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.
Dunno. The way the summary is written, it sounds a lot like impersonation.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Whoever killed 38,000 websites to get rid of the one the DMCA targeted is an idiot.
I am all for parody, but isn't claiming to be supported by the organization you are parodying a bit much?
By blatantly stating that the NRA is sponsoring it and supports it, is not fine
There are rules. They exist for a reason.
Try doing a parody site on abortion and state plainly that the Democratic National Committee is paying for it and that Planned Parenthood is also sponsoring it.
I expect you will see the same thing.
But I don't expect that you will understand because you don't like the NRA
Google 'Gun Owners of America'. The NRA is soft, but you should still support them too.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
the parody is full of unconscious racism
What make you think it was "unconscious"? They used race baiting as part of their attack on the NRA.
The reality behind this socialist produced "mocumentary" tells a much different story! In Detroit the Police Chief with massive government cutbacks advised local citizens to arm themselves! http://hotair.com/archives/201... It really bothers these Yes Men that the result of citizens arming themselves has been steep declines in Detroit crime! From the article: >>Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014 than during the same period last year, 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings. Craig attributed the drop to better police work and criminals being reluctant to prey on citizens who may be carrying guns. “Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon,” said Craig, who has repeatedly said he believes armed citizens deter crime. “I don’t want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed. “I can’t say what specific percentage is caused by this, but there’s no question in my mind it has had an effect,” Craig said. Compare Detroit's scenario to Chicago's: Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and the highest gun homicide rate! Murder citie's crime rates are off the charts, because citizens can't defend themselves, while the criminals have all the guns. These "Yes Men" are so far from reality, it makes their little joke video much funnier, as they have no idea what they are lampooning!
Among the other outright stupidities that humans in general, especially here in the U.S., where I was born, raised, and have spent my entire life: Thinking that putting more barriers up to discourage and outright prevent the acquisition of firearms by law-abiding citizens is going to in any way shape or form reduce the occurance of mass-shootings like we've been seeing; it won't. What it'll do is roughly equivalent to a car alarm, or a deadbolt lock on the front door of your house: It'll deter the most casual criminals, but the professionals and those truly dedicated to their course of action will find a way to get the tools they want to perform whatever mayhem they have in mind. If it's not guns, they'll obtain or make IEDs of some kind and blow people up (Boston Marathon bombers) or just get knives or even swords or other hand-to-hand weapons to attack people with, or for all we know something more exotic.
Now, to all you SJWs and hysterical types who are now so triggered that you need to go take a Xanax so you can be calm enough to write your insults and death-threats against me: Don't even bother. I don't give a fuck what you think, because I think you and your gun-control rhetoric are utterly and completely wrong, and a snowball's chance in hell is still greater than you've got to try to even begin to change my mind. Oh, and by the way: I don't even own a single gun myself; but I support the Constitutional right every U.S. citizen has with regard to firearms, and if you don't then I think you're a bad citizen and should consider renouncing your citizenship and finding somewhere else to live.
Oh, and also: I'm not voting for either Trump or Clinton, because I don't trust either one of them or think either one of them is in any way shape or form suited to being POTUS, so don't bother hanging that 'Republican' bullshit on me, either; save your bandwidth for someone who gives a fuck what you think.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Now, people are starting to question the position of the NRA that *anybody* regardless of who they are should be able to procure guns
Not their actual position, although waving blanket, false statements like that around is what passes for political discourse these days. Actual fact: the current background check system was actually strongly supported by the gun lobby: people who are convicted felons or legally declared mentally incompetent don't have second amendment rights. Or many other constitutional rights, say for example, voting. The current argument (causing the House to behave like the dysfunctional third world legislative clique it apparently actually is) is over the "sounds good!" legislation of "people on the terror watch list shouldn't be allowed to buy firearms". Hmm. So, a law in which denies something listed on the bill of rights to people on a secret government list, who can get on that list simply by someone voicing suspicion, with no procedure for getting off the list (or even knowing if/why they're on it)? Pick anything else that's a legal right (voting? free speech? Self-incrimination? Illegal search and seizure?) and swap that in for "gun ownership" in this scenario and watch everyone across the political spectrum freak out. We tried something like this in the 50's with McCarthy when the enemies were Commies instead of Radicals, and are universally ashamed of that fact in hindsight. Of course the NRA should be objecting to this. I'm shocked that the ACLU, for example, isn't too.
