Could some law, be used to shut down a website like "The Science Forum" ????

[chad]

edit: I was confused, when I posted this, (and used the wrong term.) I posted another thread in this section called, "what is the name of the law or laws, that could/will shut down our current internet?" ---- to answer this question, sorry.


the following has been edited. When I first posted this, I used the term "internet neutrality", and its was the 100% wrong term.



Could corporate America, use some law to shut down a website like "thescienceforum.com" ?


(AND)


Could some law be used to stop websites (like this one), in other coutries?




Thank you,
Chad.

[Lynx_Fox]

only if we surrender our guns...

[Quantime]

Americans need to take back their country from big business and corporations. Not only that but the government sucks anyway, it never ceases to amaze me the way America is becoming more and more like Nazi Germany.

[MeteorWayne]

It is then ipso facto obvious that you have no idea what Nazi Germany was like.

[John Galt]

Quantime, have you ever been in America?

MeteorWayne, there are parallels - but parallel llines never meet.

[Harold14370]

The internet got its start in corporate fascist Amerikkka. Restrictions on freedom of speech usually come from leftist governments like the USSR, Cuba, China, etc.

I think we have the free speech angle covered better than most. Even in places like UK, you can break a law by insulting someone.

[Raziell]

I dont think Voltaire would approve of SOPA.

[Write4U]

I am confused by the topic title and responses. Can someone explain what is wrong with Internet Neutrality?

From wiki,

Network neutrality

(also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the Internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, types of equipment that may be attached, and modes of communication.

edit: sorry for the bold lettering, will correct my settings.

[Harold14370]

I am confused by the topic title and responses.

We knew that Chad meant the opposite of what he actually wrote.

[Write4U]

I am confused by the topic title and responses.

We knew that Chad meant the opposite of what he actually wrote.

SOPA! As I understand it, the intent of SOPA is to protect copyrighted materials from being distributed in their entirety. In another forum (CFI) which I frequent it is specifically forbidden to post protected content, except for a quoted excerpt and a link to the original site, unless one has expressed permission from the original author to copy in its entirety. The moderators are aware and respect property rights of people who may have spent years in putting together a book or a hit song, then to find it copied in its entirety on some website, where anyone can download it for free. I believe the music industry has a big problem with that and lose millions of dollars on the theft of protected music, for which a person does not even want to spend $.99. I believe that China is one of the main culprits.
Thus the question becomes if websites are able and willing to self regulate. If not, this becomes a federal concern under the interstate commerce clause.

As a ex musician, I try to download only unprotected music and respect the property rights of authors. Someone made a comment that only socialist countries engage in such restrictions, but it seems to me this is very much a concern in a free market capitalist system.

I believe that SOPA was not intended to restrict or censor materials, but to enforce property right laws and possibly age restrictions on the availability of porno.

I have not yet read the SOPA "fine print" yet, so I am ambivalent about its intent, powers, and unintended consequences. I know that many reputable sites closed down for a day in protest to this proposal and I assume they have read the fine print.

[chad]

Americans need to take back their country from big business and corporations. Not only that but the government sucks anyway, it never ceases to amaze me the way America is becoming more and more like Nazi Germany.

YOU ARE 1,000% CORRECT, AND YOU HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE OF AMERICAS GOVERNMENT, THAN MOST AMERICANS DO.

AND I HOPE AND PRAY, THAT (ALL) OF EUROPES COUNTRYS, WILL NOT ALLOW THIS CORPORATE TAKE OVER IN THEIR COUNTRYS.

BUT I AM SCARED THE CORPORATE TAKE OVER, WILL HAPPEN IN EUROPE AS WELL.


(IT IS PLACES LIKE FOX NEWS), THAT ALLOW THE CORPORATE PEOPLE, TO BECOME US REPUBLICANS (LEADERS), AND I BELIEVE FOX NEWS IS ALREADY IN EUROPE.

