us passes a protect ip law that allows government to controll websites
General Discussion
Pages: 1
us passes a protect ip law that allows government to controll websites
0
posted07/11/2011 03:25 PM (UTC)byMember Since
01/17/2006 05:10 PM (UTC)
July 6, 2011
New legislation that would give the US government the power to seize website domains on a whim with no oversight merely for linking to sites that host copyrighted material has been labeled a hallmark of “repressive regimes” by a group of law professors who warn that the bill allows the state to “break the Internet addressing system”.
The Protect IP bill, currently stalled in the Senate, represents a death blow to Internet freedom of speech. It would turn the entire web into a clone of the YouTube model, which routinely censors and deletes material when requested to by governments or corporations and shuts down user channels without recourse.
The legislation merely codifies what Homeland Security is already practicing, seizing and shutting down websites without any form of legal proceedings and in many cases not even notifying the owner.
In an open letter penned by Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford University, David S. Levine of Elon University and David G. Post of Temple University, they warn that the bill would require Internet hosting companies and search engines to de-list entire websites on the basis of a mere copyright claim by a copyright holder, with no independent or legal process undertaken.
Even linking to a website that copyright holders claim is in violation of intellectual property laws would be grounds for the feds to seize your domain and impose criminal penalties.
“At a time when many foreign governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet communications, the [Protect IP Act] would incorporate into U.S. law — for the first time — a principle more closely associated with those repressive regimes: a right to insist on the removal of content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law,” states the letter.
Suggesting that removing websites with no oversight whatsoever is a clear violation of constitutional law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the professors add that the bill would hand government the power to “break the Internet addressing system.”
“It requires Internet service providers, and operators of Internet name servers, to refuse to recognize Internet domains that a court considers “dedicated to infringing activities.” But rather than wait until a Web site is actually judged infringing before imposing the equivalent of an Internet death penalty, the Act would allow courts to order any Internet service provider to stop recognizing the site even on a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction issued the same day the complaint is filed. Courts could issue such an order even if the owner of that domain name was never given notice that a case against it had been filed at all.”
Search engines, credit card companies and even advertisers would then be mandated to refuse to deal with the owners of the site under the proposed law, making it “extraordinarily difficult for advertisers and credit card companies to do business on the Internet.”
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
As we have exhaustively documented, proponents of web regulation like Senator Joe Lieberman have openly stated their intention to create a Communist Chinese-style system of Internet policing, handing Obama the power to block entire areas of the web with a figurative kill switch.
Indeed, Amazon’s Cloud network notoriously deleted the entire Wikileaks website from its servers following a phone call made by Senator Joe Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee demanding the website be axed.
Lieberman spilled the beans on the true reasons behind the move towards web censorship during a CNN interview when he stated “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”
During a more recent interview with the network, Lieberman labeled claims that he was working to create an “Internet kill switch” as “misinformation,” yet went on to repeat the same statement that the US government needs the power to “disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war.”
Of course as we have proven, China doesn’t disconnect the Internet “in case of war,” it only ever does so to censor and intimidate people who express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. This is precisely the kind of online environment western governments are trying to replicate as they attempt to put a stranglehold on the last bastion of true free speech – the world wide web.
Read the full letter below.
New legislation that would give the US government the power to seize website domains on a whim with no oversight merely for linking to sites that host copyrighted material has been labeled a hallmark of “repressive regimes” by a group of law professors who warn that the bill allows the state to “break the Internet addressing system”.
The Protect IP bill, currently stalled in the Senate, represents a death blow to Internet freedom of speech. It would turn the entire web into a clone of the YouTube model, which routinely censors and deletes material when requested to by governments or corporations and shuts down user channels without recourse.
The legislation merely codifies what Homeland Security is already practicing, seizing and shutting down websites without any form of legal proceedings and in many cases not even notifying the owner.
In an open letter penned by Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford University, David S. Levine of Elon University and David G. Post of Temple University, they warn that the bill would require Internet hosting companies and search engines to de-list entire websites on the basis of a mere copyright claim by a copyright holder, with no independent or legal process undertaken.
Even linking to a website that copyright holders claim is in violation of intellectual property laws would be grounds for the feds to seize your domain and impose criminal penalties.