This is total nonsense. The only people talking about racism and sexism are liberals and democrats trying to score SJW points with their idiot base.
Not good enough an excuse, Bubba. The spouse of this Clinton signed a bill that established mandatory minimum prison sentences for crimes commonly committed by black folk - but didn't sign any similar bill for crimes more commonly committed by white people. As a result of those racist attitudes, millions of predominantly black young men have spent years, even decades, in prison.
The Clintons are far more racist that Trump.
BTW - "illegal alien" isn't a race. Get a clue, alright?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Paid for in part by National Rifle Association of America with additional support form Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation. All Rights Reserved C. 2016 Share The Safety
Seems pretty clear that this is not a parity but more of an attempt to damage both brands.
I suspect most other people see it as how racist they perceive the NRA members to be.. because you know.. that's how satire works..
I believe something like this actually happened in Texas already with shotguns being given to impoverished urban populations. Surprisingly no blood in the streets.
Conservatives label Liberals as racist because... they are? Perfect example: BLM. Protest White on Black violence? GREAT! To bad they Ignore Black on Black. Ignore black on white. Ignore Chicago. Ignore crimes committed that lead to incidents. Ignore the 50%+ black leadership in DC. The darker shade of KKK where the other side does the exact same things? KKK Blatantly racist... but not when the BLM does it.
Show similar example of Trump supporters doing violence... You have your 5 maybe 6 individuals who got into fights? One Black girl roughed up? One guy punched a protester held down by cops? Great... for each of those, I'll show you a CITY BURNED. Cop cars destroyed. Businesses looted. Dozens of Trump supporters beat up by roving mobs of bigots. Dozens of "bad" Trump supporters being "bigots" vs... hundreds? thousands? of Hillary/Bern supporters being bigots/racists.
Of course Hillary bought the field... She lost against a no-name Senator from Chicago 8 years ago. Now, she cleared the field and kept the real competition (Biden, Warren, etc) from joining... and she STILL can't win outright against a Socialist who would have been a blip on the radar if Hillary wasn't such a shitty candidate. She hasn't controlled the narrative since day one yet she's a leader?
I didn't name Carson, or go into his bid, because I'm not writing a book... He fell behind because he's a great man but doesn't have the world experience needed. But go ahead and ignore the main point of my argument: Republicans are so racist that they had a fully diverse field (White, Black, Mexican, Male, Female)... yet Democrats are so diverse that they had nothing but Rich White Elitists (including those who sat out Biden/Warren/etc).
There are plenty of turds on BOTH sides... Racism on both sides. Shitty leadership on both sides. The problem is those who put the R or D or Black or Vagina before a name ahead of USA. The problem is also those who claim to be against something (War on Women, racism, etc) then proceed to vote for someone that espouses that view (Hillary). Complain that Conservatives are racist? bigots? Show the violence and results of that on the same scale as the Left. There ARE turds on both sides but the Left is most VOCALLY against it yet the most PHYSICALLY for it. They say one thing and do another. aka Hypocrites.
You want to show Trump racism? Feel free... the worst I've seen of him is stuff from when he first took control of his fathers empire - more his fathers policies than his (Policies against minorities in renting). Decades ago. Show proof of racism (and twisting "he hates Mexicans" when he's clearly talking about ILLEGAL Mexicans doesn't count) because all I see is twisted quotes obviously taken out of context.
..shitty job they've done and the horrible direction this country is headed.
