Sepherose

The one at dictionary.com The speech being suppressed is not being considered 'objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people'. It is considered illegal and harmful to a property owner. The determination is not being made by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. The initial inquisition is made by the DoJ, and it must be granted or denied by a Federal judge after the owner of the speech is allowed a chance to defend his interests. This definition has been rebutted. Words, images, and ideas are not being suppressed because they are offensive. If preventing people from obtaining certain goods in a certain way is censorship, then laws against stealing are also censorship. The words, images, and ideas that may be suppressed will continue to be available elsewhere. Another failed definition. Again, the speech or communicative material is not deleted on grounds of being objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient, since those materials being blocked will continue to be available elsewhere. The speech in question is only deleted after the speaker has the chance to prove he is not breaking criminal laws which do even not implicate First Amendment concerns. You aren't a 10 year old child, where if the school library removes Judi Blum's "Hi God, It's me, Margaret" you will be unlikely to obtain access to the book from other means due to your limited mobility and lack of monetary funds. If you can get on the Internet you can drive to f***ing Wal-Mart and you can use Amazon.com. Censorship? What is being censored, exactly? It's a discrete question, your continued inability to answer that only shows your entire argument is moot. You know, you are looking at this as what someone can gain access to, but you also need to look at what people are being told they can and can not distribute, which is also a form of censorship. Some of those sites could easily be counterfeiting goods, but I doubt that all of them are. With proof, go ahead shut them down, but many were shut down without proper evidence or cross-checking. This is the problem here.

Here is another link for you Lukertin. It gives absolute proof that stem cells can be used to definitively help humans.

Er... no... I just don't like what has been happening with them recently, like with $ony, so I ready this one to find out if there was something similar, and there was. lol

I have an amusing story about our last neighbors that might cheer you up a bit, as it's silly. So, currently there are a couple of female college students living in the other half of our duplex, but this story isn't about them, it's about the previous tenant. Alright, when we first moved in two years ago, we met our neighbors, who seemed nice enough. After a few weeks, we noticed a few odd things: 1. They seemed to always be awake. 2. They would go from laughing and joking, to a screaming fistfight, back to laughing, over the course of five or so minutes. It wasn't a one way thing with them, both of them repeatedly started these fist fights, which weren't so much worrying as amusing, since they couldn't fight and... 3. They were coke heads. So, for months, we had to deal with this weirdness. They were never anything but nice to us though, so it wasn't a big deal. We did call the cops once and they came and talked to them, nothing happened though. So, to git to the silly part, I have to backtrack. When we moved in, we were missing four closet doors out of our place. No one knew where they had gotten to, but it wasn't a big deal. The previous tenant here is the current repairman for the property as well, so he knew for a fact they had been there when he moved out only a month before us moving in. Fast forward a year: The cokehead neighbors got kicked out for non-payment of rent. They pulled out their valuables which included gems such as a blow up clown and a broken rocking horse (also, they had no children). Once they were gone, the repairman and his sons came to clean the place. Opening the garage they discovered a treasure trove of abandoned random things such as: Old collectable license plates, antique lamps, broken tools of all kinds from a circular saw down to a snapped finishing hammer (not sure how they managed that) and lastly: One of our closet doors that had been Jackson Pollock'd with randomly assorted spray paint. But only one of them. We did find the other three closet door handles though. I always like to imagine them high on their choice vice riding off into the sunset on a vehicle made of the other three doors, being pulled by their pitbull down the road.

Experimental and theoretical applications. I believe I asked first and foremost for an article from a medical journal. You know, results where doctors and researchers do experiments on live people in an attempt to save their lives, rather than the results of a bunch of grad students and post-docs dicking around in a lab. Edit: I did further research, and apparently the Cedric Seldon mentioned in the NatGeo article is today alive and kicking and doing well. My points regarding reliability, reproducibility, and long-term feasibility of such treatments still stand. One success is not a 'proof'. Maybe in other disciplines but people are very different from DNA to DNA. The long term effects of stem cell treatments aren't even properly understood--your Cedric Seldon was injected with stem cells from a female, so now his blood will be female while the rest of his body has Y chromosomes. Pretty cool right? I can't imagine anything weird happening out of that. I just gave you multiple links to an actual research group, not a bunch of grad students and post-docs "dicking around", on those pages you will find, with only a couple of clicks, research papers and results. If that isn't enough for you, you are in denial.

