US wants to censor internet

[The_Iceflash]

Well, I think that many laws in general haven't caught up to the internet age and I think they should. There are many things stated in laws that are hard to translate and define in terms of the internet. While I'm mixed on this particular law, I think there should be more legislation directed toward internet issues.

[waltmad]

black pearl, i pm'd you yesterday my email address. He told me what is going on & this is a tiny part of it. write me soon.[/u]

[The_Iceflash]

I'm genuinely worried about this... It looks like we may have to say good-bye to the Internet as we know it. I can't believe it.

I think in some ways though there should be more regulation and laws for internet issues.

[Lazario]

Such as... ?

[Duckburger]

Bullsh*t. If you want regulation on the internet, move to China. The people who abuse the internet won't stop with simple regulations and laws, they'll just hide behind multiple proxies and gone they are, the only ones who will be affected by such things are the ones that shouldn't be.

[The_Iceflash]

Such as... ?

Crimes such as theft, etc. What is or isn't private property on the internet has only vaguely been established. People argue that once something is put on the internet it's fair game, but don't we also value the right to property? Laws involving harassment and things like that as well. Issues like these that go far beyond the scope of "freedom of speech". I don't even think such a thing as "freedom of speech" as been defined for the internet. Lines haven't been established in terms of what constitutes freedom of speech online and what doesn't. I'll use UD as an example. If one of us had our accounts banned because of our posts, would that violate freedom of speech? I can certainly find people who would say that. That's what I mean, we're quick to shout "freedom of speech" without knowing exactly what that means online. There are no set "internet rights". Such a thing would need to be established. Many of the Bill of Rights don't translate that well to represent the online world because it's hard to define them in that context.

Do a person's online accounts (such as Facebook, Photobucket, etc) be counted as a persons private property and as such be able to be placed in their will?

[The_Iceflash]

This whole thing about trying to censor the Internet is just stupid and it will not solve anything. It also goes against the freedom of speech.

I'm worried about what impacts this will have: no more forums, no more eBay, no more Amazon, no more anything.

I do think laws should be written protecting the rights of Ebay buyers and such. I read about a court case that involved a Ebay seller putting a picture of a product that they claimed was the one they were getting and the one the buyer got was in a horrible condition and looked nothing like the picture. The buyer wanted their money back (the seller had said all sales final). The judge ruled that they weren't entitled to their money back (even after the seller admitted that they lied about the picture and said he knew he was selling an item in bad condition though on ebay he said otherwise) and that the buyer wasn't allowed to give them a negative rating/feedback.

Shouldn't there be laws protecting the buyer from such sellers? That's what I mean buy laws needing to catch up with online issues. If you buy something in person you know what you're getting. If a seller claims they are selling one thing but are really selling you something else (which online you won't know until you get it), shouldn't that be against the law? If someone on Ebay doesn't ship their item and thus steals your money (not talking paypal) shouldn't there be more of a penalty than that person losing their ebay account? I'm pretty sure if someone does that offline they'd be facing a very heavy penalty.

[Duckburger]

Crimes such as theft, etc. What is or isn't private property on the internet has only vaguely been established. People argue that once something is put on the internet it's fair game, but don't we also value the right to property? Laws involving harassment and things like that as well. Issues like these that go far beyond the scope of "freedom of speech". I don't even think such a thing as "freedom of speech" as been defined for the internet. Lines haven't been established in terms of what constitutes freedom of speech online and what doesn't. I'll use UD as an example. If one of us had our accounts banned because of our posts, would that violate freedom of speech? I can certainly find people who would say that. That's what I mean, we're quick to shout "freedom of speech" without knowing exactly what that means online. There are no set "internet rights". Such a thing would need to be established. Many of the Bill of Rights don't translate that well to represent the online world because it's hard to define them in that context.

Do a person's online accounts (such as Facebook, Photobucket, etc) be counted as a persons private property and as such be able to be placed in their will?

Facebook and other social networking websites have a "terms of agreements" page or check box before you sign up. The point being, once you make an account on... let's say Facebook, everything you post on there is by default property of Facebook, including pictures and personal data. Your information is even forwarded to other companies. You agreed to this when you made the account. These websites can easily take advantage of this, mainly because people don't read the page on the agreements they're making. Everything you post on the internet (with your IP adress exposed) can be used against you, whether you like it or not. Which is why you should never make a fool of yourself on social networking sites (or Youtube), because it could very well influence your future career. Companies do actually Google possible employees, even though most will not bring it up.

As a result your Facebook, Photobucket, Twitter, et al can not be placed in your will, simply for the fact that it's not your property (anymore).

The same can be said about Ultimate Disney, which you used as your example. The moderators and site manager have a term of agreements page or thread which you agreed to when you signed up. There's no free speech issues involved whatsoever, because you agreed to the set limitations. The moderators have the right to ban you if you've breached the agreements you made/agreed to when you signed up.

