Stop Internet Censorship!

[Sepherose]

Lukertin, calm down. It's just a debate, for heaven's sake. Your temperament is not aiding your argument at all.

 

In my belief, censorship is another one of those facades that most Western governments claim not to exact, but we all know that is not true. Technically, shutting down a torrent website that pirates games is censorship by law (note: I do not support piracy).

 

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.)

[dazzerfong]

@ Sepherose:

 

I also agree with your testament to Lukertin's 'narrow' point of view: he takes the definition of the word to suit his own agenda. To construct a valid argument, Lukertin, you must now lie by omission. I'll recite the definition of 'censorship' from the Macquarie Dictionary (standard for law in Australia):

 

"an official who examines books, plays, news reports, films, radio programs,etc, for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds".

 

Or, if you like the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the American Library Association definition:

 

"...a change in the access status of material, made by a governing body or it representatives. Such changes included exclusion, restriction, removal and age/grade level changes.."

 

There are a variety of other definitions, but all have in common the concept of withholding information and/ or resources from those who seek it <- paraphrased from here.

 

On that bombshell, technically, imposing age limits on video games is censorship. Banning members from forums is censorship. Hell, pretty much everything in life is censored. That's why I cringe when people complain about censorship laws (actually a tautology in itself) in other countries.

[lukertin]

@ Sepherose:

 

I also agree with your testament to Lukertin's 'narrow' point of view: he takes the definition of the word to suit his own agenda. To construct a valid argument, Lukertin, you must now lie by omission. I'll recite the definition of 'censorship' from the Macquarie Dictionary (standard for law in Australia):

 

"an official who examines books, plays, news reports, films, radio programs,etc, for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds".

 

Or, if you like the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the American Library Association definition:

 

"...a change in the access status of material, made by a governing body or it representatives. Such changes included exclusion, restriction, removal and age/grade level changes.."

 

There are a variety of other definitions, but all have in common the concept of withholding information and/ or resources from those who seek it <- paraphrased from here.

 

On that bombshell, technically, imposing age limits on video games is censorship. Banning members from forums is censorship. Hell, pretty much everything in life is censored. That's why I cringe when people complain about censorship laws (actually a tautology in itself) in other countries.

 

You fail because an government official does not examine websites for the purpose of determining their suitability, nor does a governing body change access to websites under SOPA. A judge is not a government official whose job is to examine websites, nor is he a member of a governing body.

 

Try again.

 

Again, censoring is uniformly agreed upon as the suppression of material considered unsuitable or objectionable.

 

Enjoining a person from selling material which is available from other means cannot be censorship. The exact same item is available elsewhere. Explain to me how preventing download of DVD rips is censorship by blocking access to thepiratebay, when you could go to the store and buy the same DVD? Assuming thepiratebay has no other function other than to allow you to download illegal copies of DVDs.

Edited December 16, 2011 by lukertin

[HeyYou]

@ Sepherose:

 

I also agree with your testament to Lukertin's 'narrow' point of view: he takes the definition of the word to suit his own agenda. To construct a valid argument, Lukertin, you must now lie by omission. I'll recite the definition of 'censorship' from the Macquarie Dictionary (standard for law in Australia):

 

"an official who examines books, plays, news reports, films, radio programs,etc, for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds".

 

Or, if you like the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the American Library Association definition:

 

"...a change in the access status of material, made by a governing body or it representatives. Such changes included exclusion, restriction, removal and age/grade level changes.."

 

There are a variety of other definitions, but all have in common the concept of withholding information and/ or resources from those who seek it <- paraphrased from here.

 

On that bombshell, technically, imposing age limits on video games is censorship. Banning members from forums is censorship. Hell, pretty much everything in life is censored. That's why I cringe when people complain about censorship laws (actually a tautology in itself) in other countries.

 

You fail because an government official does not examine websites for the purpose of determining their suitability, nor does a governing body change access to websites under SOPA. A judge is not a government official whose job is to examine websites, nor is he a member of a governing body.

 

Try again.

 

Again, censoring is uniformly agreed upon as the suppression of material considered unsuitable or objectionable.

 

Enjoining a person from selling material which is available from other means cannot be censorship. The exact same item is available elsewhere. Explain to me how preventing download of DVD rips is censorship by blocking access to thepiratebay, when you could go to the store and buy the same DVD? Assuming thepiratebay has no other function other than to allow you to download illegal copies of DVDs.

 

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?

[Sepherose]

 

You fail because an government official does not examine websites for the purpose of determining their suitability, nor does a governing body change access to websites under SOPA. A judge is not a government official whose job is to examine websites, nor is he a member of a governing body.

 

Try again.

 

Again, censoring is uniformly agreed upon as the suppression of material considered unsuitable or objectionable.

 

Enjoining a person from selling material which is available from other means cannot be censorship. The exact same item is available elsewhere. Explain to me how preventing download of DVD rips is censorship by blocking access to thepiratebay, when you could go to the store and buy the same DVD? Assuming thepiratebay has no other function other than to allow you to download illegal copies of DVDs.

 

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:

 

The case has been a remarkable one. Concerned about counterfeiting, Chanel has filed a joint suit in Nevada against nearly 700 domain names that appear to have nothing in common. When Chanel finds more names, it simply uses the same case and files new requests for more seizures. (A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.)

 

How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web.

 

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.

[marharth]

Watch TotalBiscuts video.

[Sepherose]

Watch TotalBiscuts video.

 

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

[marharth]

A lot of what he says won't make much sense if you don't know some of his videos/series.

[dazzerfong]

@ Sepherose:

 

I also agree with your testament to Lukertin's 'narrow' point of view: he takes the definition of the word to suit his own agenda. To construct a valid argument, Lukertin, you must now lie by omission. I'll recite the definition of 'censorship' from the Macquarie Dictionary (standard for law in Australia):

 

"an official who examines books, plays, news reports, films, radio programs,etc, for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds".

 

Or, if you like the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the American Library Association definition:

 

"...a change in the access status of material, made by a governing body or it representatives. Such changes included exclusion, restriction, removal and age/grade level changes.."

 

There are a variety of other definitions, but all have in common the concept of withholding information and/ or resources from those who seek it <- paraphrased from here.

 

On that bombshell, technically, imposing age limits on video games is censorship. Banning members from forums is censorship. Hell, pretty much everything in life is censored. That's why I cringe when people complain about censorship laws (actually a tautology in itself) in other countries.

 

You fail because an government official does not examine websites for the purpose of determining their suitability, nor does a governing body change access to websites under SOPA. A judge is not a government official whose job is to examine websites, nor is he a member of a governing body.

 

Try again.

 

Again, censoring is uniformly agreed upon as the suppression of material considered unsuitable or objectionable.

 

Enjoining a person from selling material which is available from other means cannot be censorship. The exact same item is available elsewhere. Explain to me how preventing download of DVD rips is censorship by blocking access to thepiratebay, when you could go to the store and buy the same DVD? Assuming thepiratebay has no other function other than to allow you to download illegal copies of DVDs.

 

And where did I say government officials? Don't try placing words into my mouth. Again, you're looking at censorship in a very narrow view. And, about your example in ThePirateBay, countries have banned films only accessible through the net. Rebutted.

[Deleted1744345User]

A lot of what he says won't make much sense if you don't know some of his videos/series.

That video should be proof to everyone that the major corporations are trying to take over. I would personally love to see them fail for trying to dictate our lives so boldly. I'm betting that this bill is going to pass, since it is apparent that the U.S. is becoming a police state. However, the reaction of the people to this will not also be so easy to predict. Let's hope for the best, plan for the worst.