Protect IP Act (PIPA - S.968) and Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA – H.R.3261) and all that Megaupload stuff

[the_gloaming09]

There are two very disturbing bills making their way through Congress: Protect IP Act (PIPA - S.968) and Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA – H.R.3261). These bills are coated in rhetoric that I find disgusting since at their core they are online censorship bills.

It’s incredible to me that Congress would take seriously anything that censors the Internet and the American public but in the last few weeks PIPA and SOPA have burst forth with incredibly momentum, largely being underwritten by large media companies and their lobbyists.

A number of organizations in support of free speech and a free and open Internet have recently come out in opposition to these bills. They include EFF, Free Software Foundation, Public Knowledge, Demand Progress, Fight For the Future, Participatory Politics Foundation, and Creative Commons who have organized American Censorship Day tomorrow (11/16/11).

If you run a website or have a blog, go to the American Censorship site to see how you can participate on 11/16/11.

In addition to being censorship bills, these are anti-entrepreneurship bills. They are a classic example of industry incumbents trying to use the law to stifle disruptive innovation, or at least innovation that they view as disruptive to their established business. To date, the Internet has been an incredible force for entrepreneurship and positive change throughout the world (did anyone notice what recently happened in Egypt?) It’s beyond comprehension why some people in Congress would want to slow this down in any way.

While you can try to understand the bills, this short video does a phenomenal job of summarizing their potential impact along with second order effects (intended or unintended).

PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

I’m furious about this, as are many of my friends, including Fred Wilson who wrote today about how these bills undermine The Architecture of the Internet. But we are aware, as are many others, that simply being mad doesn’t solve anything. Join us and speak out loudly against censorship – right now! If you have a blog or website, please take part in American Censorship Day - the instructions are on their website which – so far – hasn’t been censored.


Read more: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FeldT...#ixzz1dt974FIW






Just another way for governments and large corporations are trying to limit peoples free speech.

[NumbersGirl]

Hmm. Because I'm a nerd like that, I'd actually be interested in reading the current draft versions of the bills; particularly since the end of the video indicates that the language has gotten much worse since their original interpretation. If this is as potentially bad as claimed, is there going to be some sort of new government entity that would handle searching/shutting down websites/blogs that violate the proposed law(s)? I doubt there is enough manpower for them to handle it right now.

[Saffire]

I haven't taken the time to read the details of what these bills will do, or even look into their likelihood of passing, but I'm going to make some predictions:

1. Both bills will pass and be signed into law by Obama.

(and another slightly unrelated prediction)

2. Obama's health care law, even though it was written in-part by Justice Kagan (an Obama appointee to the Supreme Court) will be held up as constitutional and Justice Kagan will refuse to recuse herself from the case.

Alright those are my predictions, let's see how quickly this nation can slide into the pit of lawlessness!

[the_gloaming09]

Any reason for those predictions?


The idea of these passing is just moving us closer to an authoritarian state. With the internet being used to gain information on things that aren't on the news it will give so much more bias. What the hell is this country doing when we have to censor? Even if they say it's because songwriters don't want their songs to be online illegally or that videos of people playing video games can't be posted to me it just opens the door and makes it a slippery slope to censor other things

[Saffire]

Reason for the predictions -

The government realizes it needs to crack down on the internet, quickly. It poses a threat to its continuity following a currency collapse.

Same reason the Department of Homeland Security is getting so big and are interested in nationwide "emergency alert system".

Obama is set to be president another 4 years, and his popularity is divided along racial lines. If/when the economic collapse occurs, the minorities of this country will be much easier for the Feds to control with a black man in office than with a white man in office. (ie you'd see bigger riots and more opposition to government actions with Mitt Romney in office than Herman Cain).

Obama's healthcare law being overturned as unconstitutional months before the election would be a horrible embarrassment for him. So he'll more than likely win that case. Ron Paul serves as the "spoiler" that siphons off some of the Republican vote, which ensures Obama's 2nd term.

[the_gloaming09]

yeah. It seems ever since Bush was in office that there's been more and more ways that the government has tried to expand. Whether it be from Homeland Security or Health Care. I think that security is important to have, but when peoples rights are taken away and there's excessive body scans I think it's too much and over the line.


I still am not certain Obama will win the presidency. To be honest it's up in the air. Of course people are not happy with the current state of the nation or economy which I think would destroy his chances to win, but there has been no candidate in the spotlight (Romney & Cain mostly), that I think could challenge him. I do like Ron Paul the most of all of them, but like any candidate there are things I oppose.


How does Ron Paul siphon off some of the Republican vote? What do you mean by that?

[Saffire]

If Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, he may run as a third-party candidate and take a lot of Republican voters with him.