FOX NEWS IS NOT A REAL NEWS OUTLET, FOX NEWS IS ACTUALLY A SNEAKY CORPORATE TV COMERCIAL. AND THEY TELL THERE LISTENERS 100s OF SEPERATE LIES, ABOUT SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS.

FOX NEWS TELLS 100s OF SEPERATE LIES TO AMERICAS PEOPLE, LIKE TAX CUTS INCREASE GOVERNMENT REVENUES, AND GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT HAPPENING. AND THEIR AMERICAN LISTENERS (FOLLOWERS) DO NOT EVEN CARE, THEY ARE GONE, JUST LIKE HITLERS PEOPLE LEFT THE REST OF THE WORLD, TO FOLLOW HITLER.


AND FOX NEWS AND OTHERS LIKE THEM, ALSO USE THE SAME PROPAGANDA SPREADING METHODS THAT HITLER USED.


AND JUST LIKE HITLERS MALE FOLLOWERS, WERE NO LONGER MEN, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY KILLED JEWISH WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE AMERICAN REPUBLICAN MEN, ARE ALSO NO LONGER MEN. THE US REPUBLICAN MEN WILL STAND UP, AND SAY THE FOLLOWING,

"I DO (NOT) WANT MY GOVERNMENT TO FEED HUNGRY AMERICAN CHILDREN"

"I DO (NOT) WANT MY GOVERNMENT TO SAVE 20,000 AMERICAN WOMEN, WHO DIE HORRIBLE DEATHS EACH YEAR FROM NOT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE"


THESE MEN ARE NO LONGER MEN, THEY HAVE TURNED INTO CORPORATE ZOMBIES, WHO ONLY LIVE TO LOWER VERY RICH PEOPLES TAXES, AND TAKE DOWN THE US GOVERNMENT, SO USA GOVERNMENT AGENCYS CAN NO LONGER REGULATE LARGE CORPORATIONS.

I THINK THERES A SOLID CHANCE THAT FOX NEWS, WILL SPREAD TO EUROPE, AND DO THE SAME THING THEY DID IN AMERICA, IN EUROPE.

YOU SHOULD GOTO THE POLITICS SECTION OF THIS FORUM, AND READ MY POST "THE US REPUBLICAN PARTY IS A PROPAGANDA GROUP/ CULT THAT IS CONTROLED BY CORPORATE THINK TANKS."

IF AND WHEN FOX NEWS, (AND OTHERS GROUPS LIKE THEM), COME TO EUROPE, THEY WILL DO THE SAME THING THEY DID TO AMERICA, TO EUROPE.

WE AMERICANS SAVED YOUR COUNTRY, AND ALL OF EUROPE FROM FASCIST HITLER . AND I HOPE THAT ONE DAY, YOU ALL WILL RETURN THE FAVOR, AND SAVE AMERICA FROM OUR FASCISTS CORPORATE LEADERS.

PLACES LIKE FOX NEWS, DID ALL OF OF THIS, AND THEY ARE COMING FOR (YOU).

[MeteorWayne]

Chad stop shouting

[Write4U]

Americans need to take back their country from big business and corporations. Not only that but the government sucks anyway, it never ceases to amaze me the way America is becoming more and more like Nazi Germany.

PLACES LIKE FOX NEWS, DID ALL OF OF THIS, AND THEY ARE COMING FOR (YOU).

Are you suggesting that Fox should be restricted from access to the air and internet?

p.s. let me stipulate that I think Fox is a propaganda machine, much like the NAZI propaganda machine and I have often wanted to write a note to Limbaugh complimenting him on his abilities as communicator. Then follow that up with a comparison of a remarkable similarity to Joseph Goebbels (except physically).

[chad]

Are you suggesting that Fox should be restricted from access to the air and internet?


In Europe and all other countrys YES YES




But in America, I want people like USA President Andew Jackson, to realize, what Fox news and Rush radio are doing.

[Write4U]

Write4U. Are you suggesting that Fox should be restricted from access to the air and internet?

