This rape of our constitution needs to stop immediately !

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Photonic, Dec 16, 2011.

  1. Photonic
    Offline

    Photonic Ad astra!

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,746
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +247
  2. Mad Scientist
    Online

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,942
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    Our Constitution will be gone with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
     
  3. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,641
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,044
    The dems have pretty much turned it into toilet paper and the GOP has stood by and watched.

    We are getting what we deserve.

    If we feel we deserve something else, it is time to do something different.
     
  4. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,920
    Thanks Received:
    4,363
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,903
    "Rape" of the Constitution? That's a little extreme ain't it? If you need an analogy, SOPA is More like indecent exposure.
     
  5. Photonic
    Offline

    Photonic Ad astra!

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,746
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +247
    The Internet is the most free source of communication and information in human history, this act allows the government and corporations absolute control over the flow of information of the entire world.
     
  6. jgarden
    Offline

    jgarden Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,459
    Thanks Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +201
    The Constitution has endured far worse!
     
  7. Douger
    Offline

    Douger BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    12,323
    Thanks Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Not fucking there !
    Ratings:
    +915
    Hello. You have a suite reserved in beautiful Guantanamo bay.
    Pack your shit. We'll stop by, unannounced.
    Gawd Blass murka !
     
  8. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    It’s more a capitulation by Congress to corporate special interests, to the potential detriment of the Nation as a whole.

    The right of the public to access information is in general limited to government information, as the issue with regard to prior restraint concerns the First Amendment right of private entities to disseminate information to the public unrestricted by government. See: Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971).

    The government will usually seek authorization of prior restraint in the context of ‘national security,’ and the establishment of a compelling governmental interest. Here the government is seeking the authority to restrict information based on an effort to combat copyright violations.

    Unfortunately we won’t know until the law is in effect and we see how it actually works.

    This is a likely outcome:

    Would the above constitute prior restraint? Do you have a right to visit any website you wish or do you have a right to information in general? If one site is blocked but you can get the same information on another site, is that a violation of the First Amendment?

    In United States v. Progressive, Inc. (1979), the government sought to restrict a magazine’s publication of ‘how to build a hydrogen bomb.’ The case was rendered moot, however, when another periodical published the same information.

    In any event, it would be incumbent upon any website adversely effected to file suit in Federal court seeking relief from prior restraint – the government may argue it’s within its authority to enforce copyright laws, as its efforts are not to restrict information per se. The adversely effected website could counter that the law is too broad in scope and is excessively restrictive, which seems to be the case.
     
  9. Photonic
    Offline

    Photonic Ad astra!

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,746
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +247
    Well, we've already seen the effects of this bill and it hasn't even been put into law yet.

    Universal Media Group (UMG) kept censoring a video that many famous artists produced in support of mega-upload during their dispute over the classification of Megavideo as a rogue site.

    The video in question was uploaded to Youtube and censored by UMG.



    This might make it clearer.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2014
  10. AmericanFirst
    Offline

    AmericanFirst Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    12,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +2,005
    That is what the socialists want. If anyone defends this they are nothing more than a stinking commie.
     

Share This Page