“At a time when many foreign governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet communications, the [Protect IP Act] would incorporate into U.S. law — for the first time — a principle more closely associated with those repressive regimes: a right to insist on the removal of content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law,” states the letter.
Suggesting that removing websites with no oversight whatsoever is a clear violation of constitutional law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the professors add that the bill would hand government the power to “break the Internet addressing system.”
“It requires Internet service providers, and operators of Internet name servers, to refuse to recognize Internet domains that a court considers “dedicated to infringing activities.” But rather than wait until a Web site is actually judged infringing before imposing the equivalent of an Internet death penalty, the Act would allow courts to order any Internet service provider to stop recognizing the site even on a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction issued the same day the complaint is filed. Courts could issue such an order even if the owner of that domain name was never given notice that a case against it had been filed at all.”
Search engines, credit card companies and even advertisers would then be mandated to refuse to deal with the owners of the site under the proposed law, making it “extraordinarily difficult for advertisers and credit card companies to do business on the Internet.”
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
As we have exhaustively documented, proponents of web regulation like Senator Joe Lieberman have openly stated their intention to create a Communist Chinese-style system of Internet policing, handing Obama the power to block entire areas of the web with a figurative kill switch.
Indeed, Amazon’s Cloud network notoriously deleted the entire Wikileaks website from its servers following a phone call made by Senator Joe Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee demanding the website be axed.
Lieberman spilled the beans on the true reasons behind the move towards web censorship during a CNN interview when he stated “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”
During a more recent interview with the network, Lieberman labeled claims that he was working to create an “Internet kill switch” as “misinformation,” yet went on to repeat the same statement that the US government needs the power to “disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war.”
Of course as we have proven, China doesn’t disconnect the Internet “in case of war,” it only ever does so to censor and intimidate people who express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. This is precisely the kind of online environment western governments are trying to replicate as they attempt to put a stranglehold on the last bastion of true free speech – the world wide web.
Read the full letter below.
About Me
Puto, ergo non est deus
Non opus est, si pretium non habetis.
0
Fuck me.
Welp! Time to setup a darknet.
Welp! Time to setup a darknet.
0
Source please.
0
FlamingTP Wrote:
Source please.
Source please.
here ya go and the bill can be read in the link
http://www.projectworldawareness.com/2011/05/protect-ip-act-by-obama-administration-and-11-senators-read-this-crazy-bill/

0
It's so nice that people can come up with more and more ways to rape the Constitution. :P
0
StormChaser Wrote:
It's so nice that people can come up with more and more ways to rape the Constitution. :P
It's so nice that people can come up with more and more ways to rape the Constitution. :P
i know right? do you ever listen to alex jones? the man does good work. thats how i foud out about this bill.
he made an excellent point because if anyone speaks out against this theyll label you a racist because it was obamas '' idea""
sadly thats what dc has become now if you think about it
if your anti war your un american
if you vote against obama your a racist
if you dont like clinton, bachman or palin your a sexist
0
And that's why I'm not registered to vote.
0
dibula Wrote:
Crow is a pretty cool guy. Eh keeps the governmentz out of MKO and doesn't afraid of anything.
Crow is a pretty cool guy. Eh keeps the governmentz out of MKO and doesn't afraid of anything.
yea but what makes you think if crow says hell no to it they wont just take it? i mean these people are really shredding the constitution here man. next thing you know they'll say what we can and cant say next
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
yea but what makes you think if crow says hell no to it they wont just take it? i mean these people are really shredding the constitution here man. next thing you know they'll say what we can and cant say next
dibula Wrote:
Crow is a pretty cool guy. Eh keeps the governmentz out of MKO and doesn't afraid of anything.
Crow is a pretty cool guy. Eh keeps the governmentz out of MKO and doesn't afraid of anything.
yea but what makes you think if crow says hell no to it they wont just take it? i mean these people are really shredding the constitution here man. next thing you know they'll say what we can and cant say next
Joking, friend. Just joking. This issue has actually been floating around for awhile. Internet 2.0, is it? Yes, it's bullshit. Yes, it's scary. No, I'm not surprised. So many people have become so content with their material possessions and their frivolous bullshit that they've become oblivious to what's going on around them.
