Stop Internet Censorship!

[lukertin]

Censorship is denial of access to something. Plain and simple. Doesn't matter whom is doing the denying, or why, or even just what said 'something' is. Why are you picking such nits in the first place? Are you an english professor of some variety?

I've provided a dictionary definition and responded to another person's dictionary definition which does not address what censorship is. I'm picking nits because you're massacring the English language for sensationalist purposes. Denial of access is not censorship.

 

If I said "You can't drive cars in New York City, but you are welcome to use the bus, subway system, and your legs, a bike, or any other method of transportation that is not powered by a combustion engine to get around" I have denied access, but I have not censored anything. I haven't even restricted your freedom of movement.

 

According to you, if a radio station has a channel broadcast on the FM and AM, and 99% of all radios can receive both FM and AM, and both channels broadcast the exact same thing, and listeners are aware of, or could easily learn that both stations exist, it would be censorship if the FCC shut down the FM channel. Your definition of censorship is perhaps one of the stupidest, most idiotic things I have ever read. I actually feel stupider for having to argue with you on this issue. I award you no points.

 

Your argument is incredibly faulty, fails even the most basic, rudimentary, lax standards of what censorship is. You have repeated attempted to define censorship and you have repeatedly failed to explain how SOPA censors anything. Come back when you've properly defined censorship--when you do this I will be glad to continue this discussion.

Edited December 26, 2011 by lukertin

[myrmaad]

A few pointers:

 

Stick to one post and if you must, learn to use the Edit button to add to your comments.

 

I would also suggest that focusing on narrow definitions is kind of like naval gazing, it distracts from the bigger picture.

 

Words like "retard" are offensive.

[dazzerfong]

Censorship is denial of access to something. Plain and simple. Doesn't matter whom is doing the denying, or why, or even just what said 'something' is. Why are you picking such nits in the first place? Are you an english professor of some variety?

I've provided a dictionary definition and responded to another person's dictionary definition which does not address what censorship is. I'm picking nits because you're massacring the English language for sensationalist purposes. Denial of access is not censorship.

 

If I said "You can't drive cars in New York City, but you are welcome to use the bus, subway system, and your legs, a bike, or any other method of transportation that is not powered by a combustion engine to get around" I have denied access, but I have not censored anything. I haven't even restricted your freedom of movement.

 

According to you, if a radio station has a channel broadcast on the FM and AM, and 99% of all radios can receive both FM and AM, and both channels broadcast the exact same thing, and listeners are aware of, or could easily learn that both stations exist, it would be censorship if the FCC shut down the FM channel. Your definition of censorship is perhaps one of the stupidest, most idiotic things I have ever read. I actually feel stupider for having to argue with you on this issue. I award you no points.

 

Your argument is incredibly faulty, fails even the most basic, rudimentary, lax standards of what censorship is. You have repeated attempted to define censorship and you have repeatedly failed to explain how SOPA censors anything. Come back when you've properly defined censorship--when you do this I will be glad to continue this discussion.

 

And which dictionary are you using? Problem is, we all have contradicting accounts, and you haven't cited anyone.

 

Here's a few definitions:

 

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

 

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

 

Censorship generally is the deletion of speech or any communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a body authorized to censor.

Edited December 28, 2011 by dazzerfong

[rustydog10]

I will put this as plain as possible with out being offensive

 

The government has no reason to be in the business of the internet user. Censorship, its just a government's way of maintaining their power and control over people. Trust me, if what's happening in Egypt or Libya happened in the good ol' USA we all know the internet would be brought down, phones would be wiretapped etc. etc. but the likelihood of a violent overthrow of the US government is unlikely. my point is, the government is trying to restrict the internet because both have power but the government does not want any competition because its afraid of losing power and like anyone or any thing with power it will be corrupted by said power turning it into a wretched being obsessed with greed and power with nothing left of its humanity.

 

internet censorship = no good :down:

 

government with power and control = its there, its watching you, kind of like the devil :devil:

 

a helpful government otherwise that stays out of people's lives when they're not needed = what a good idea :thumbsup:

Edited December 28, 2011 by rustydog10

[nosisab]

Too long thread by now to read all posts (so the following may be already stated)

 

Mistake are those who believe the problem is economic or financial, the keyword is "CONTROL"

 

read in small letters... the target of all those DRM and TC measures has never been the pirates but the faithful consumer.

Edited December 28, 2011 by nosisab

[RFree]

Yeah, i knew there would be sopa debate :3

Well my opinion is in my signature.

You americans are not the first, actually in the China, censorship practiced for a long time, for example, they forced all public wi-fi cafe owners to buy and connect an logging\tracking device, they sometimes blocked youtube, in Russia similar censorship actions is implementing right now, our government had one thing, called PAC - it's just indexing web sites and sends sites that contains words from filters, directly to peoples working in roscomnadsor (RosComControl).

 

Almost forgot, microsoft have registered an patent to listen skype voip talks, facebook has implemented an technology to track user with his facebook cookies and like button, google gives all neccesary information to worldwide governments (they dont even hide it), g+ blocks some groups, i for example remembered anon+ group blocking, so if you think that your internets still isn't under control, i had bad news for you :)

 

May be it's normally and predictably that all governments want to control the internet

 

And the most sadly thing is what some sites and also domain registrators and hosters supports SOPA and anti-piracy policy, i.e Go Daddy.

 

You have had your say, now you can go. the statement in your signature shows where you stand. now go stand with the other pirates.

[Deleted1744345User]

I just found out there is a Firefox addon called DeSopa, which can supposedly render SOPA ineffective. It also explains very well why SOPA must never become law, though the addon itself is not working properly according to users. This just goes to show you that the government is trying to pass more useless legislature.

[DeadSpace]

*snip*

 

And the most sadly thing is what some sites and also domain registrators and hosters supports SOPA and anti-piracy policy, i.e Go Daddy.

 

GoDaddy changed their tune, they no longer support SOPA. Too many defections to other hosting services with the prime reason given that they supported SOPA.

Current list and another.

 

companies/concerns that support SOPA do not want to lose customers. as always, money is the bottom line. you can also see in that list several companies that have not been affected by software piracy, much less trademark infringement...which is another reason SOPA as it is written is too far reaching. it would allow companies like revlon to have competitors blocked, seriously...L’Oreal? Visa? what business do they have supporting it? News Corporation...Rupert Murdoch would love to see SOPA enacted. It's an advantageous piece of legislation for those who have money vs those who have little. a claim can tie up another companies business/website/product portal, and entire hosting service while the wealthy company keeps it tied up in courts effectively destroying another companies online business or service.

 

You see the same in infringement, copyright, and trademark battles already, though the contested product can continue to be sold. SOPA would block users from even seeing the site...small wonder so many big businesses are salivating.

[lukertin]

And which dictionary are you using? Problem is, we all have contradicting accounts, and you haven't cited anyone.

The one at dictionary.com

 

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

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.

 

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

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.

 

Censorship generally is the deletion of speech or any communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a body authorized to censor.

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.

Edited January 2, 2012 by lukertin

[Sepherose]

And which dictionary are you using? Problem is, we all have contradicting accounts, and you haven't cited anyone.

The one at dictionary.com

 

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

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.

 

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

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.

 

Censorship generally is the deletion of speech or any communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a body authorized to censor.

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.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Sepherose