Drawing Attention to an important issue

Ashley Hushimo wrote:Again, America is web- and Internet-based. Even at school, half of my papers are done using the Internet. I highly, highly, highly doubt the bill will be passed, and even if it does, it won't last.

You and many others I talk to seem to think that this bill won't pass, so there's no real need to get all worked up. I only wish this were true. I just came across this news article.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/11/30/hundreds-of-web-sites-seized-on-court-order-no-sopa-bill-required/

A federal judge has already ruled that a corporation can take action against 'rogue websites' and the bill isn't even a LAW yet! To me, that speaks volumes about their confidence to get this thing passed.

When I was in debate, we had an argument concept that we would frequently use against the other side. "Silence is compliance." What it means is that if they failed to make any sort of counter to one of our arguments, it is assumed that they did so because they AGREE on that point. It could well be that if most people take the attitude that the bill will never pass and therefore do nothing, then Congress may assume something similar to silence is compliance.

It STILL bothers me that I find little discussion of SOPA going on outside of the internet and word of mouth. The mere idea that Congress would consider such a bill, combined with the implications of what happens if SOPA gets passed, should be enough to get it at least MENTIONED in more places such as the 5 o'clock news.

EDIT: Now I know why the major news groups aren't talking. http://www.webpronews.com/nbc-wants-partners-to-support-sopa-or-else-2011-11 They are in on the whole thing. They WANT SOPA to pass.

Shadowsgirl wrote:
A federal judge has already ruled that a corporation can take action against 'rogue websites' and the bill isn't even a LAW yet! To me, that speaks volumes about their confidence to get this thing passed.

I thought that was already a law. Idk

In order to become a law, a bill must be introduced in either the house or the senate, approved by both, and then sent to the president. The president can then sign the bill making it officially a law, or he can veto it. Vetoed bills are sent back to congress, who can override the veto if they really want to, but they need 2/3 majority vote to do so.

SOPA is still a bill. Thus it's either really daring or really confident of that judge to enact some parts of SOPA before it's become an official law. Or maybe both.

Seems some critics of SOPA are trying to fight fire with fire.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57338178-281/critics-of-sopa-copyright-bill-ready-counterattack/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
I'm not sure if that's the best way to go about fighting the SOPA bill, but if it comes down to ultimately picking between the lesser of two evils.... I'd rather not see any bill like this passed unless it contains strict rules for when and how it can be enforced, with almost no legal wiggle room.

It's virtually (pun) impossible to regulate the internet in its entirety, the government has little control over it, and the little that they do is rarely enforced. It's practically a non-issue.

Hushimo wrote:It's virtually (pun) impossible to regulate the internet in its entirety, the government has little control over it, and the little that they do is rarely enforced. It's practically a non-issue.

Technically true, but it's not like they could force websites to close down that they don't like, so if the bill passed, it would become easier to regulate.

http://boingboing.net/2011/12/14/kill-sopa-save-americas-int.html

Guys, stop acting all flippant about this please. It's not as trivial as you think. They don't care about just regulation, they care about total control and power. And they could have it TOMORROW.

It's over
SOPA pass
Everybody get out while you still can

Did it!?!?!?!?

I'm not sure if it passed, but if it hasn't yet, we got some big sites to go against the bill.

"Opponents of the bill include Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, the Brookings Institution, and human rights organizations such as Reporters Without Borders, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU and Human Rights Watch."

Courtesy of Wikipedia.

None of that matters if Obama don't veto it
And I highly doubt he will

I've heard it's likely Obama will veto it.

If it effects the economy
If it doesn't goodbye freedom

There's also a petition going against SOPA.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/

SOPA has not passed, but we're not out of the woods yet. They started voting on it, but opponents of the bill managed to get it postponed until they can get some actual TECH EXPERTS in to testify. The people supporting SOPA took a day to agree to that, saying it wasn't necessary. Nevermind the fact that the people who basically created the internet have sent a letter to Congress saying "Yes, this bill will f*** everything up"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/top-internet-engineers-warn-against-sopa/2011/12/15/gIQAGRV4vO_blog.html

They were going to put off the debate over SOPA until next year. Then they were going to vote TOMORROW (Wednesday). Now, this article says they won't bring it back up until Congress reconvines in 2012.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/246709/sopa_hearing_delayed_likely_until_early_next_year.html


Also, Obama can only do so much. He can Veto it yes, but Congress can override his veto with two-thirds majority vote (not 'more than half' like the usual majority count) to do so in both the House and the Senate. And if Obama doesn't sign it, it automatically becomes law after 10 days. Really the only way he could kill it permanently is the little-used 'pocket veto' where he lets it go unsigned and the 10-day mark passes while Congress is out of session. If that happens it's considered vetoed and Congress cannot override it. If Congress passes SOPA, then a pocket veto is the only way I can think of to kill it permanently.

Yeah, I'm definitely not in agreement with it. I hope it gets vetoed soon though I won't be surprised if it doesn't. Obama seems anti technology. I think I heard him mention he thinks video games are evil once, or something along those lines.

Now we seem to have more famous people speaking out on SOPA

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mythbusters/articles/mythbuster-adam-savage-sopa-could-destroy-the-internet-as-we-know-it-6620300

Maybe my faith in humanity hasn't run out afterall.

Call your local assbag politician and tell them...

From what I've heard, SOPA is almost dead because people have been boycotting the companies and businesses that support SOPA. But we're not out of the woods yet, because SOPA is the version of this bill in the House of Representatives. It has a sister bill sitting in the Senate, called PIPA. Different name, but pretty much the same thing. (Don't ask me why Congress has to have different names like that. Because I don't know.) PIPA is going to be voted on in January. I guess the people who want to censor the internet decided to hedge their bets and sponsor bills in both the House and Senate in the hopes that if one died the other would survive...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57345187-281/senate-will-vote-next-month-on-protect-ip-copyright-bill/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Edit: The Senate Majority leader is one of the politicians I called through the americancensorship.org website. One of his aides answered, and when I started to tell my concerns about the bill, he got all snipity with me... It went something like this.
Aide: "Oh, you silly girl, the bill is only targeting copyright infringem-"
Me: "No don't give me that. I've actually READ through the bills. There's no strict definition as to what exactly is 'infringement' and you don't even need proof to pull down an entire website! Only suspicion! So by that logic you could go after someone who illegally uploads an entire movie or some cute little 4 year old singing her favorite song on Youtube."
Aide: "....I'll give him your message. Have a nice day." *hangs up*

Yeah...the Senate may be tougher. They have attitudes that may make reasoning with them tricky.

They probably have different names to get people off track and have them focus on bill (SOPA) while the other can rush to victory.

i know this is random ( well this is the random forum :/) but how do u change ur username i want to change it to somthin like amygirl06 or rougegirl09 plz help??

No. Bad. Bad moron. *smacks chavcentral on the nose with the Newspaper of Behavior Discouragement*

Shadowsgirl wrote:
And the real kicker?

They wouldn't even need PROOF of illegal activity. Only suspicion. When it comes to legislation, the things that are NOT said can be just as important as the things that ARE. And this bill does NOT say that any sort of proof would be needed before action is taken against an offending site. There's a reason cops have to get a warrant before they can search your home: to prevent them from abusing their power and authority. The government's approach to piracy with SOPA is to shoot first and ask questions later, because the ends justify the means to them. This sort of thing is incredibly similar to how China censors its internet.

I just need to point out, that this is a lie. The website owner WILL get notified first. The only reason the website would go down is because the owner failed to obey orders.

This bill isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It won't kill the internet.

No, it won't, it's still too slow to do that, but it may trigger Armageddon.