Skip to main content

 

The Shocking Facts About The Government's Move To Censor The Internet

Share this now!

The Senate is considering holding a vote on an internet censorship bill (PIPA) next Tuesday, January 24. Help us stop them from voting the wrong way! Please share this infographic now to educate people on the dangers of PIPA and SOPA.

 

 

Found on AmericanCensorship.org. Submitted by Linda P.

This entry was posted in Eye-Opening, Infographics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm just trying to make a way out of no way, for my people" -Modejeska Monteith Simpkins

 

AFRICAN AMERICA IS AT WAR

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON AFRICAN AMERICA

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON AFRICAN AMERICANS

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA

AMERICA'S RACISTS HAVE INFILTRATED AMERICAN POLICE FORCES TO WAGE A RACE WAR AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA

THE BLACK RACE IS AT WAR

FIRST WORLD WAR:  THE APPROXIMATELY 6,000 YEAR WORLD WAR ON AFRICA AND THE BLACK RACE

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I have to say I really don't know or care what this whole thing was about ... and didn't (and still don't) have a dog in this fight!!

 

But, after reading this next story .... I REALLY gotta wonder - and ask -WHAT would make sooooooooooooo many Republicans so easily back-track, recant and rescind their support for this legislation .....  when they have not backed down on another damn thing for the past 3 1/2 years????    What the hell happened up there on Capitol Hill??? 

 

 

===========================================================

 

In wake of Web blackout, SOPA/PIPA support weakens

 

 

 

Sen. Marco Rubio's statement on his Facebook page.

Updated at 9 p.m. ET



As websites from Wikipedia to Wired went dark Wednesday to protest anti-piracy bills, some co-sponsors of the legislation in Congress said they're withdrawing their support for the bills.

 

Pulling out were: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), who was a co-sponsor of the Protect IP Act in the Senate, as well as Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), John Boozman (R-Arkansas) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), according to the AP; and Reps. Lee Terry (R-Nebraska), Ben Quayle (R-Arizona) and Rep. Rick Larsen, (D-Washington), who said they had been in support of a similar measure in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act.

 

Speaker of the House  John Boehner said Wednesday it was "pretty clear to many of us that there is a lack of consensus at this point."

 

Bloomberg News also reported that Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) is withdrawing his support of PIPA, as is Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Florida) for SOPA and Rep. Rick Larsen, (D-Washington). Larsen said he heard from many constituents and come to the conclusion that the House and Senate bills "create unacceptable threats to free speech and free access to the Internet," the AP reported.

 

Meanwhile, Sen. Rubio of Florida, shared his changed stance on his Facebook page:

"I have been a co-sponsor of the Protect IP Act because I believe it’s important to protect American ingenuity, ideas and jobs from being stolen through Internet piracy, much of it occurring overseas through rogue websites in China," Rubio said on Facebook.

 

Since the bill was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, "we've heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's power to impact the Internet," Rubio said. "Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences."

 

In withdrawing his support, Rubio said he is urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) "to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor" in the coming weeks. "Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet."

 

The senators' withdrawal is important, although it doesn't by any means quash the legislation, aimed at stopping illegal downloading and streaming of movies and TV shows. Many in the tech world — including giants Google and Facebook — say the legislation would let federal authorities shut down portions of the Internet without due process, and fundamentally alter the Internet's ability to provide a platform for free speech. Wednesday's blackout by many sites is symbolic of the concern and opposition.

 

Rep. Terry's reasoning for pulling back from SOPA was simple: "After waves of negative sentiment toward the bill from free speech and civil rights groups, technology companies and others, the congressman "has concluded that SOPA, as currently drafted, isn't the solution," a spokesman said on the congressman's website.

 

(Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and Comcast/NBC Universal. Microsoft publicly opposes SOPA in its current form, while Comcast/NBC Universal is listed as a supporter of SOPA on the House Judiciary Committee website.)

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The internet itself has opened up countless new and not so new avenues for the people to address political issues.  One of the ways political issues are being addressed in mass is by activists taking advantage of the internet to pass along information and garner thousands and tens of thousands of signatures of protest.  I sign a lot of petitions and protest letters and receive feedback many times of it working.  Also, it is an election year and there will be a lot of 're-thinking' by many politicians, albeit for good or for bad.  

 

But, the reason why the SOPA boycott is important is because you know that whenever any American constitutional rights are put on the the chopping block, no matter how much politicians claim to be "protecting" this or that, what it will boil down to is corporate American coming out on top and with more 'rights' than the average citizen and/or consumer and the average citizen/consumer coming out on the bottom and risking or having constitutional rights taken away.  So, politicians claiming to be concerned with and protecting the 'intellectual property rights' or enforcing the anti-piracy laws, blah, blah, blah . . . you know that in the end, it is the average citizen whose rights are going to be usurped and that there will be an enormous amount of 'unmentioned' citizen rights blocking or destroying rhetoric 'tacked on' to the bill.  In other words, they are only trying to control what will and will not be available, posted, accessed on the internet, while 'claiming' to be protecting/enforcing anti-piracy rights.  Hell, we already have anti-piracy laws, etc.; the fact that there is a bill being voted on regarding 'anti-piracy' at all should  automatically raise red flags in Americans.

Originally Posted by sunnubian:

The internet itself has opened up countless new and not so new avenues for the people to address political issues.  One of the ways political issues are being addressed in mass is by activists taking advantage of the internet to pass along information and garner thousands and tens of thousands of signatures of protest.  I sign a lot of petitions and protest letters and receive feedback many times of it working.  Also, it is an election year and there will be a lot of 're-thinking' by many politicians, albeit for good or for bad.  

 

But, the reason why the SOPA boycott is important is because you know that whenever any American constitutional rights are put on the the chopping block, no matter how much politicians claim to be "protecting" this or that, what it will boil down to is corporate American coming out on top and with more 'rights' than the average citizen and/or consumer and the average citizen/consumer coming out on the bottom and risking or having constitutional rights taken away.  So, politicians claiming to be concerned with and protecting the 'intellectual property rights' or enforcing the anti-piracy laws, blah, blah, blah . . . you know that in the end, it is the average citizen whose rights are going to be usurped and that there will be an enormous amount of 'unmentioned' citizen rights blocking or destroying rhetoric 'tacked on' to the bill.  In other words, they are only trying to control what will and will not be available, posted, accessed on the internet, while 'claiming' to be protecting/enforcing anti-piracy rights.  Hell, we already have anti-piracy laws, etc.; the fact that there is a bill being voted on regarding 'anti-piracy' at all should  automatically raise red flags in Americans.

 

The internet is a method of distribution that is not completely under corporate control.  Hacktivism is real and so is the growing awareness that the U.S. Government is nothing more than an enabler for Global Corporations.  The idea of Black people not having a "dog in this fight" shows how narrowly we view are own issues. When the CBC had a chance to fight the Comcast merger-they opted to lobby for a "channel" instead of blocking the move on solid principals.  Those political calculations don't work as they once did because of the velocity of information in today's society.

Choice is an illusion in the US.  The real issue is who gets to decide what you chose from. The world is waking up (quickly) to this and we as a people are several chapters behind.

Well, as an opponent of both "free speech" and the ever-increasing intrusiveness and lack of responsible regulations of the Internet, I'm all for changes being made to this current system.

 

I can appreciate someone wanting to be able to protect their own "intellectual property" if they so choose, from those that would steal/pirate it and use it for their own individual needs.  As there's currently NO control over the Internet at this point, (and likely never will be), I don't think it's right that someone can be harmed through no fault of their own and have no recourse to be compensated for any damages that might cause.

 

I'm all for (at least more) "censorship" than we currently have on our TV, radio, and all other media sources.  But .... this case was unusual in that I don't really side with either of the parties involved!!!  The particular legislation itself was, IMO, a tad bit overly broad ..... and I can understand how some would take offense to it.  However, I concur with the basic premise of it ... and it would have been interesting to see how it all turned out if it had gone forward.

This debate of control of the internet has been raging for years now. For those with short memories, the "Arab Spring" of 2011was the result of the internet. Millions of Arabs who long for some form of democracy and freedom of speech, were spurred on by the internet. But there are those who like the idea of censorship and government control. For example, the Tunisian Internet Agency spent significant resources on Internet censorship, while the Interior Ministry tracked down, and violently silenced voices calling for social change, political reform or who exercised freedom of speech.

 

In 2001, Wang Xiaoning and other Chinese activists were arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison for using a Yahoo email account to post anonymous writing to an Internet mailing list that was politically critical of China's leaders. In 2008, a man disappeared and his family was notified that he had been sentenced to one year re-education through labor for “inciting a disturbance”. What did he do? He had taken photographs of collapsed schools and posted these photos online. The man was formally arrested on suspicion of illegally possessing state secrets(?). What were the secrets? He had spoken with the foreign press and posted information on his website about the plight of parents who had lost children in collapsed schools. The Chinese government was not having any of this freedom of speech nonsense because they felt his protests were critical of their handling of the situation.

 

Of course these are extreme examples but nevertheless, it involves censorship and control of the internet. So, I suggest to those who show interest in such controls, perhaps they may consider moving to Red China, Syria, North Korea or Jordan where such restrictions are law…...

 

LOL ... well, let me assure you ... If I were going to leave the country because of "U.S. policy" .... it would DEFINITELY be for something more significant than this!! 

 

Like ... the fact that a couple of days ago, I read an article where NYPD is developing a "scanning" machine that can look underneath a person's clothing to tell whether or not they are carrying a concealed gun!!  It shows infrared body heat in green ... but, a metal object would appear white ... so they would know what's on you before they stop, frisk, and arrest you on the spot!!

 

Right now it's a big, cumbersome contraption that's not exactly mobile, but can fit into the backseat of their car!!  And the only reason they're not using it yet is because they are still "consulting" with their legal advisers to find out how to be able to use it and NOT violate constitutional rights.

 

Now .... I wouldn't want the police to be able to look underneath my clothes - without my knowledge or permission .... anymore than I want some Joe Blow in front of a computer anywhere on the planet to be able to view, publish or print something about me on the Internet!!  But really ... what's the difference?? 

 

People who are opposed to a violation of physical privacy are all too willing to fight for the right of the violation of personal/informational privacy .... through an uncontrolled, unregulated, uncensored Internet ... backed by the "protection of free speech" that gives them no legal recourse for protection against invasion or personal harm.

 

Might as well let the police do whatever they want to do if you're gonna let anybody/everybody else on the globe do whatever they want to do!! 

"It shows infrared body heat in green ... but, a metal object would appear white ... so they would know what's on you before they stop, frisk, and arrest you on the spot!!"

======================================================================

 

 

So, in other words, Black males can no longer have anything metal on their person, or they will be shot 40-65 times by the police, for say, having a watch, or coins in their pocket.  . . . You know what all this "scanning" machine technology is really going to lead to, don't you?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×