These are just wild guesses, but the reason I'm pretty sure of them now is because in the past, my predictions have been very accurate. I've noticed a powerful trend toward increased government power and greater centralization.

If these laws don't pass, and if Obama's healthcare bill is found to be "unconstitutional", those would be some pretty powerful rebuttals of the Federal Government's power. It wouldn't be consistent with all the other events that have happened in the past decade.

[a_face_of_light]

Land of the Free?, on the subject of the next President I really hope it's someone who takes a different stance on Foreign Policy and stops invading Countries and promoting American Imperialism and generally acting like complete tools on the World Stage.

[Reilly]

^But they HAVE to be American L-O-L

[MrLick]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a_face_of_light;5084573
Land of the Free?, on the subject of the next President I really hope it's someone who takes a different stance on Foreign Policy and stops invading Countries and promoting American Imperialism and generally acting like complete tools on the World Stage.

---

Didn't you hear? China wants to rule the world so we need a bigger military and a bigger empire to counter their power. The Asian countries want us to keep our empire to keep them safe from China who wants to rape and kill everyone in the world. There is always another enemy at the gate that means we need to keep our empire and military the way it is.

[lili_pt]

I'm sorry if this is a dumb question but why can Obama's healthcare bill be found to be "unconstitutional"? I've never heard that in the news here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a_face_of_light;5084573
Land of the Free?, on the subject of the next President I really hope it's someone who takes a different stance on Foreign Policy and stops invading Countries and promoting American Imperialism and generally acting like complete tools on the World Stage.

---

I know Europe is not as important now but at least here it seems that Obama is seen like a God, or at least he is much better perceived than Bush.

[NumbersGirl]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lili_pt;5084950
I'm sorry if this is a dumb question but why can Obama's healthcare bill be found to be "unconstitutional"? I've never heard that in the news here.

---

I haven't really kept up with it, but I imagine the reasoning is something like it is infringing on citizens' right not to have health care (because at some point it will force them to pay into national coverage). Or something.

[lili_pt]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NumbersGirl;5085073
I haven't really kept up with it, but I imagine the reasoning is something like it is infringing on citizens' right not to have health care (because at some point it will force them to pay into national coverage). Or something.

---

Oh ok thank you.
I can understand that but to me it is just so weird US healthcare system and the way Americans seem to perceive it. But that is a whole other debate.

[Saffire]

The vast majority of our laws and institutions are "unconstitutional", technically speaking. So it really wouldn't be a big deal if Obama's healthcare law stayed on the books.

Also, calling it a "healthcare" law is a bit misleading. It has nothing to do with increasing the number of doctors or hospitals. It's just a law that forces people to buy health insurance (from private insurance companies).

[para-para-parrotdies]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saffire;5085159
The vast majority of our laws and institutions are "unconstitutional", technically speaking. So it really wouldn't be a big deal if Obama's healthcare law stayed on the books.

---

No.


There are four issues that the Supreme Court will review:

1) Constitutionality of Individual Insurance Mandate. Whether the individual insurance mandate in the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act is constitutional, or whether it exceeds the authority given to Congress to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs in all of the cases challenging the law have argued that the law’s requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance by 2014 exceeds Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Obama administration's primary argument is based on the idea that an individual’s decision not to buy health insurance affects interstate commerce because that person will inevitably wind up needing medical care, for which he will be unable to pay; the costs will be absorbed by health care providers, who will then pass at least some of them on to the insurance companies, who in turn pass them on to the people who do buy insurance.

2) Severability of the Individual Insurance Mandate. Whether the individual insurance mandate is severable from the remainder of the law, so that the remainder of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act could stand on its own and remain in effect if the individual insurance mandate were to be struck down as unconstitutional.

3) Does the Court Have Jurisdiction to Decide the Matter Before 2014? Whether federal courts (including the Supreme Court) have power to hear and decide the challenges to the individual insurance mandate at this time, or whether the federal Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a) (which prohibits court challenges to taxes before they go into effect) bars the courts from hearing and deciding these challenges to the insurance mandate until it goes into effect in 2014. Obviously, this dispute centers at least in part around whether the penalty that people who don’t buy insurance will have to pay is a tax.

4) Constitutionality of Medicaid Expansion. Whether the expansion of Medicaid coverage for low-income individuals, which was mandated under the Affordable Care Act as a condition to states’ eligibility to receive federal Medicaid dollars which were increased under the law, exceeded Congress’ powers under the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution

Supporters of states' rights argue that Congress is overstepping its authority when it uses the threat of taking away all federal funding for Medicaid as a stick to get the states to do something that it otherwise couldn’t do, such as expand eligibility for Medicaid in all of the states.