Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Dumpshock News, Bug Reports, Feature Requests, & Discussion _ No more Dumpshock...

Posted by: Catsnightmare Dec 9 2007, 12:20 AM

No lies, no bulldrek! This has already passed in the House of Representatives and it's coming up on the Senate soon.

http://www.newstarget.com/z022308.html

How would you like it if the government shut down Dumpshock Forums?

Posted by: Fix-it Dec 9 2007, 12:35 AM

it cannot be realistically enforced.

assuming it actually passes the senate (big farking if), it will be even less sucessful than the "war on drugs"

two reasons:

1: you can't regulate the internet.

2: IT is one of the United States' biggest industries. how the fark could they explain moving every internet server out of the country (to avoid government scrutiny)

of course, darknets would become big buisness...

EDIT: too bad shadowland.com is a FISHING SITE.

edit again: and .net is squatted.

Posted by: Jeremiah Legacy Dec 9 2007, 01:06 AM

QUOTE (Catsnightmare)

No lies, no bulldrek!

Sorry, but anything that quotes Naomi Wolfe seriously is bulldrek.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Dec 9 2007, 01:11 AM

...I remember reading a story a couple years ago in one of our local newsweeklies about a fellow in Utah who downladed a joke picture of Gee Dub & affixed it to his car window. The pic portrayed the boy pres. wearing an English monarch's crown with the caption reading "off with their heads" or something like that. A few weeks later a of couple black SUVs with blacked out windows showed up outside his workplace, Several men in dark suits entered the building and ordered everyone else but him to leave.

As I understand the poor bloke was interrogated for a couple hours during which his downloading and use of the picture was labeled as being a potential "terrorist" act.

...us is them.

Posted by: Fix-it Dec 9 2007, 01:44 AM

the Secret service has to investigate everything, and in doing so is completely swamped with stupid, inane shit like that. they have the Ultimate Mission: Impossible.

rest assured. the next time a president gets capped, the first thing the Service will know about it is the sound of the shot.

/not a threat against the President.

Posted by: Backgammon Dec 9 2007, 02:25 AM

DS is hosted in Canada I believe.

In any case, were this actually true, all servers would simply move away from the US, so the law would be unenforceable.

Posted by: Abbandon Dec 9 2007, 05:33 AM

What the hell does that got to do with us?? Is there a secret section of dumpshock where people talk about assassinating the president??

Posted by: Fortune Dec 9 2007, 07:05 AM

QUOTE (Abbandon @ Dec 9 2007, 03:33 PM)

What the hell does that got to do with us?? Is there a secret section of dumpshock where people talk about assassinating the president??

The first rule of Dumpshock is ...

Posted by: Glyph Dec 9 2007, 08:11 AM

QUOTE (Abbandon)

What the hell does that got to do with us?? Is there a secret section of dumpshock where people talk about assassinating the president??

What!!? But... but... I like President Colloton!

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Dec 9 2007, 09:52 PM

QUOTE (Glyph)

QUOTE (Abbandon)

What the hell does that got to do with us?? Is there a secret section of dumpshock where people talk about assassinating the president??

What!!? But... but... I like President Colloton!

...nice comeback...

Posted by: Stahlseele Dec 9 2007, 10:17 PM

heck, there's been talk about the assassination of the former president here for years, why should they decide to do something NOW? *g*

Posted by: Bull Dec 10 2007, 02:34 AM

Moving this to Dumpshock Discussions, as this has nothing to do with Gaming, SR or General. And please, leave personal politics at the door, as they're a quick way to get the thread shut down.

Posted by: Narse Dec 10 2007, 03:27 AM

QUOTE (Catsnightmare)

Wow, that is just a sterling example of objective journalism right there. It could probably win a pulitzer. [/sarcasm]

Seriously: that guy is really pushing an agenda. He doesn't really site any sources or interview anyone on any other side of the issue. I don't know how one could call such obvious fear mongering "news."

That being said: if what he claims is true (which I doubt) I will be personally engaging in some civil disobedience. But I'm not going to worry about that until such a law is actually passed. (its much easier to get people to see a law's stupidity after it is passed and they can see its corner case (or mainstream) effects.)

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 10 2007, 08:10 AM

Simple disproof of assertion by counterexample: substantial portions of the existing body of laws.

~J

Posted by: Lindt Dec 10 2007, 09:59 PM

Heh, go read the real bill proposal. Govtrack states that it was introduced, and that was all. No voting has taken place.

However, HR 1955 is the scary one that above was talking about. Mind you newstarget seems to be normally a health and consumer site, not a political site, so Im going to take that entire piece with a grain of salt.

So yeah, HR 1955 gives me the willies, but telling anyone to vote against homeland secutiry is going to get you laughed at.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Dec 10 2007, 11:10 PM

QUOTE (Lindt)

So yeah, HR 1955 gives me the willies, but telling anyone to vote against homeland security is going to get you laughed at.

...or have a couple black SUVs with blacked out windows show up in front of your house.

Posted by: apollo124 Dec 11 2007, 05:22 AM

QUOTE (Narse)

. But I'm not going to worry about that until such a law is actually passed. (its much easier to get people to see a law's stupidity after it is passed and they can see its corner case (or mainstream) effects.)

You do remember the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, right? The little law that says people can't buy political ads mentioning a specific person within 60 days of an election. Clear denial of Freedom of Speech, but Congress passed it, the President signed it saying "The Supreme Court will clean it up". Still on the books today.

Posted by: Narse Dec 11 2007, 07:13 AM

And it is by no means the most Bass Ackwards piece of legislation still on the books. Sure, it is probably a violation of the principle of freedom of speech, but in the current system (here in the US) the only way it can be shown to be in violation of the first amendment is for someone to challenge it and have the supreme court rule in their favor. If the supreme court doesn't rule that way, then there is no conflict. (Not saying thats right, that's just the way it works Omae)

Posted by: Adarael Dec 11 2007, 04:43 PM

Yeah... You know, they posted an article on this bill on Slashdot, too, and I'll tell Dumpshock the same things I told Slashdot...

1) This bill criminalizes nothing.
2) This bill serves only to create a committee to investigate the causes and effects of 'homegrown terrorism'.
3) This bill mentions the internet precisely ONCE.
4) The statements made on the page that is linked to are outright fabrications, totally unsupported by the bill itself.

If the bill is guilty of anything, it's guilty of redundant, idiotic, pork-barrel politics that'll get ten people paid too much money for too little work. But there's no boogey man here.

Posted by: Ustio Dec 18 2007, 03:47 PM

You want insane laws come to Britain where:

Taxis have to cary a bale of strawand a bucket and shovel

Its legal to kill a welshman after sun down within the city limits of chester (I think its chester)

A policeman has to let a pregnant woman use his helmet as an emergency toilet

oh yeah and the government can quash any news story it deems against national security with a simple phone call

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Dec 18 2007, 06:56 PM

QUOTE (Ustio)

You want insane laws come to Britain where:

Taxis have to carry a bale of straw and a bucket and shovel

Its legal to kill a Welshman after sun down within the city limits of chester (I think its chester)

A policeman has to let a pregnant woman use his helmet as an emergency toilet

oh yeah and the government can quash any news story it deems against national security with a simple phone call

...this is why I love setting campaigns in the UK, particularly the last case which I have used to a fair extent.

Posted by: FlakJacket Dec 20 2007, 01:22 AM

QUOTE (Ustio)

Oh yeah and the government can quash any news story it deems against national security with a simple phone call

If you're refering to D Notices then not exactly, it's a little more complicated than that.