Stop Internet Censorship!

[lukertin]

I seem to be a little late to the party here but I found this today: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/us-judge-orders-hundreds-of-sites-de-indexed-from-google-twitter-bing-facebook.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

 

That is distressing. I do believe SOPA is already in effect without it even being passed. :wallbash:

Must be nice supporting people who illegally counterfeit goods.

[Beriallord]

EU has some really weird censorship practices themselves. They censor anything that has to do with the Nazis even in video games. Censoring the past does absolutely nothing to change it. And I think its pretty cool to be able to put a bullet through the head of some Nazi on a video game.

[lukertin]

EU has some really weird censorship practices themselves. They censor anything that has to do with the Nazis even in video games. Censoring the past does absolutely nothing to change it. And I think its pretty cool to be able to put a bullet through the head of some Nazi on a video game.

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.

[Sepherose]

I seem to be a little late to the party here but I found this today: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/us-judge-orders-hundreds-of-sites-de-indexed-from-google-twitter-bing-facebook.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

 

That is distressing. I do believe SOPA is already in effect without it even being passed. :wallbash:

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.

 

EU has some really weird censorship practices themselves. They censor anything that has to do with the Nazis even in video games. Censoring the past does absolutely nothing to change it. And I think its pretty cool to be able to put a bullet through the head of some Nazi on a video game.

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.

[ita]

EU has some countries in Europe have some really weird censorship practices themselves. They censor anything that has to do with the Nazis even in video games. Censoring the past does absolutely nothing to change it. And I think its pretty cool to be able to put a bullet through the head of some Nazi on a video game.

 

Fixed that for you.

[lukertin]

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.

It stands that you still support people who sell counterfeit goods.

 

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.

Ooooo, the FCC passes regulations banning certain words from the television, and also nudity on the television at times when children are likely to be watching, this is really censorship, as in, a censorship law.

 

Because the FCC passes laws.

 

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.

Decision forced by the government? Or just something the company decided to do?

 

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.

The government doesn't regulate the video game industry, except some states pass laws requiring ID to purchase M-rated games.

[Sepherose]

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.

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.

[lukertin]

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.

There was evidence. Sufficient evidence for a preliminary injunction. The only issues were that 1) the initial suit was in rem and the owners were not contacted prior to the injunction, and 2) the court lacks jurisdiction, in rem, over a website operated in another country. These niceties of civil procedure, however, have nothing to do with censorship in the least bit.

 

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.

Granted FCC regulations have the force of law, prohibiting the use of words like 'f***' 'black person' and 'c***' from broadcast television isn't so much censorship as it is 'how about you keep a civil tongue on the air'. And it isn't a loophole for the government. Federal regulations are still subject to judicial review.

 

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.

Pretty sure the FCC had nothing to do with that. It's a pretty clear cut violation of the First Amendment if they did.

Edited December 10, 2011 by lukertin

[HeyYou]

Isn't specifically stating "You can't use these words on broadcast television." ALSO a violation of the first amendment? Isn't that also a form of censorship? Seems to me, that telling folks "You can't do that." is indeed censorship.

[Sepherose]

Isn't specifically stating "You can't use these words on broadcast television." ALSO a violation of the first amendment? Isn't that also a form of censorship? Seems to me, that telling folks "You can't do that." is indeed censorship.

 

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.