America, the new China.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Smirks;37864]...don't ignore me.[/QUOTE]

If you censor my posts, will you promise to replace it with something funny?

[Guest]

This is the first amendment, in it's exact wording.

[U]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/U]

Basically...

1. Congress can't make a law establishing any religion or banning any religion from being practiced.

2. Congress can't censor you or the media

3. People have the right to assemble, protest, and speak up against the gov.



To me, there's nothing in there that says they can't censor your kiddie porn. The first amendment is there to protect your rights to your BELIEFS.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=grimm1111;37889]This is the first amendment, in it's exact wording.

[U]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/U]

Basically...

1. Congress can't make a law establishing any religion or banning any religion from being practiced.

2. Congress can't censor you or the media

3. People have the right to assemble, protest, and speak up against the gov.



To me, there's nothing in there that says they can't censor your kiddie porn. The first amendment is there to protect your rights to your BELIEFS.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing in there that says they can sensor kiddie porn. Porn is a form of media. You cannot sensor the media.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=grimm1111;37889]This is the first amendment, in it's exact wording.

[U]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/U]

Basically...

1. Congress can't make a law establishing any religion or banning any religion from being practiced.

2. Congress can't censor you or the media

3. People have the right to assemble, protest, and speak up against the gov.



To me, there's nothing in there that says they can't censor your kiddie porn. The first amendment is there to protect your rights to your BELIEFS.[/QUOTE]

the internet is a form of media. And that proposed bill would be censoring media. That makes said bill unconstitutional.

[Guest]

Porn isn't a form of media, at least not how the term was intended in the constitution. It means the government can't stop a newspaper from reporting to people what the government is doing. Like how in Iraq, it used to be illegal to print anything negative about Saddam Hussein.

TOTALLY different issue.

The whole first amendment is about protecting your right to believe what you want, and to assemble freely.

It doesn't protect your right to be disgusting.


I don't really agree with the censorship law, but it's not unconstitutional at least in the way I read it.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=grimm1111;37892]Porn isn't a form of media, at least not how the term was intended in the constitution. It means the government can't stop a newspaper from reporting to people what the government is doing. Like how in Iraq, it used to be illegal to print anything negative about Saddam Hussein.

TOTALLY different issue.

The whole first amendment is about protecting your right to believe what you want, and to assemble freely.

It doesn't protect your right to be disgusting.


I don't really agree with the censorship law, but it's not unconstitutional at least in the way I read it.[/QUOTE]

If it isn't expressly stated in the Constitution then it differs to the states. It's the states job to regulate kiddie porn, not the federal government. However, should there be a 2/3 votes in the legislature, I'm sure that could be remedied because kiddie porn is bad and even the people in office would vote for it.

But so far, nothing of the like has been done, instead we let them rule through administrative agencies. It's unconstitutional based on the fact there was never supposed to be as many administrative agencies on the federal level as there are now.

Read lower in the constitution: [QUOTE][SIZE=1]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [/SIZE][/QUOTE]Whether it's media, or not, is debatable but not necessary because of amendment 10.

Furthermore, right's are only rights so long as they "neither pick someone's pockets, or break their legs." Morality isn't, and shouldn't, even be a consideration. Although a moral people should implement a state based moral society.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Finesse;37893]If it isn't expressly stated in the Constitution then it differs to the states. It's the states job to regulate kiddie porn, not the federal government. However, should there be a 2/3 votes in the legislature, I'm sure that could be remedied because kiddie porn is bad and even the people in office would vote for it.

But so far, nothing of the like has been done, instead we let them rule through administrative agencies. It's unconstitutional based on the fact there was never supposed to be as many administrative agencies on the federal level as there are now.

Read lower in the constitution: Whether it's media, or not, is debatable but not necessary because of amendment 10.

Furthermore, right's are only rights so long as they "neither pick someone's pockets, or break their legs." Morality isn't, and shouldn't, even be a consideration. Although a moral people should implement a state based moral society.[/QUOTE]

That's interesting, because I read the 10th amendment the same way you do. But to me, that makes Social Security, the Federal Reserve, Obamacare, etc etc all unconstitutional. So the Supreme Court must have a different way of interpreting it.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=grimm1111;37892]Porn isn't a form of media, at least not how the term was intended in the constitution. It means the government can't stop a newspaper from reporting to people what the government is doing. Like how in Iraq, it used to be illegal to print anything negative about Saddam Hussein.

TOTALLY different issue.

The whole first amendment is about protecting your right to believe what you want, and to assemble freely.

It doesn't protect your right to be disgusting.


I don't really agree with the censorship law, but it's not unconstitutional at least in the way I read it.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure where the porn reference started, but the bill is trying to be passed as a way of protecting infrigement and copyright. So any site that the music industry feels may violate copyright will be banned. No court order, no trial, just banned. That isn't how our country is supposed to work. Innocent until proven guilty. If a company feels someone has violated a copyright, they should take them to court and sue them. This bill would skip all of that. It is just the music and movie industries being greedy and in turn taking away our freedoms. Not to mention, many people who do violate copyrights will know how to get around a ban on certain sites. Like right now, I am visiting this website from an IP address in Ireland (and I don't violate copyright). The average joe will not know, and will be oblivious to the information he is missing.

This bill is also not very clear on what would consist of infringement. It is up to the government. It would be very easy for the government to ban sites which it does not support. Sites that speak the truth and tell you what the government does not agree with. This could be done in the guise of national security.

[quote=Internet Article]
COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.

The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.

One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.

But if COICA passes, Viacom wouldn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down -- as long as they can persuade the courts that enough [I]other[/I] people are using it for copyright infringement, the whole site could be censored.

Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn't get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.) COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet -- and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship.
[/quote]
It's a slippery slope. Major changes don't happen over night. World War II didn't start over night, it was a slow progression to an all out free fall. So this year it could be a few sites here and there. Next year a few more sites and in about 10 years, the government has the internet on lock down.

And you mentioned that the internet is not a form of media envisioned by the founders. But of course it isn't. They would have never imaged what is possible today. We are able to fly across the country in a few hours, send images across the internet in a split second, make a telephone call to someone over seas. There is no way they could have envisioned what the world would look like today.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=grimm1111;37894]That's interesting, because I read the 10th amendment the same way you do. But to me, that makes Social Security, the Federal Reserve, Obamacare, etc etc all unconstitutional. So the Supreme Court must have a different way of interpreting it.[/QUOTE]

They are.

The courts can't dissolve the agencies, only the legislature can. The courts can only enforce the laws made. Most administrative agencies are made as a result of bills passes and most fall under the control of the president. The part in the constitution that allows it is section 8 - to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court. I.E. administrative courts. The problem is all the important ones fall under the control of the president.. too much power in one persons hands. Somehow I don't think the founders wanted that. The only ones that can fix the problem is the legislature by closing the loop hole and shutting down the other agencies.