Okay, I know this isn't beta-related, but seeing as we're an Internet community and some of us (like me) spend a great deal of time online, this would seem important. Has anyone else read this bill? It essentially sets a legal precedent for eventual censorship of the Internet here in the US. I mean, when even some of the biggest Internet companies out there (like Google) are saying "you're doing it wrong", it's a bad sign. Just saying.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/house-takes-senates-bad-internet-censorship-bill-makes-it-worse.ars

I have read parts of it and find it to be a bad thing. Sure piracy is wrong but the internet shouldn't be censored by the goverment. Maybe by ISPs but that is still mirky waters.

I could see a bill that places criminal liability on ISPs or server providers who knowingly host any pirated material, but allowing the Internet to force them down entirely? I know one cited example in the Ars Technica story was MegaUpload. I store a lot of my documents on there so that I don't have to re-sort them every time I move computers. There are plenty of LEGIT uses for a lot of these sites, and forcing the blockage or removal of the entire SITE is needlessly punitive. Remove the material, sure. That's reasonable. But this is just going overboard.

I agree with you. There are lots of uses for these types of sites. Even torrents have legit uses.

Amen to that. I get all my Linux discs through torrents. It's not the TECHNOLOGY that should be illegal, it's certain types of use for it. (sigh) Unfortunately, our dear representatives in Congress are more bent on gaining control than they are on eliminating the actual problems.

I do the same thing. I also get all my Linux discs through torrents. Congress should be working on actual problems like Welfare reform, Balancing the budget, and helping business's get people back to work.

Agreed, especially on balancing the budget and trying to get the national debt under control. This s*** is ridiculous.

Agreed but we better stop talking about it before your topic turns into something it wasn't meant to be.

Again? Really… Sigh…

More like "Stop Online Piracy filesharing"

Well, if the bill passes, it looks like I won't be an active moderator here. Or pizzaboy192 for that matter. And I'm sure a large chunk of the userbase here is in the United States, so that wipes them out.

Yep. All of you will be deprived of the pleasure of my company as well. Wait.....scratch that. You guys would probably throw a party. In all seriousness, though, I can't see how something like this could stand up as constitutional.

Funny how if this was an action to ban guns , this would be shot down as "Unconstitutional"…

Sigh… The world is getting worse by the Hour minute…

minute second is more like it.

True…

However, I don't want to depress myself…

That's why you do something and take a stand.
DemandProgress was able to get over 700,000 people to send emails to the US Congress today alone to tell them that this isn't a good idea. It's been like this for months. I've even gotten letters from my senator! (I'd post one, but I'm too lazy to search my email right now)

It doesn't seem like it'll be going anywhere. Even Google is against it.

Censorship is a pretty important issue (not just related to the internet, but all forms of media).
In Australia, we have been grappling with issues of censorship for some time.

The ratings system for video games was only just expanded to include an R18+ rating (expected to come into effect by end 2011). Before that, all video games that were rated above MA15+ were refused classification (so GTA and other high profile games had to be censored for the Australian market).

Most recently is the 2007 proposed internet filter by Austalian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. It would aim to censor things like child pornography and the really extreme, violent hardcore adult pornography.

However, it's a really slippery slope.

The leaked blacklist for the proposed internet filter included the website of Australian born euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke. Philip Nitschke has campaigned long and hard as an advocate of Euthanasia (both here and abroad) and has previously been banned on television and his books (published in the US) are banned from sale here in Australia.
The issue of euthanasia is highly political -- is the censorship of political issues like euthanasia acceptable? Not to me.

The 'for' and 'against' arguments for censorship are really complex -- it's not just about stopping piracy, it's about protecting the vulnerable.

It really boils down to what is 'suitable' for public consumption and who exactly would make that decision.
Everybody has a different position on what is/is not 'suitable', which is why censorship will never work.

Censorship also doesn't fix any underlying problem, it just puts a patch over the problem so it's not as obvious.
I think the question that needs to be asked is who needs protecting, and would censorship actually provide that protection.

I'm not sure it would.

EDIT:
Censorship also ties in very closely with media ownership.
Here in Australia, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp now own 70% of the newspaper market share (thanks to some poor policy initiatives of Keating in the mid-80's). This is censorship of sorts, as it makes the views of anyone other than those affiliated with News Corp inaccessible. That is, it stifles and reduces the opportunity for alternate and/or opposing views to be discussed, effectively shutting down debate. Certainly censorship in my opinion.

Well, from my point of view, censorship is still not as bad as a complete denial of internet access, which was proposed here in Slovenia (not sure if also in EU) for people that disregard copyrights and warnings from ISP. Piracy here is something we see/talk about everyday, it's a normal thing for us. Of course if this new law would get accepted, not only the users, but ISPs would also suffer as they would drastically loose clients and thus money. Not to mention that the biggest ISP is actually owned by the state...

You could probably mount a plausible argument that for some countries, complete denial of internet access may be preferable to censorship on the basis that it is one less medium for illegitimate governments/dictatorships to spread propaganda.