In Europe and all other countrys YES YES

But in America, I want people like USA President Andew Jackson, to realize, what Fox news and Rush radio are doing.

So you are in favor of SOPA? Or even outright Censorship?

[Write4U]

I am confused by the topic title and responses.

We knew that Chad meant the opposite of what he actually wrote.

Care to reconsider?

[chad]

[QUOTE=Write4U;319350]I am confused by the topic title and responses. Can someone explain what is wrong with Internet Neutrality?







In america attorneys from large corporations write most of our laws. The attorneys from these large corporations, just hand the laws they write to US politicians.

It cost $750 million dollars to run for president in america, and the large corpoartions that give US politicians that money, are the same corpoartions that write most of americas laws.





Large US corporations wrote the US internet neutrality laws.







Websites like wiki and google, say these laws can be used to shut down their websites. Wiki even had a 24hr shut down of their website to protest these laws.




Also, American non-cable free to watch tv stations, also say that network neutrality laws, can be used to shut down their tv stations.





I guess I will have to answer my own question, the best I can.


Can corporate america use network neutrality laws, to shut down a website like The Science forum?


Corporate america can use network neutrality laws to shut down websites like wiki and google. Corporate america can also use network neutrality laws to shut down non-cable free to watch tv stations. So I believe that "yes" network neutrality laws can be used to shut down a website like The Science Forum.



But almost no americans care about this, because they are too busy dreaming about, these large corporations having real low taxes (US republicans want low taxes for large corpoations, more than anything else.). And they are also too busy dreaming about ending bussiness regulations for these corporations that write all our laws. So almost all americans, dont care about network neutrality laws.

I have never even seen a Steven King movie, that was this crazy.

[Lynx_Fox]

Can corporate america use network neutrality laws, to shut down a website like The Science forum?

Are you still confused by what network neutrality laws are about--if anything they'd preserve all sites--not restrict them.

And meteor is quite correct. Your long loosely constructed and emotional postings (rants?) are difficult enough to read without using text features such as all bold or all caps though multiple paragraphs. Please stop that; it isn't constructive to discussion. A bold word or phrase is quite all right though.

[Harold14370]

Chad, you have gone off the deep end. You don't even know what a network neutrality law is. Why not stop your ranting for a while and do some reading about it?

[chad]

[QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;319491]

Can corporate america use network neutrality laws, to shut down a website like The Science forum?

Are you still confused by what network neutrality laws are about--if anything they'd preserve all sites--not restrict them.





I would assume you love wiki.

Do you remember when online wiki closed their website for 24 hours?


They did this as a protest against network neutrality laws.


Google also fears these laws, and (non-cable) free tv stations claim that these laws will shut them down.


These laws give corporate america the power to shut down web sites and tv stations.


What did you think the wiki 24 hour shut- down was for ?

[chad]

And meteor is quite correct. Your long loosely constructed and emotional postings (rants?) are difficult enough to read without using text features such as all bold or all caps though multiple paragraphs. Please stop that; it isn't constructive to discussion. A bold word or phrase is quite all right though.
[/QUOTE]



I do not even know how those bold letters, were put into the post.

It was a 100% accident, Im sorry. I am not good with computers.


I am also sorry for using caps, I did do that,

sorry.

[chad]

Chad, you have gone off the deep end. You don't even know what a network neutrality law is. Why not stop your ranting for a while and do some reading about it?

Do you remember when wiki, shut down their website for 24 hours?

It was a protest against network neutrality laws, wiki fears these laws.

Google also fears these laws.

And (non-cable) free tv stations, are scared these laws will shut down thier tv stations.






I cant understand what you are thinking. But it seems you know a great deal about these laws, even more than wiki, google, and these free to watch tv stations.

Since wiki, google, and these tv stations are saying all these un-true things, could you please tell me the real facts.

Thank you,
Chad.

[Write4U]

Can corporate america use network neutrality laws, to shut down a website like The Science forum?

