The "What in the fuck kind of bill is this?" Thread

fapfapfap wrote:

Quote :

The Legislature finds that all human life comes from 168 the Creator, has an inherent value that cannot be quantified by man, and begins at conception.

The Creator's name is 168?

Edit: Aren't most miscarriages natural, making "the Creator" the biggest abortion doctor of all?

Also, why is it that so many of these small government advocates want the government implanted in women's uteri?

Lady Anne wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Quote :

The Legislature finds that all human life comes from 168 the Creator, has an inherent value that cannot be quantified by man, and begins at conception.

The Creator's name is 168?

I was copypastaing and all the lines of the bill were numbered like a beautiful piece of poetry.

But no, you're right. 168 is actually the name of the creator which is why I left it in.

TheIan wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

This bill isn't about protecting copyright. It's about control. If a site can be sued and shut down over someone quoting a line, what's to keep some organization that wants a particular site shut down (especially social media) from going onto it and deliberately putting copyrighted material there in order to get it blocked/shut down/heavily censored? The Internet has become a powerful tool for protest and organization, and there are plenty of powerful people and groups who would like that stopped.

Guy I knew had similar happen to him. He downloaded a Uwe Boll movie, only to get sued over it because Boll uploaded it to the torrent site with the specific intention of catching people that downloaded it.

That raises the question, who'd Torrent an Uwe Boll movie?

Somebody with too much time on their hands, that's who.

Seriously, this bill was clearly crafted by somebody with a raging case of paranoia and little if any comprehension of how the Internet works. If by some weird quirk of fate it does become law, the Supreme Court will most likely strike it down as unconstitutional in less time than it takes to say "digital media".

WD40 wrote:

a turn women into incubators post

I know it's obvious, but they really don't know what their spank material bible says about abortion. Spoiler alert: God seems to like killing babies an awful lot.

Quote :

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Chris91 wrote:

TheIan wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

This bill isn't about protecting copyright. It's about control. If a site can be sued and shut down over someone quoting a line, what's to keep some organization that wants a particular site shut down (especially social media) from going onto it and deliberately putting copyrighted material there in order to get it blocked/shut down/heavily censored? The Internet has become a powerful tool for protest and organization, and there are plenty of powerful people and groups who would like that stopped.

Guy I knew had similar happen to him. He downloaded a Uwe Boll movie, only to get sued over it because Boll uploaded it to the torrent site with the specific intention of catching people that downloaded it.

That raises the question, who'd Torrent an Uwe Boll movie?

Somebody with too much time on their hands, that's who.

Seriously, this bill was clearly crafted by somebody with a raging case of paranoia and little if any comprehension of how the Internet works. If by some weird quirk of fate it does become law, the Supreme Court will most likely strike it down as unconstitutional in less time than it takes to say "digital media".

Doubtful. If the MPAA and the RIAA have bought off Congress (indeed, a former Congressman heads the MPAA and cites Chinese internet censorship as a model America needs to follow), they've probably got their hands on the Supreme Court, too. This bill's as good as law, and nobody's going to have the balls to say it nay.

It's also worth noting that Congress is refusing to take testimony from tech experts, security experts, the FBI, or free speech advocates who might just point put how destructive and dangerous SOPA and PIPA are. They've rigged every hearing they've held on this to ignore any dissenting viewpoints. Ignorance, or deliberate plotting to make sure the bills pass before anyone realizes the damage they'll cause? Personally, I'm going with the latter.

Speaking of PIPA, I was checking Google for relevant information about the bill and found this link which might be of at least passing interest to you:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If a site could be shut down or blocked for linking to sites that have illegal content, does that mean, for example, Google could be shut down or blocked?

It's a distinct possibility.

Lady Anne wrote:

If a site could be shut down or blocked for linking to sites that have illegal content, does that mean, for example, Google could be shut down or blocked?

Google is waaaay too useful to the FBI and other government agencies as a source of people's personal information for that to ever happen.

Chris91 wrote:

Speaking of PIPA, I was checking Google for relevant information about the bill and found this link which might be of at least passing interest to you:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That bill's been around for a while now. The MPAA and the RIAA are dead-set against it because it doesn't allow them an instant kill-switch like SOPA/PIPA. I'd be amazed if it gets any serious consideration, given how things currently stand.

SOPA and PIPA worry me. I'm looking at a foreign host for my website just in case.

SOPA effectively dead?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Plenty of people aren't convinced though, and with reason.

fapfapfap wrote:

SOPA effectively dead?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Plenty of people aren't convinced though, and with reason.

Senator Harry Reid is hellbent on passing PIPA, despite six of the bill's original co-founders petitioning him to delay the bill due to the free speech and economic implications. He even admitted on Meet the Press that the bill will damage the Internet, but he's still going to champion it because "jobs are at stake"...Congressional jobs dependent on lobby bribes.

Simply put, if PIPA passes, the House will revive SOPA and pass it. If PIPA dies on the vine, SOPA -- the harsher of the two bills -- won't have a snowball's chance in hell. Everything hinges on PIPA now, and whether or not Congress has the balls to listen to the naysayers.

SOPA is being prettied up by the people who made it, to try and make it more acceptable.

These sorts of Acts are gateways to suppression of people in general.

If the government can get away with preventing people from getting creative about movies and games and whatever, it's just a matter of time before they stop people talking about politics online too. Politicians hate free speech. It allows the people to speak out against them. If SOPA can prevent freedom of expression, you can bet freedom of speech is next up.

You can bet your last dollar that this site wouldn't stand a rat's ass under SOPA.

So we can't stop worrying about SOPA and PIPA just because they're on hold for a little while. This is basically the corporations reloading.

I may not be in the best position to contact my senator, but I sure can pass this around to people who are!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In response to the big Internet blackout yesterday, what does our beloved Department of Justice do? Why, shut down MegaUpload (recently purchased by Swizz Beatz and in development to become a major-league music service) and charge many of its people with criminal copyright infringement!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If this was an attempt to silence the SOPA/PIPA protests, it's a failure. All it's done is make things worse.

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

If this was an attempt to silence the SOPA/PIPA protests, it's a failure. All it's done is make things worse.

Well, they just demonstrated very clearly they don't need these laws since it seems like existing law worked well enough.

Meanwhile, some idiots decided the best solution is to knock out the FBI and Department of Justice websites, along with a bunch of media-related companies. Simply put, that's not a very smart play (akin to flipping off a cop car).

I read this article, and all it's telling me, it's just a gross display of abusing power. It's like a Jersey douche-bag flexing his orange-skinned bicep trying to show off how much of a bad-ass motherfucker he is, and instead just looking even douchier than usual. If the FBI could do this at any time, why did they wait until now, when MegaUpload had the support it did from so many celebrities?
I dunno, something stinks about this.
Or it could just be Harley.

TheIan wrote:

If the FBI could do this at any time, why did they wait until now, when MegaUpload had the support it did from so many celebrities?

1) Would the reaction have been any different if they did it a month ago or a month from now?
2) And we all know how much weigh celebrity support carries in the legal system.

As I've said elsewhere, we've seen this "the sky is falling" attitude before when they dropped the hammer on The Pirate Bay.

And Napster.

And Grokster.

And Audiogalaxy.

Life - and filesharing - will go on, people.

Freezer wrote:

1) Would the reaction have been any different if they did it a month ago or a month from now?

My opinion:

Type of reaction / level of reactedness? No, probably not.
Level of coverage, therefore total reaction overall? Yes.

Like it or not, big events seem to come in waves, and "censorship" is trendy right now. Like the Occupy movement evolving from other protests.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

If this was an attempt to silence the SOPA/PIPA protests, it's a failure. All it's done is make things worse.

Well, they just demonstrated very clearly they don't need these laws since it seems like existing law worked well enough.

Meanwhile, some idiots decided the best solution is to knock out the FBI and Department of Justice websites, along with a bunch of media-related companies. Simply put, that's not a very smart play (akin to flipping off a cop car).

First of all, I'm going to remember that first sentence the next time a guy with an illegally obtained/carried firearm shoots someone.

Second, flipping a cop car is a good idea because then the cop car can't pursue you.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

If this was an attempt to silence the SOPA/PIPA protests, it's a failure. All it's done is make things worse.

Well, they just demonstrated very clearly they don't need these laws since it seems like existing law worked well enough.

Meanwhile, some idiots decided the best solution is to knock out the FBI and Department of Justice websites, along with a bunch of media-related companies. Simply put, that's not a very smart play (akin to flipping off a cop car).

Exactly.

They clearly don't need these ambiguous, over-controlling, stifling laws to shut down the big sites.

This isn't about piracy; piracy is just the soapbox - or SOPA-box, perhaps? This is about corporations wanting to control the Internet. This is about a big gamble from back when they were making and distributing all that file-sharing software and making it very clear that you could, if you so wanted, use it for downloading songs. Sure, it wasn't legal but it was totally anonymous; what did they think people were going to use it for? Sharing baby photos?

It's kind of like a rich man hands a crazy guy a knife. He knows the guy is crazy. So when the guy snaps and stabs somebody, does that make the rich man totally exempt? Hell no! He knows giving a knife to a crazy guy is trouble. He has nothing to gain from giving that knife away though. The only explanation is that he wanted somebody to get stabbed.

Don't think this doesn't affect you. This law could make it illegal to even go abroad for your servers to look at content banned in America.

This bill won't do a damn thing to stop global piracy; does America really believe it's the only country in the world that steals songs? It'll work like throwing stones at a forest fire. But handing control of search engines over to big corporations... well, which websites do you think they'll favour in their searches? The ones that pay them the most, of course.

Anybody complacent enough to have stopped worrying, thinking that life will go on as normal even if the bill passes, or thinking that the bill is too stupid to be passed, or thinking that a few companies pulling out will stop attempts to pass it, is a moron.

It's a gateway bill. If it passes, despite stifling perfectly legal creativity on the web and shitting all over the first ammendment, what other laws crippling free speech will come up next? America claims itself to be the land of the free etc. The fact that such an act has even been considered thus far should worry you very much about the people in control.

We mustn't stop worrying until the bill has been firmly trounced inside and out. Even edited heavily, it could be a huge danger to the Internet, but it's incredibly beneficial to the huge corportations even in its ammended form, and they will not stop pushing for it to pass until they realise it will not pass, or until it's been ammended so much that it doesn't benefit them any more.

Support freedom. Support not supporting SOPA.

Our opinion does matter. Prove it by giving a damn.

Harley wrote:

But handing control of search engines over to big corporations

Google is a big corporation, chump.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Harley wrote:

But handing control of search engines over to big corporations

Google is a big corporation, chump.

At least Google isn't half as big and grubby as Microsoft, or Disney. Partly because Google doesn't sue single mothers.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Harley wrote:

But handing control of search engines over to big corporations

Google is a big corporation, chump.

At least Google isn't half as big and grubby as Microsoft, or Disney. Partly because Google doesn't sue single mothers.

Which is a lot like saying Washington DC isn't as big as New York City: technically true, but the gap is smaller and less meaningful than you'd think.