Still, Crow is a pretty cool guy...
0
Riyakou Wrote:
This shit is dumb.
What the hell made them think this shit makes sense?
This shit is dumb.
What the hell made them think this shit makes sense?
to the fed all they care about is power.
did you hear about the tx school having a camera monitor kids eating habbits in the lunch room?
and did you also hear about a new 3d body scanner at the airports?
to me we are in a police state

0
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
if you dont like clinton, bachman or palin your a sexist
if you dont like clinton, bachman or palin your a sexist
I'm a woman and I don't like Palin or Hilary, but here's the catch: if you don't like Palin or Hilary Clinton and you're a woman, people accuse you of being "anti-femminst" or some other shit, like you're not supporting your fellow women. I don't feel like supporting people I feel are mean or not suitable for the job just because we all have vaginas. But then if you DO support them, people accuse you of supporting them "just because they're women." Can't win.
Why can't we just not like something or someone and not be accused of being racist/ sexist/ something-ist?
0
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
if your anti war your un american
if you vote against obama your a racist
if you dont like clinton, bachman or palin your a sexist
if your anti war your un american
if you vote against obama your a racist
if you dont like clinton, bachman or palin your a sexist
Indeed, that's just the way things work, and it will probably remain this way until civil war number 2, say 40-50 years in the future?
I am a neo-liberal
I do not like Obama because he is a centrist who occasionally fights but never does so hard enough.
I don't like Clinton because she thinks she knows what is good for me and my family and she often acts like an asshole. I don't like Palin because she is the biggest Retard in all of politics, and in a large portion of people in general. And I don't like Bachman because she is a master of corporate dick gobbling.
0
StormChaser Wrote:
I'm a woman and I don't like Palin or Hilary, but here's the catch: if you don't like Palin or Hilary Clinton and you're a woman, people accuse you of being "anti-femminst" or some other shit, like you're not supporting your fellow women. I don't feel like supporting people I feel are mean or not suitable for the job just because we all have vaginas. But then if you DO support them, people accuse you of supporting them "just because they're women." Can't win.
Why can't we just not like something or someone and not be accused of being racist/ sexist/ something-ist?
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
if you dont like clinton, bachman or palin your a sexist
if you dont like clinton, bachman or palin your a sexist
I'm a woman and I don't like Palin or Hilary, but here's the catch: if you don't like Palin or Hilary Clinton and you're a woman, people accuse you of being "anti-femminst" or some other shit, like you're not supporting your fellow women. I don't feel like supporting people I feel are mean or not suitable for the job just because we all have vaginas. But then if you DO support them, people accuse you of supporting them "just because they're women." Can't win.
Why can't we just not like something or someone and not be accused of being racist/ sexist/ something-ist?
i know right?
and when its all said and done both sides basicly end up doing the same thing.
next may there holding the g20 summit here in chicago and im going to protest because i want answers as a human being.
my only fear is is the fucking riot police that basicly beat down some protesters in philly about a year ago at the g20 summit.
you can find the videos if you type in martial law in philly on youtube.
my other big pet peeve is cass sunstein wants to ban conspiracey theorys...
now that to me is considered a ban for specific thinking wich is unconstitutional

0
Shibata Wrote:
This is terrible! We must fix this by immediately doing nothing about it at all except complaining to each other!
This is terrible! We must fix this by immediately doing nothing about it at all except complaining to each other!
Good idea!
StormChaser Wrote:
I'm a woman and I don't like Palin or Hilary, but here's the catch: if you don't like Palin or Hilary Clinton and you're a woman, people accuse you of being "anti-femminst" or some other shit, like you're not supporting your fellow women.
TheGame100gunzAndClips Wrote:
if you dont like clinton, bachman or palin your a sexist
if you dont like clinton, bachman or palin your a sexist
I'm a woman and I don't like Palin or Hilary, but here's the catch: if you don't like Palin or Hilary Clinton and you're a woman, people accuse you of being "anti-femminst" or some other shit, like you're not supporting your fellow women.
I wouldn't call you anti-feminist for not supporting Palin, but would call you stupid if you did.
Pages: 1
© 1998-2025 Shadow Knight Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Mortal Kombat, the dragon logo and all character names are trademarks and copyright of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.