NRA". That is not parody.
Actually there is a legit version: https://facebook.com/TheArmedCitizenProject/
The difference is that the parody is full of unconscious racism.
That at least seems more plausible. I wonder if Surge will spread their services accross several hosting providers after this incident.
There is a reason the CDC isn't allowed to fund studies. Because when they did, they funded studies that would have made Goebbels blush.
Google 'CDC funds bad gun studies' for a bunch of links that will take you into the discussion.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You have to realize what the Yes Men are. Their pranks are not just satire like you might find in the Onion. They are activists and they fully understand that they can get themselves arrested in some cases for the crap they pull. Their hoax about the Monsanto chemical disaster apology was definitely risky. They likely are fully aware of the fact that the NRA will take issue with this hoax. However, the Yes Men often rely on the fact that any litigation by the "victims" would result in even more attention to an uncomfortable topic, so they don't sue.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
I agree with the other posters that these videos are likely to cause confusion to the average viewer, and are probably in violation of trademark law. That said, the way to handle that is in the courts.
DCMA takedown requests only apply to copyright infringement, not trademark law. It is a violation of the law to use the DCMA this way, both according to the USPTOs guidelines(See B.4), and existing case law.
From the article, it is unknown whether their lawyers sent a DCMA request or a some other sort of cease and desist letter. But either way, Digitalocean had no legal obligation to take down the content, or any legal liability if they didn't take it down. The fact that they shutdown an entire service over a toothless complaint about one page on that service is unacceptable, and people should seriously reconsider doing business with them in the future.
The problem here is folks generally misunderstand what the 1st amendment actually says and what it means (actually they generally don't understand ANY of the bill of rights correctly.)
Freedom of speech means you are free to say what you want but it does not mean freedom from consequences when you speak. Sure, say what you want to your boss, it's LEGAL (as in NOT criminal), but don't try and make a 1st amendment case when your boss takes exception and fires you.
So, in this case, the government cannot and will not bring criminal charges, but those who hold the trade marks are apparently ready to make a civil case out of this (which, because they hold the trademark/copyrights is within their rights.) 1st amendment says the government cannot make laws limiting your ability to express your views by making specific kinds of speech illegal (i.e. criminal) (and yes I know there are some limits here). The 1st amendment however does not exempt the speaker from the consequences of their speech. So if you liable or defame someone, the government won't stop you but you can be subject to civil law, where the person wronged can seek civil action to deal with your speech.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That used to be the case, as others here have explained. After sandy hook, Obama made an executive order to give them 10 million for research, it was big at the time because they assumed it would confirm their beliefs.
Then it was never heard from again due to the results of the study.
Here's a short summary of their findings, link to the actual paper is in there as well.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/pol...
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
Again, as ArylAkamov mentions, this was a CDC study.
The Obama Admin disappeared it for all practical purposes. It wasn't on any morning news shows, the View, any of the late night Snark shows, none of the Sunday Morning shows, nothing.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"If Trump is soooooo racist, why hasn't it been an issue for the decades he's built a global company?"
Well except for that time in 1973 when his real estate company was investigated by the justice dept for refusing to rent to blacks.
And that time in 1991 when he took out a full-page newspaper ad calling for the execution of some black teenagers accused of rape (who were later exonerated)
And that time in 1999 when a colleague quoted him as saying “laziness is a trait in blacks.”
Yes, apart from his decades-long history of being a racist & being called a racist... Trump has never been a racist or been called a racist.
If Trump is soooooo racist, why hasn't it been an issue for the decades he's built a global company?
You are a fucking ignorant idiot.
He's been being called a racist since at LEAST 1973. By the Department of Justice.
"In 1973, the Trump Management Corporation — run by 27-year-old Donald Trump — was sued by the Department of Justice for violating the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, Trump's company was accused of refusing to rent to or negotiate with black tenants, changing the terms of leases based on race, and lying to black applicants about whether apartments were available."
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/3/90...
First off, you cannot buy new "assault rifles" with out a whole shitton of paperwork and around $10k. They are an extremely regulated NFA item.
Second, there is not a "big difference" between "assault weapons" and "normal guns", the only difference between them is purely cosmetic and some safety features.
One looks scarier, so they were given a different name and now people want to ban them.
Here's a video clip you'll enjoy if you haven't already seen it.
https://youtu.be/Cw6jDrshgEw
Interesting to note that in the US, 'gun crime' overall has dropped steadily over the last 2 decades, even as gun sales have increased...except in those areas with extremely restrictive gun laws that prevent most law abiding citizens from owning & carrying guns.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
> it is promoting arming black people using some kind of charity.... it will strike fear in the heart of NRA supporters.
There actually is a US government-sponsored nonprofit offering free guns to qualified citizens. It is called the Civilian Marksmanship Program. (http://thecmp.org) It's 113 years old this year. They don't restrict their giveaways by race. As for the NRA, I've never heard anything but positive noises from them about the program. So much for the NRA only supporting armed white guys.
> The asymmetric enforcement of second amendment rights is the core of NRA and its followers mission.
Point me to the position paper on their web site saying that.
I've been to NRA meetings. Down here in the southwest, we don't get so many "black" people at them, but we do get plenty of brown people. (Hispanics and Native Americans.) The table at the last event I attended was 50/50 Hispanic and white. As far as I can tell, the only color the NRA cares about is green.
> with fingers on the trigger can walk into departmental stores
NRA is against that.
It's their second rule of gun safety: keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. You'll get kicked out of any well run event if you violate it. (http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx)
> pick arguments with police officers,
1st amendment.