But anyway... different countries attitudes to piracy are interesting.
Anyone whose travelled to an asian country would be familiar with the phrase 'same same, but different'
That is typically the description of bootleg copies/counterfeit movies, software, clothing, etc...
And quite ironically, the sale of pirated 'stuff' may infact lift a large number of people and their families out of abject poverty.

The issue I have with censorship is that the US Constitution forbids it, yet our dear lawmakers have been ignoring that for years, and the courts have gone along with it. I understand that not all media should be seen by everyone, but that's what rating systems and personal accountability are for. As for piracy....as I said above, a law requiring ISPs to remove any pirated material from their servers would be perfectly legal, rational, and acceptable. But forcing them to block an entire WEBSITE just because it may carry some pirated stuff somewhere on the site? That's overkill, and it's ridiculous. I hope you're right about it going nowhere, pizzaboy, because everything I've heard says it still has support in Congress. It IS a good sign that groups like NetCoalition and the ACLU are standing up and saying this is a bad idea, but Congress doesn't exactly have a good track record of listening to outside groups. We'll see how it goes, I guess.

I largely agree with you to be honest.

But issues still arise... Take for example the suggestion that ISP's be required to ban/block/censor illegal content.
It seems reasonable... but in Australia, euthanasia is illegal, gay marriage is not allowed (homosexuality is OK, but not gay marriage). These are both highly publiscised, highly political issues of which there is signifcant social debate in Australia. Given the illegality of the two issues above, does that mean that ISP's should remove all info on these issues from their servers? Or would it only extend to illegal pirated software? What about servers based overseas that don't come under the jurisdiction of your ISP's location? Should ISP's be forced to censor material from overseas servers? Who decides what is censored and what is not?

Then comes the who's going to pay for the development and implementation of such a policy.
Then comes the hackers finding a way around it.
Then comes the question, is this even economically viable?

Constitutions are really important -- but a pet hate of mine is people banging on about how they should be able to do this, that or the other because the constitution says so (I'm not saying that's what you were doing, I'm talking more generally). Does it escape people that constitutions need updating to reflect modern attitudes?

Take for example the US second ammendment that gives people the right to keep and bear arms. It's not 1791 anymore, is it really relevant? Does it cause more harm than good?

Admittedly, I'm out of my depth talking about US law, but we have crap in our Australian constitution too.

Section 25 of the Australian constitution allows states to disqualify people from voting because of their race.
Meanwhile, in Section 51(26), Parliament is authorised to make laws with respect to "people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". That is, laws can be made for a group of people based solely on race.

Now, neither of those are 'enforced', but it needs to be updated to reflect modern attitudes.
Hell, our constitution has ZERO mention of our indigenous population. It's like they weren't even here, not even a consideration.

Constitutions may form the basis on which all other legislation is based, but that doesn't mean they don't need to be updated and the irrelevant stuff removed (not that I would regard protection against censorship as irrelevant).

The US Constitution has an amendment process, one that's frequently been used in the past. I don't see what "outdated" ideas have to do with anything, since the right to free access of information is just as relevant now as it was when the First Amendment was proposed. I have no problem with laws saying (for example) that it's illegal to view this or that thing on the Internet. What I have a problem with is the government blocking it ENTIRELY. That is not within their rights. This isn't an issue with some outdated bit of the Constitution. This is an issue with our lawmakers in the US blatantly ignoring a part of the Constitution that was put in place to prevent these sorts of things from happening. Basically, I don't see what your post has to do with what I was saying. I'm not trying to be offensive, but that's my opinon.

I think everybody should start rising against Congress if I'm honest. One man can't start a revolution, but one man's idea can.
In my opinion, I think the US will begin to end up like Korea if I'm honest. Blocking all sites defaming the US in any way (even activist sites) and other similar issues.
Like jjasper and evangelikevin say,


I think the government etc just want more control over the people internet.


If Congress doesn't listen, then is the US really democratic? Is the US really free?
Call me paranoid (with all my conspiracy theories and whatnot, I'm sure you've all heard them) but I really do think this is going to lead somewhere bad. It's only a matter of time.

While I'm not from America, I'm totally against internet censorship and I'd be willing to stand against it. Everybody who uses it should as well to protect their freedom.

I actually agree with you (mostly), soulman. I live here, and even in my LIFETIME (turning 22 next week) I've seen drastic changes in this country. None for the better, I might add. This act lays down a legal justification that can be expanded under the PATRIOT Acts (and similar legislation), eventually leading to complete state-sponsored censorship, which I find abhorrent. The US hasn't been "free" in any meaningful way for a long time now. As for the government wanting more control....of course they do. Any tyrant is primarily concerned with preserving and expanding his/her/their own power. It's a bad sign that I can't type this post without fear that I'll be investigated as a domestic terrorist the instant I hit "Submit". Just saying.

Pardon my brainfart.
"Whoever makes peaceful revolution impossible makes violent revolution inevitable" - John F. Kennedy

First, there's only one PATRIOT Act (and an extension under the same name IIRC), so yeah, we're thinking of the same one. As for it being an inside job....well, my theory's a little different from yours, but at least we agree that the govt. was involved.