Er, I have already sent out about 15 emails to some of the appropriate people. And you know, demanding Kudos isn't the way to get them :P (But I'll give you one anyway lol) yes but not everyone knows how or who to write to or even know what their government does. most of the time its just blaming the president or blaming some else who has nothing to to with this. it also pretty sad that Americans start paying attribution to the government now that cat youtube videos wont have crappy pop music they love so much. im against SOPA but S.1867 (biggest assault on constitutionally protected civil liberties since the PATRIOT act) is a much more pressing matter but no one cares. S.1867 has already passed the senate while i think SOPA will die on the senate floor. as far as Americans are worried about cat videos with pop music > writ of Habeus Corpus I do agree that s. 1867 is a bit more pressing. (That's an understatement.) And sorry if it seemed like I was brushing you off, I was trying to be a bit silly, since the whole thread got a tad tense before. You gave useful info, so thank you :) I think there is a thread somewhere around here that has to do with S. 1867 if you haven't seen it. Ah, here it is.

Er, I have already sent out about 15 emails to some of the appropriate people. And you know, demanding Kudos isn't the way to get them :P (But I'll give you one anyway lol)

Here is another interesting thing about SOPA, well, a few interesting things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb-_p2q90PA

@Lukertin: Here are some interesting resources to read up on, you are wrong, they have proven that stem cells can assist with recovery and repair of damage to the body. First, a simple article from National Geographic. Next, National Institutes of Heath page about the potential of stem cells. An interview with Dr. Doug Melton, co-directer of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Multiple research overviews from HSCI A page detailing some of the accomplishments of HSCI. There, you have your proof. As for the OP's question as to why: I don't rightly know. It could be that the judge is morally opposed to SCR, it could be that they are morally opposed to a lesbian couple raising a child so they are attempting to put every roadblock possible in the way. It could be that the US medical system is in shambles and they genuinely believe that the child could be put in more danger. It could be that SCR is severely lacking and therefore they believe the child is in danger. It would be a plethora of reasons, all I know is that it sucks, and in that position, I would fight tooth and nail to be able to do something that could help my child.

Sadly I see minor events like this fairly regularly in my area, although when I was about ten there was a major even that caused a lot of clamping down on that sort of behavior. There is one particular neighborhood in this city that has a very bad rep, for good reason, but it's only a few of the people there that actually contribute to that. They regularly have foot patrol officers down there with vests and shotguns (believe it or not, it is true). Well, one evening two officers were patrolling and they heard a "loud noise" from a home, I don't know exactly what transpired, but the younger of the two officers ended up killing a young black man in the street execution style in front of a bunch of people that lived nearby, got into an altercation with his partner, and his partner ended up having to shoot and kill him. The only real detail I know is that the young man that was executed there hadn't done anything wrong and the officer that survived that encounter ended up taking a couple years leave before returning to the force. I know, it's an extreme example, but relatively, it is recent. Personally, as a teenager I have been profiled for "dressing in an abnormal way" or, "being goth" :wallbash: Profiling like that doesn't just happen to racial minorities, but to culture and sub-culture minorities as well. It is appalling whenever it happens. :(