With only a handful of exceptions, each site has its own list of forbidden topics/words/etc. I don't see why this has to be done on a massive scale by the government. It would only give them more power in places where they don't need to have power. Free speech and all that jazz would be limited even further. You're responsible for the things you put out on the internet, and if you are for some reason targeted by a hacker then... well it sucks, but a censored internet would certainly not be the solution to that problem.

[Lazario]

To further elaborate on Duckburger's post (and he nailed what I didn't get with his point that "terms of agreement" means you have no legal rights over anything you post / upload into their system):

Laws involving harassment and things like that as well. Issues like these that go far beyond the scope of "freedom of speech."

This one has some merit for investigation, I'll give you.

However, where you seem to be taking it is: what rights do people have to say things we don't want to hear(?). They have every right. Yet, it may promote hatred, intolerance, ignorance, etc. And we have no right to stop them (YouTube, Yahoo!, etc.) unless we are the ones who decide who can comment (YouTube is especially useful for this). It's pretty cut and dry.

As far as bullying (via- putting up embarrassing photos or videos of people, let's say who go to school with the person who puts them up, to harrass them...), that's perhaps where this should be opened up. If it hasn't been already. Thank God I went to school in an era without YouTube (we did however have music videos online you could watch at Yahoo! Music or Mtv online - and, of course, Napster) and the many video / photo hosting and sharing sites.

I'll use UD as an example. If one of us had our accounts banned because of our posts, would that violate freedom of speech?

No. That falls under the YouTube thing I brought up. UD is like a YouTube video in that the person / people who run it decide what are acceptible comments to allow to stay and which ones should go.

Even in cases where the subject of conversation is something like politics or religion (in which some moderators actually have expressed a bias in the past and shared controversial viewpoints- as they have), no one can complain publically that they are victims from a violation of freedom of speech. Basically... as a member of UD, you have the freedom of Their speech (the administration / staff). But, we know that we are given the freedom by Luke to say anything we want to as long as we are considerate of others in the way we say it. The exact words we use, etc.

Do a person's online accounts (such as Facebook, Photobucket, etc) be counted as a persons private property and as such be able to be placed in their will?

This is also pretty cut-and-dry, overall. What each person on Facebook deems public (they have the choice to edit this in their Privacy Settings section) does not count as private property. But should someone hack into a profile and take or copy what that member/user keeps private- that is an invasion of privacy. However... I doubt it is punishable by law, unless it falls under non-internet laws, like - if a photograph contains something sexual involving a minor, etc.

Photobucket includes privacy settings as well. You can lock and password-protect various folders in your Photobucket album. However, it's possible for people to hack into them. But Photobucket is also not exactly the first place people go when they want their property protected by things such as Copyright Laws. So, the place you display your property will have rules protecting it. Some from copyright, others from just allowing others to see them.

[Black pearl]

Quoted from post on sep 22. 12 Days before this thread started.

Trying to shut my God up is not on, & HE will not be made silent regardless of who does not like it. We do not live like China yet. And, I will not be ignored or censored then, but others may.

Nice prophesy Waltmad, God knows how to put the shoe on the other foot. Or in other words, what you sow, you reap.
Emphasis on the yet.

Thanks for the pm. I can’t wait to hear the rest in email

[Lazario]

Spam, spam, go away.



And don't come back.

[ajmrowland]

^yeah, I can barely stand sitting through ads when I'm just trying to reach a page.

[Duckburger]

The following message was brought to you by The Zealot Company, Inc.

[Goliath]

The following message was brought to you by The Zealot Company, Inc.

[Black pearl]

what rights do people have to say things we don't want to hear(?). They have every right.

Spam, spam, go away.



And don't come back.

this sounds like an attack to me, should I report it?

[ajmrowland]

I think it's just a knock at annoying ads.

a misplaced one, though.

[Barbossa]

I smell an opportunity to pimp George Carlin once again. I think you'll like this one:

Great Carlin clip. I miss the guy. Bill and Ted 3 and Cars 2 won't be the same without him.

[Lazario]

what rights do people have to say things we don't want to hear(?). They have every right.

Spam, spam, go away.

And don't come back.

this sounds like an attack to me, should I report it?

Since you are the one spamming - you know damn well this is a discussion about the internet and NOT God, yet you derail it anyway - and that's against the rules of almost every single board on the internet... it's you who should be reported. Not I.

Get a life and quit trolling the internet.

[ajmrowland]

^.........................................I wont even justify that with a response.

[Black pearl]

For those interested, if you think censoring the internet is bad, check out this video:
http://www.sidroth.org/site/News2?abbr= ... _ctrl=1141
It is about a prophetic dream Rick Joyner (a known prophet) had about the future of America in 2011.
In it there is a video clip of a Green Beret (Special Forces) saying how America is heading for communism this year. This is some serious stuff!
Check out Obama’s statement too, what could he possibly mean by that, other than dictatorship?