The government wants to censor the Internet

[Rozax]

Today, Congress holds hearings on the first American Internet censorship system. This bill will let government and corporations censor the internet, take down sites at the behest of corporations.

http://americancensorship.org/

Let me point out that our "balanced news coverage" is already censored by broadcasting sponsors. If they don't like the story, they can pull the plug. Imagine them having that kind of power on the internet.

This protest is supported by:
Public Knowledge
EFF
Free Software Foundation
Mozilla
Demand Progress
Fight For the Future
PPF
Creative Commons
Wikimedia

Sites that would be affected by this bill: Facebook, YouTube, Tumblr, Twitter, Wikipedia...ask yourself, which site wouldn't be affected by this bill? We know which countries already have this problem; do we want to join them? This is not the time to say, "When we live in a society, we give up certain rights," this is a time to defend our right to knowledge.

[KommanderKasey]

Man I can't believe nobody has replied on this topic. Do read about it people, it is a big thing and definitely deserves your attention. I'm sure many have heard of it by now but in case you haven't, take a little time to read on it.

[Elisto Dragonwings]

I know about it...I just don't really know what to say

[Rozax]

Maybe I should change the subject title? Perhaps "censorship day" sounds too much like the many "day of silence" campaigns.

[DaddlerTheDalek]

THAT sucks!

Good Luck My American Friends!

[Rozax]

Thanks Daddler. I'd really hate to lose this community just because nobody here owns the rights to Sonic.

[sonic_aaliyah_fan]

WHAT!? OMG that totally goes against the 1st amendment: freedom of speech. Well this is what i think of it:

LOL j/k i wasn't cussing, but c'mon if they get away with censoring internet what's next, giving people fines and/or jail time for cussing in public?

THAT sucks!

Good Luck My American Friends!

Thanx Daddler for the support! I pray that bill doesn't go thru or i'm gonna have to replace my letters with symbols, like @$$ LOL

Thanks Daddler. I'd really hate to lose this community just because nobody here owns the rights to Sonic.

Me too. SMS, SonicPros.com, FaceBook and FUS are the sites i go to for Sonic communties. Even though i never met anyone here in person u guys are basically a part of my online social life

[Rozax]

Here is a link containing contact information for several people who are in favor of internet censorship. Feel free to drop them a letter.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/160928/ ... control/#3

[Mi-24 Hind V]

President Obama and VP Biden have voiced their displeasure with the measures and Obama promises a veto. They don't have any where near the numbers needed to overturn said veto, either.

Not only that, corruption works both ways; Google doesn't like it's monies getting the snip. You better believe they can afford legions of lawyers that'd drag this all the way to the Supreme Court; a court made up of individuals guaranteed to hold their jobs for as long as they wish without the hassle of re-election, thus making them less corruptible than your standard politician. The SCOTUS is about the only section of government I have a shred of real respect for.

Especially Scalia, I'd fist bump that guy.

Are people over reacting to this? Yes. But, personally, this is over reaction that is more than justifiable. We're talking about chipping a little bit away from the foundation of Western Civilization, that is to say freedom of speech. So, get mad, get raving, make a stink.

[Hyram the Hedgehog]

In Spain, the left winged (if there's money) Zapatero tried to pull a similar stunt, public opinion drifted him away (usual way for him) public opinion can work wonders, even more on a Republic.

In USA, It's won as long you all keep on the fight.

[tross]

I've heard about this. I have yet to watch any videos or check out any links relating to it, but I've heard a great deal about it. I don't live in the US, but I visit a lot of American sites on a regular basis, so this would be bad news for me too. By the way, there's plenty of room over here, north of the border. Set a server up over here. I'm kidding, but I wouldn't be surprised if those who have the means went and did something like that, assuming this bill were to pass(I don't think it will, and I hope I'm right).

[Elisto Dragonwings]

Well apparently Obama has said if it passes he'd veto it, but I couldn't find that anywhere. Doesn't look like many major news organizations here are talking about it. I saw a CNN article and that's it.

One thing though that I'm not sure is accurate...it doesn't sound like the government would be censoring the internet but allowing companies and others to do that instead. My main issue is that it sounds like it's allowing people claiming copyright infringement to bypass government and the justice system all together to get something shut down that they don't like. I'm worried when people are saying this is government censorship and infringes on free speech, they're missing the point and potentially hurting their argument. I think allowing "guilty until proven innocent" as this bill is proposing is just as harmful.

[PorpoiseMuffins]

This has got to be one of the most poorly understood and deliberately miscommunicated issues out there. Honestly, I don't know what to think.

One thing I do know, however: There are lobbies on both sides of these Internet issues who are pushing to change things to benefit their own personal interests, and the "bad guys" aren't always who they appear to be. When you fully understand the issue, sometimes you discover that you've been duped into defending something that sounded great when taken at face value, but had less pure motives at its root.

My default position would be to question the motives of those who are looking to implement new laws. For example, in the net neutrality argument (as I understand it), it's actually those in favor of net neutrality who are looking to create new laws and are claiming that this has to be done in order to preserve the Internet as it is today (despite the fact that they've been arguing for this for many years and none of their fears have yet come to fruition). This is highly suspicious to me. A movement like this doesn't gain traction unless it has powerful lobbies with big money behind it. So what's the real motive?

[Mi-24 Hind V]

One thing that's going to hurt the bill is that it's almost 2012: Election cycle. With the president promising veto and with a sizeable Democrat prescence, this could prove to be major opposition towards the bill. Reason being, Democrats have always courted the younger generation and voicing opposition to the bill would be a fairly easy way of pandering towards that base. Not only that, the Obama campaign embraced the internet during it's successful 2008 bid. Coupled with the lessons learned by Democrats not to put up with Karl Rove's legacy, they will have this mud to sling at those that support said bill. Not only that, Democrats are less easily herded than their Republican contemporary; they're much more prone to infighting.

This has got to be one of the most poorly understood and deliberately miscommunicated issues out there. Honestly, I don't know what to think.

One thing I do know, however: There are lobbies on both sides of these Internet issues who are pushing to change things to benefit their own personal interests, and the "bad guys" aren't always who they appear to be. When you fully understand the issue, sometimes you discover that you've been duped into defending something that sounded great when taken at face value, but had less pure motives at its root.

My default position would be to question the motives of those who are looking to implement new laws. For example, in the net neutrality argument (as I understand it), it's actually those in favor of net neutrality who are looking to create new laws and are claiming that this has to be done in order to preserve the Internet as it is today (despite the fact that they've been arguing for this for many years and none of their fears have yet come to fruition). This is highly suspicious to me. A movement like this doesn't gain traction unless it has powerful lobbies with big money behind it. So what's the real motive?

I hate to answer such a long post with a concise reply, but it's all I really can do. Google's behind the opposition. This would cut into their profits via traffic.

Whenver legislation mentions the internet, freedom of info nerds go nuts. Like that entire S. 978 bill that everyone thought was going to make Let's Plays illegal. Sadly, it didn't. We can still have our Digital camera recored Mario Let's Plays. No one wants to actually read the damn bill and jump straight into panic made.

However, on this account, I'll actually condole it. Freedomf of Information should be protected with the utmost zeal. I'll think of it as a pre-emptive strike.

[Rozax]

The site uses Vimeo, but that player doesn't believe in buffering, so here is the same video on youtube.