Are you still confused by what network neutrality laws are about--if anything they'd preserve all sites--not restrict them.

I would assume you love wiki.
Do you remember when online wiki closed their website for 24 hours?
They did this as a protest against network neutrality laws.
Google also fears these laws, and (non-cable) free tv statios claim that these laws will shut them down.
These laws give corporate america the power to shut down web sites and tv stations.
What did you think the wiki 24 hour shut- down was for ?

The protest shutdown was against the proposed SOPA law, which would do away with Network Neutrality.
They were making a stand for Network Neutrality.
I'm afraid you misunderstood the reason for the protest shutdown.

In my post #8, read carefully my quote from Wiki defining the Network Neutrality principle.

[chad]

The protest shutdown was AGAINST the proposed SOPA law, which would do away with Network Neutrality.
They were making a stand FOR Network Neutrality.
I'm afraid you misunderstood the reason for the protest shutdown.[/QUOTE]








Wikipedia has today gone ahead with its threat to voluntarily shut down its website in protest at internet piracy legislation in the US.

The sixth-most popular online destination, which attracts 25 million visitors a day, has decided to "go dark" for 24 hours in protest at the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA).








"Right now, the US Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia."

In information posted on the site, Wikipedia said that it is concerned SOPA and PIPA will "severely inhibit people's access to online information", noting that this is not just a problem affecting the US, but also "everyone around the world".

The site, founded by Jimmy Wales, said that the two pieces of legislation are "badly drafted" and won't stop copyright infringement, but will cause serious damage to the free and open internet

[chad]

perhaps I am confused, I dont know?

[chad]

Dear Write4you,


Please tell me (us) what law or laws,


will "severely inhibit people's access to online information"

for "everyone around the world".

and will cause serious damage to the free and open internet




Wikipedia said that it is concerned SOPA and PIPA will "severely inhibit people's access to online information", noting that this is not just a problem affecting the US, but also "everyone around the world".

The site, founded by Jimmy Wales, said that the two pieces of legislation are "badly drafted" and won't stop copyright infringement, but will cause serious damage to the free and open internet


Some law or laws will do these things, what law is it?


Thank you,
Chad.

[Write4U]

Internet Neutrality means a free and open internet. The laws that would restrict the Internet Neutrality (a free and open internet) are the SOPA and PIPA laws, which would hold the internet provider (Wiki, Google) responsible for carrying copyrighted materials, porn, etc. and could close them down if anyone broke the law on the internet.

Wiki and Google are saying that they should not be held responsible for the criminal action of others. It would be the same as closing down the US Postal Service for delivering a package with illegal content.
They are just a messenger service and do not want to be forced to control the content of the message (censoring).

We have Internet Neutrality now, the internet providers want to keep it that way.

[John Galt]

perhaps I am confused, I dont know?

You are confused.

May I recommend checking your facts before you post. You don't need to check your opinions; presumably you know what they are, but facts shoud always be checked. This is not only sensible, it is polite, practical, respectful and logical.

[chad]

perhaps I am confused, I dont know?

You are confused.

May I recommend checking your facts before you post. You don't need to check your opinions; presumably you know what they are, but facts shoud always be checked. This is not only sensible, it is polite, practical, respectful and logical.

(edited) I am sorry.

[John Galt]

Chad - your comments sound sarcastic. You sound as if you resent the advice I have given you. You sound as if you feel you have been patronised.

Here are three recommendations. 1) Stop apologising every third or fourth post. It's unecessary and usually irrelevant. 2) Stop being sarcastic. 3) Pay attention to what other posters have said. (Had you done so you would have recognised your error several posts before you eventually did.)

Optional process: ignore my advice completely and continue a steady fall in regard on the part of the other members.

[Write4U]

Chad,
It takes a man to admit a mistake, and will gain respect for showing a willingness to learn.

btw, you did make some good points in some of your posits and gave me an insight of what people in other countries think about US politics. I am assuming you do not live in the US. But trust me, while there are a lot of people who are fooled by the propadanda machines, there are many "independent voters" and legitimately impartial news organizations which tell the US population the truth.