Could you link me? Can't really watch it if I don't know where to go. lol

Wrong: Any Judge in the US is a part of at LEAST one of the 94 district courts that are part of the structure of the Judicial branch of government. Also, you seem to be saying that if a website gets shut down under a different guise than censorship, that it isn't censorship. At the very least you imply that since the Judges sole job is not to examine and close down the site, therefore it isn't censorship. Suffice to say, I'll put it this way, but again I will say that I do NOT support piracy: Breaking the law through piracy or some other means is technically a way to express oneself, providing illegal materials is again the same thing, essentially we have the right to choose to do it or not, but have to deal with LEGAL recourse if we break the law. Now, to elaborate, I would like to say that I have no issue with an illegal site being shut down so long as there is sufficient evidence that it was illegal. As for the article I posted that started this whole back and forth, I would like to point out that it was supposed counterfeiting. This would have been easy to prove, as all Chanel would have had to do was show that these sites are selling their brand on items they didn't produce. This, as far as I know was not the case with the exception of a few. Here, read this, it's an excerpt, and I will go over how this is WRONG: 1. Chanel can simply put in a request form, and add NEW sites to the list of ones ruled against in the original case, rather than a new case being started. This is circumvention of due process, and SOPA would allow this regularly. 2. No site was contacted until AFTER the seizure order had been given. 3. "The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web." Notice how that last sentence says NOTHING about a court appointed individual? It was a behind closed doors decision of an EMPLOYEE of Chanel, when it should have been cross checked, at the very least, by an impartial court appointee. 4. Taking into account points 1,2, & 3, the case was not carried out by following legal means, corners were cut that removed the rights of the defendants, therefore, the whole trial was illegal. So, notice that only a very small fraction of a percent of those sites had solid proof against it? That is my problem, primarily. I have no issue with those that broke the law being punished. It's the others without due process being punished at the whim of a company. Now, how is this censorship? Alright, I'll put it this way: What if many of those companies, rather than counterfeiting Chanel products, were making legitimate generic versions? Like generic or "off-brand" shampoo/cereal/etc. This is a possibility, and THIS is where censorship comes into the mix, because if those companies are only producing "off-brand" versions of name brand products, they are exercising their right in this economic model to do so. If that happens it is because the name brand company has decided that it is "objectionable", and therefore should be shut down or seized. It is, in the end, censorship in those cases.

That is pretty much what I have been trying to point out. Thank you for the clarification, my words were failing me. (Note: I also do NOT support piracy.)

So if a convenience store is selling cocaine and the police cordon off the store and prevent people from entering, then go around blacking out the entry of the store from the yellow pages, that is censorship? You have a f***ed up definition of words Yea man when you kill a person you stop his ideas and thoughts from being expressed, that's censorship dude. THE MAN is trying to keep us down, censorship by murrrrderrrr Technically, killing someone is a form of censorship, actually. You have a very narrow idea of the word, it's applicable in more areas than you think.

It is not censorship. Censorship is the blocking of ideas. Blocking a website whose sole purpose is to sell things is not censorship. Preventing people from entering Wal-Mart and buying things from Wal-Mart is not censorship. If you think that is censorship you are delusional. *facepalm* Alright, let me explain it to you this way: Big company A decides, for whatever reason to shut down little company B. Rather than go through legitimate channels by having sufficient evidence, company A decided to throw a tantrum until company B gets shut down by the courts without what would be considered sufficient evidence. Now, your confusion may lie in the fact that you have wrongly assumed (again) that I am thinking something I am not. I never said it was censorship of thought or speech, I simply said it was censorship. There are many kinds of censorship, stifling of speech or creativity is just one form, shutting down a business because you think it is taking a bite out of your pie WITHOUT sufficient evidence is another form of censorship. And before you attempt to point an accusatory finger at me again: My problem is simply that they did not have sufficient evidence according to what I know of the situation.

Just had to point this out: ACTUALLY shooting them would be censorship, technically. Wanting to isn't. :thumbsup: **DISCLAIMER** The above was a "light-hearted quip" to keep the mood as light as possible and in no way was meant to offend or belittle Balagor. :teehee:

From what I have heard, only those in the US seem to be having to deal with this particular aspect of the TOS. Still better safe than sorry.

Thank you, HeyYou, for taking the words right out of my head :thumbsup:. Also, considering those sites were out of the jurisdiction of the court, and the site owners were not contacted, that was a miscarriage of justice, and due to this it is still distressing. As for those things not being related to censorship, let me put it this way: Those sites were either shut down or made impossible to find. That is a form of censorship. You jumping to a conclusion about MY mindset was ridiculous as well, and also practically saying I support piracy/counterfeiting of goods. I don't.