> insult the police
I see that regularly here on Slashdot, often highly rated.
> terrorize play grounds with impunity.
That's called brandishing, and it's illegal in all 50 states.
Plus there's the 1000 foot rule around school playgrounds. It's a federal felony if you carry inside that border and don't qualify for one of the few exceptions. And if you do qualify, you're obeying the law.
> black Americans are also citizens with full second amendment rights.
Damn straight. There is no human right restricted to only some citizens.
> if they exercise it, they will be shot by police without a second thought
[citation needed]
Oh, I'm sure you can find cases of legally armed black people getting shot by the cops, but if you actually go looking, you'll find Americans of all brown shades (including that shade we call "white") getting shot by cops without proper justification.
> if I fear for my life I have the right to kill" is accepted as a valid defense for police officers.
Wrong. There are 4 or 5 tests a defendant must pass in order to avoid a charge of manslaughter or murder, depending on where you are in the US. An imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death is only one of them. Miss any of the 3 or 4 others and your case falls apart.
Andrew Branca (a constitutional law professor and 2nd Amendment expert) summarizes it nicely here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/t...
> This ad brings out the hypocrisy of the NRA followers
This NRA member wants Americans of all shades and creeds to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Better trim that broad brush down a bit.
> That is why NRA is acting swiftly.
The NRA is acting swiftly because this "ad" puts words in their mouth that you'll never read in their publications, nor hear in their leadership's speeches. It's basically a lie.
The ACLU is against using the watch lists for background checks. See https://www.aclu.org/blog/wash... for example.
Finding God in a Dog
The Clintons were forced by congressional republicans to put the draconian sentencing measures into the legislation by threats that the GOPers would not support ANY of Clinton's legislative efforts (let alone the crime bill) if they didn't.
Why?
A) the GOP got the dirty work done without dirtying their own hands
C) the GOP got a club they could later beat the Clintons with (which is now being used: this game is chess, not checkers [aka draughts])
D) the GOP proved to the Clintons just how things were going to work in Washington right then, and that's how it worked. Win for the GOP.
That is an editorial, signed with "Chris Cox is the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action."
The editorial has no citations for its anonymously-attributed quotes.
...spouse of this Clinton signed a bill...
OK, genius, quick question: where do bills come from?
When you point out Bill Clinton "didn't sign any similar bill for crimes more commonly committed by white people" are you alleging he vetoed (or pocket-vetoed) some actual bill presented by Congress? Because he didn't. More to the point, you're reading that all through the hindsight of your current bias: the sentencing reform bill you're thinking of was broadly supported by many, many prominent minority leaders. The fact that it turned out that the unintended consequences of a law attempting to cope with what was seen as a horrific urban crime problem fell heavily on minorities is a indictment of the policy, not the people behind it or their motives.
That paper isn't a research paper but a document describing the questions that need answered in future research studies.
It's a blueprint for how to proceed, not a research paper in it's own right.
The research agenda proposed in this report is intended as an initial—not a conclusive or all-encompassing—set of questions critical to developing the most effective policies to reduce the occurrence and impact of firearm-related violence in the United States. No single agency or research strategy can provide all the answers. This report focuses on the public health aspects of firearm violence; the committee expects that this research agenda will be integrated with research conducted from criminal justice and other perspectives to provide a much fuller knowledge base to underpin our nation’s approach to dealing with this very important set of societal issues.
So Guns and Ammo Magazine read an outline for a proposed line of questioning, and drew conclusions the outline itself doesn't even draw...because it doesn't even try.
Rather what it does is to point to other research efforts and their contradictory findings as a starting point for developing the questions that should be asked. And of the "research" quotes that G&A provides are cherry picked quotes from other studies referenced by the authors of the blueprint to illustrate previous, current, and ongoing research to illustrate which questions need asked.
Again: this is not a research paper.
This group performed no research (yet, or as of the publishing of this paper).
Ergo, this is not the result of the CDC research.
It's simply the first step, figuring out what questions to ask, in doing that research.
Nice try genius.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
That's not a citation that's "the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action" making the same claim without providing a citation.
One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC’s effort was quoted, stating “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign “to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”
Is unsourced and unnamed making it rather difficult to confirm.
Some digging (which shouldn't be necessary since providing a citation is trivial) turns up http://dailycaller.com/2013/10... which in turn makes the claim:
Patrick O’Carroll, a CDC official involved in the “research,” wrote in the February 3, 1989, Journal of the American Medical Association: “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.”
However the Feb 3 1989 issue of JAMA does not have an article in it authored by Patrick O'Carroll.
Yet more digging (which again should be unnecessary) shows that issue does have an article: Marsha F. Goldsmith, "Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation," Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=376136) - note citations are really easy to do. That article apparently quotes O'Carroll, however that itself it uncited so we have hearsay.
And then we do actually have something in writing from O'Carroll in JAMA, in July 1989. A letter to the editor claiming that he was misrepresented in the article above and didn't say any such thing: Patrick O'Carroll, "CDC's Approach to Firearm Injuries," Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 262 no. 3, July 21, 1989, pp.348-349.
So do you have an actual citation? Note they are easy to give, see the two I gave above.
Because when in the hood you're more likely to get shot right?
Yes. Hoodrats kill other hoodrats for the most part. Being a criminal is the #1 correlated factor to being shot.
Look at a picture of the Board of Directors of the NRA. There are several non-white people on the Board. Roy Innis, the founder of the old-school civil rights organization CORE (Congress On Racial Equality") used to be on the NRA board; he may still be.
Compare with the pure lily whiteness of the entire Board of Directors of the Huffington Post.