I get my news mainly from MSNBC, but also watch satirists like John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher who will expose the dishonesty used by poiticians. There are many more good news organizations, some with a conservative slant, some more liberal but on the whole, any one who is of an open mind gets the opportunity to look at issues from several perspectives, then decide which representative will best express their concerns on issues which are the most important to them.

IMO, it is the Supreme Court which has made some errors in judgement on several issues, which have had a detrimental effect on our political system. Perhaps some of their decision will be reversed in the future and bring some sanity in the ability to spend unlimited amounts of moneys in the election process.

I heard it said that after all is said and done, perhaps as much a 4 Billion dollars will have been spent on elections this year. If my math is correct that would provide jobs for 10,000 people for 10 years @ $40,000 p/yr. This clearly has to change, most people I talk to find that outrageous.
In many states radical politicians in leadership are being recalled because of "bad" laws which they voted in and which the average people feel wil impact their lives negatively. The beauty of our system is that a president and congressmen can only serve 4 years and senators 6 years, before the people have a say if they want them to continue in office or vote them out.

But one of our sacred principles is "freedom of speech" and no one I know would give up that right willingly.

[John Galt]

Chad,
btw, you did make some good points in some of your posits and gave me an insight of what people in other countries think about US politics.

Indeed. Chad has made some very good points here and in other threads. It is unfortunate that he feels his points are strengthened by emotional tirades. If he would calm down and seek to bring some structure and flow to his arguments he would get more respect and more attention. It is possible to be both passionate and compassionate without being hysterical and drenched in hyperbole.

[chad]

I am assuming you do not live in the US.





I live in the USA. I live in New Orleans, and I have lived in america for all of my life.



And I would not know any of the following things, if it were not for, freespeach and link tv, on dish satalite.










I get my news mainly from MSNBC, but also watch satirists like John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher who will expose the dishonesty used by poiticians. There are many more good news organizations.











In reality theres not. People like Bill Mahaer are 3/4 normal people, and they tell it like it is. But there are (no) good main stream news (organizations) in america.

example, did any news organization you listed, run/air the following real life story,


A group of coal power plants gave GW Bush $100 million dollars, then as a favor GW Bush changed a law, so they could let out more smoke, and this extra smoke made 10,000's of Americas children so sick, that they could not breath good enough, to go outside and play.

No mainstream news organization aired/ran this story. When a american president takes a 100 million dollars, does a favor for it, and in the process makes 10,000s of children so sick they cant even go outside to play. A good news organization covers storys like these, but MSNBC does not.



example,

The US Army corps of engineers is filled with mind blowing coruption. And no mainstream media source speaks of it.


And the thing you dont realize is, if a MSNBC reporter, wanted to run the above story about GW bush, their CEO boss will tell them to find another story, and if that reporter ever suggests another story like that, the MSNBC reporter will be fired. I learned this in a docu. "fear and favor in the news room.


There will be a few actuall "good" american news organizations, but they are small, and not main stream.

I am sorry if I was rude,
Chad.

[chad]

[QUOTE=John Galt;319553]Chad - your comments sound sarcastic. You sound as if you resent the advice I have given you. You sound as if you feel you have been patronised.


I did not mean to sound saracistic. You gave me some good advice, thank you.

[John Galt]

[QUOTE=chad;319629]

Chad - your comments sound sarcastic. You sound as if you resent the advice I have given you. You sound as if you feel you have been patronised.


I did not mean to sound saracistic. You gave me some good advice, thank you.

Well thank you. Now to repeat some of my advice, please stop apologising. Excessive apologising may occur because you are doing many things you should apologise for. The preferred solution is to stop doing those things. The second reason is to misinterpret why criticisms are arising and apologise unnecessarily. I think you are falling into the latter category much of the time.