May want to let them know :)

It stands that you still support people who sell counterfeit goods. No. You don't seem to get it, so I'll clarify: 1. I do not support people that sell counterfeit goods. 2. I also do not support rulings that are carried out without sufficient evidence. Basically, if they had solid proof of them breaking the law, by all means shut them down, but according to that article and some others I read, they didn't have the evidence. Their ruling was made without sufficient evidence, ergo, it was unjust. And considering any television company that breaks an FCC regulation doesn't just get a slap on the wrist, they get fined, heavily. That is because they broke one of their "regulations". It's a loophole so that the government can still say "We have no censorship laws!". I say this because there are laws in place that force television companies to follow FCC regulations and pay those fines. The regulations may not be law, but they still must be followed as if they are. Also, the FCC threatened to fine Comedy Central if they didn't agree to pull the episode from future airing and the website. So yes, absolutely, we do have censorship regulation, and laws that enforce following those regulation, and by proxy, censorship laws. Just because it is not labeled as such, doesn't mean it isn't.

Sadly that trend predates modern society, laying blame on those unable to defend themselves. Oh, I would also like to point something out about myself just so no one may latch onto my lack of saying it: I have no criminal history. I'm actually considered an upstanding citizen by the state and am a registered foster parent. Also, Ginny, I'm sorry to hear that :( I wish you well.

Thank you :)

Now hold on. I have a torn sciatic nerve. It will never heal. It causes my right leg to randomly stop functioning, and I lack feeling through it to varying degrees. This was not my fault, it was the fault of a drunk man driving a nice BMW. Due to that I can NEVER have a manual labor job. I can NEVER have a job that requires me to stand for extended periods of time, either. Beyond that, I could in theory get a desk job, right? Well no, I can't, and here is why: Due to getting jipped in the eye department genetically, my eyes are extremely sensitive to light. I get migraines a bit easily, and they are debilitating, due to this. ALL desk jobs that I could get would require me to work under bright lights while writing/typing. As for using a computer, I have to turn the brightness down quite a bit, otherwise I will get a severe migraine within 45 minutes. Now, these things have not prevented me from trying to get a job, but most times I am considered a liability due to these issues. The few times I have managed to get jobs, they have fallen apart, not due to my lack of effort, but due to either A: my leg giving out on the job, or B: Me developing a severe migraine on the job and not being able to move. Now, I can't try to wave "I'm disabled, you can't discriminate!" to get a job, since my vision is otherwise good, and I can get rid of the migraines, and my leg typically lets me move around unhindered, so there is that as well. Now, I have to ask, after learning all of that: Is it due to me being stupid, uneducated, or lacking drive to improve my life, that I am in hard financial times right now?

Must be nice supporting people who illegally counterfeit goods. No! Now just stop right there. An accusation like that is not something you make lightly. The problem I have is that there were many circumventions of due process in this case, including the FACT that there was little to no evidence, but the ruling was made anyway, THAT is what I find distressing. Your personal attack on me is highly offensive. The US actually has zero censorship laws, with the exception that you can't sell porn to kids or depict child porn. It's pretty funny how people from Europe think the US doesn't understand the concept of free speech when they throw people in jail for making slanderous comments about public officials, fine Yahoo! auctions because some guy tried to sell a Nazi hat through their website, and do other generally hilarious actions like force video games to color blood green. And I call bull that the US has no censorship laws, turn on your TV to a non-cable channel, late night. Just wait for it, and you will hear at least a few bleeps. Better yet, watch a reality show for ten minutes or so, and you will hear at least a few censored words. Or, watch an R rated movie late night, even on a lot of cable channels. Violence and nudity will be censored, as will language. Or how about the South Park episode that featured Muhammad? That one aired once, after that is was forcibly pulled off their website AND will never be aired again on TV. Then there is video games on top of that, plenty of censorship happens there. So you seriously are going to try to take the stance that the US, by the way, the same country I live in, doesn't have censorship laws? That is laughable.

Yeah, I am FROM michigan, and I voted for that guy.... (Levin) That ain't gonna happen again. It's bad when you feel terrified by your own government. :unsure: