Internet Censorship begins in America; 70 websites seized

[mrjarrell]

and nobody's been prosecuted, they just had to take down the site until they can straighten it all out. if they are found to have not broken the law then they will be back in business.

So, "we'll put you out of business and sort it out later" is how you like to roll. Wow. Guess we don't need to say much more. We can see which side of the freedom equation you're on. Have a nice night, comrade.

 

[rjstew317]

The latter. You keep arguing for the law, but when the application of it goes against you, then suddenly you don't like it. Innocent until proven guilty means something to some of us. Guess not so much to you.

can you show me where i said if it goes against me i don't like it. i'm the first to own up to my mistakes, if i break the law i will own up to it, and i have in the past

 

[rjstew317]

So, "we'll put you out of business and sort it out later" is how you like to roll. Wow. Guess we don't need to say much more. We can see which side of the freedom equation you're on. Have a nice night, comrade.

freedom doesnt mean you get to do whatever you want

 

[rjstew317]

So, "we'll put you out of business and sort it out later" is how you like to roll. Wow. Guess we don't need to say much more. We can see which side of the freedom equation you're on. Have a nice night, comrade.

there you go again,freedom doesn't just apply to you, what about the rights of copyright holder? do they not have rights because they make too much money?

 

[rambone]

and nobody's been prosecuted, they just had to take down the site until they can straighten it all out. if they are found to have not broken the law then they will be back in business.

freedom doesnt mean you get to do whatever you want

Freedom means that you have to be proven guilty before you get punished. That does not seem to fit with what you are saying or the government is doing.

 

[rjstew317]

Freedom means that you have to be proven guilty before you get punished. That does not seem to fit with what you are saying or the government is doing.

again, to you i pose the same question, if i had a program that digitally transferred all the money from your bank account to mine would you want them to step in to shut it down or just wait to prove it was me and wait until the trial were over before they stopped it?

 

[rambone]

again, to you i pose the same question, if i had a program that digitally transferred all the money from your bank account to mine would you want them to step in to shut it down or just wait to prove it was me and wait until the trial were over before they stopped it?

Trial. I will always stick with the Bill of Rights. The 6th and 7th amendments are no less important than the 2nd. You get a trial. I don't trust the government with the unlimited power to shut down businesses and seize bank accounts. The Federal Government is the biggest perpetrator of crime in the history of the country. It must be kept within the parameters of the constitution at all costs.

 

[rjstew317]

Trial. I will always stick with the Bill of Rights. The 6th and 7th amendments are no less important than the 2nd. You get a trial. I don't trust the government with the unlimited power to shut down businesses and seize bank accounts. The Federal Government is the biggest perpetrator of crime in the history of the country. It must be kept within the parameters of the constitution at all costs.

it's called evidence, i didn't read in either of the articles you linked to that the proprietors were hauled off to jail, but it seems the fed is trying to build a case against them

 

[rjstew317]

you don't have a constitutional right to steal someone else's work and distribute it

 

[rjstew317]

i'm done, no need to go in circles

 

[esrice]

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

i'm done, no need to go in circles

Me too. Einstein defined insanity as arguing with Libtards. I read it on the Interznet.

 

[rambone]

Me too. Einstein defined insanity as arguing with Libtards. I read it on the Interznet.

Heh heh. Cheer for Obama to control the internet then call the opposition "libtards." Now that is funny.

 

[Prometheus]

I still haven't heard a reason why it is justifiable to shut down entire websites instead of going after the dreaded pirates themselves. It doesn't make any sense. This really isn't about intellectual property. I haven't even given an opinion about the validity of intellectual property. I'm just of the opinion that if it is to be punished, this is a dead wrong approach.

The question is, what gives them the right to punish websites who provide a medium that could conceivably be abused? Should Craigslist be shut down because Nigerian fraudsters and hookers like to use it? It makes no sense. Or the copy machine analogy. Why aren't we calling Xerox an "accessory to theft"? What is the acceptable ratio of legitimate copies to fraudulent copies? You can't punish and control innocent people in a society of just laws.

Why does your argument hinge on calling the critics "libtards" or "anarchists"? Pardon me for not wanting to give Janet Napolitano more power... I guess it amounts to anarchy if some tyrant czar can't just kill the internet with a stroke of her pen. No cession of power is too great in the name of protecting the homeland!!

I'm more concerned with the ugly question in the room, that's ignored (or lauded by certain people). Where is the due process? Where is the day in court? They just hacked into these people sites and shut them down (realistically, they stole them), without anything approaching due process. Guess some big government types like that kind of behaviour from the government. Me? Not so much.

I haven't read every single post in this thread, but these two stand out and are worth repeating.

This is no more about property control than it is to gun control.

The main issue here is CONTROL. Nothing more.

 

[steveh_131]

Me too. Einstein defined insanity as arguing with Libtards. I read it on the Interznet.

Says the guy who is advocating even MORE government intrusion into peoples' lives.

Also, you should be ashamed of yourself for quoting someone's thoughts without paying them. Even if they're not quoted correctly. That's stealing.

 

[machete]

Heh heh. Cheer for Obama to control the internet then call the opposition "libtards." Now that is funny.

Some people are really just fans of the government,,,they should call themselves Governmentans---most people in both parties are Governmentans... If all the Governmentans ever got together in ONE PARTY,,,theyd win every election!!

 

[Hkindiana]

No, you didn't. You've made the claim that it is "Stealing" if you distribute intellectual property.

If there was no law against it, would you still have a problem with piracy?

YES, because law or no law, stealing is MORALLY wrong

 

[rambone]

This article describes how the sites can easily relocate, and the Feds accomplished not really anything. Except for looking like a bunch of Fascists.

U.S. Gov’t seizes 70+ domains, but the sites live on

 

[rambone]

 

[steveh_131]

This article describes how the sites can easily relocate, and the Feds accomplished not really anything. Except for looking like a bunch of Fascists.

U.S. Gov’t seizes 70+ domains, but the sites live on

Wow. Turns out that trying to assert ownership of knowledge after distributing it is quite impossible.

Whaddya know.