Exactly what 'horrible direction' are you talking about that is not a continuation of trends started in the 80's under you know who? That's not saying much for Clinton or Obama - except that maybe they figured out how to get elected in the post-80's political climate and to make little changes around the edges to mitigate some of its worst effects. But to hate Obama or Hillary for the way things are now is to hate them because "Black" or "Vagina", because the direction of the country can be laid squarely at the feet of "The American Enterprise Institute" and other right-leaning think tanks that taught people to believe that if only we release the inherent goodness of rich folks, you'll get rich too.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
So do you also agree with the Founders that standing armies are inherent threats to liberty? How are you on the Swiss military/militia? How would you feel about disbanding the Army and Navy?
The second Amendment was intended to protect the ability of the People to defend their nation. It can certainly be argued that it also includes a guarantee of personal safety, but if you're going to argue Constitutional integrity, then you should be prepared to reconcile the vast difference between our current society and that document intended. Personally, I see a trained, professional cadre of soldiers as being an absolute necessity, and consequently would look favorably on either some variant of the Swiss system, or a far greater restriction on gun ownership. Either way, I'm fine with taking an empirical approach to the situation, and since this seems to be a national issue the CDC seems well situated to conduct such studies. If you would like to take issue with empirical findings, do your own study. If your position is that this is a moral or rational issue not subject to empirical findings, then again, you are forced to reconcile past intentions with present conditions.
This isn't a huge issue with me. I'm from Alaska and know my way around a hunting rifle, and don't see any reason for those to be particularly restricted. While the military has at times been employed against the People, generally it hasn't been the huge issue that our Founders thought, at least in terms of domestic freedom, and most of the incidents of military violence against citizens have involved the National Guard, which at least approximates a militia. With the current conflict of personal safety versus national safety versus the strict adherence to the Constitution and the Founder's intentions, I think the most likely scenario is that the Constitutional right to bear arms will be further eroded and restricted, or preferably but less likely it will be amended to make explicit that we have turned aside from the path of the citizen soldier.
We as a nation need to have a talk about these issues. We have a lot of dead citizens, a huge standing army, and we are not being true to our founding principles in any sense. Something needs to give. Taking the empirical approach may in fact not be the correct path to a solution, but we do have a problem and we do need to solve it somehow.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
This is total nonsense. The only people talking about racism and sexism are liberals and democrats trying to score SJW points with their idiot base.
Yep - the other side is too busy practicing it...
Yes there are some very good studies but not in America so pretty much any american says they are worthless "because no country is like here"
There is (unfortunately) some truth to this. Bowling for Columbine was a horrible mess, but Moore DID touch on the fact that America is different than other similar nations--then he went off the rails and in the end blamed the whole thing on an old white guy with Alzheimer's disease.
The Swiss have a (real) assault rifle in every closet, but they're not murdering each other. Canada has a large number of firearms (nothing like ths US, but they're quite widespread) and they don't have our issues. Israeli citizens are well armed and their violence is largely related to the Palestinian conflict. Americans, though, we LOVE killing each other. In absence of guns, we'd just use knives, baseball bats, or bare hands and boot heels.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
l am not sure if it would be considered libel or slander. Videos are usually have "spoken" words but a video maybe considered as sort of a "written" record by the law.
It is a published, copyrightable form, therefore it meets the definition of libel.
I wonder how loud the complaints would be were someone to produce a Hillary ad containing a Hillary impersonator who says libelous things, and then has "her" saying "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this ad" at the end.
People in the "hood" are more likely to be the victims of a crime. When politicians talk about restricting saturday night specials, they are talking about taking guns out of the hands of that single black mother who lives in the poorer area of town that keeps the gun as a self defence against being attacked and raped.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
They crossed the line from "parody" to "misrepresentation and fraud" when they did this:
"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." "
Parodies are a comedic exaggeration of *style*, and limited (though broad) leeway is allowed in matters of copyright. However, the use of trademarks in a way that could mislead is generally not protected.