Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 706

Mrebo said:

Tyrphanax said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The right-wing response to the Parkland survivors’ demand for gun-control has done more to expose how evil the right wing is than any exposé liberals have ever done.

Yeah it certainly doesn’t help the discussion to be bashing children, even if they’re wrong.

I’ve not commented on this because there is no use. There are those on the right who responded badly and those who responded well. Obviously the poor responses are going to get the attention and feed the narrative one wants to feed.

I previously posted about the March for Life, which is composed of many youths who flood DC every year for the protest. In response to that event, it was stated:

moviefreakedmind said:

I hate everybody at the women’s march and I hate everybody at the march for life and I hope the ground splits open and all of them fall into the Earth. Sounds fair and unbiased to me.

TV’s Frink said:

Fuck those assholes.

I didn’t remark then that it is composed of so many youths, but I don’t know that that would matter to anyone here.

I was posting a hyperbolic joke that basically said, “I don’t like either side? Aren’t I agreeable.” Obviously I don’t actually wish death upon the hundreds of thousands of marchers at those events.

Mrebo said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865

(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

Websites have long been protected from liability for what its users do. The fact that this law allows criminal and civil penalties against a website that “facilitates” is problematic, if one cares about the internet remaining as open as it has been. Craigslist has closed its personals section in response to passage of this bill.

Now that there is a crack in the dam, how long before big copyright holders convince the government there should be liability for a website that “facilitates” copyright infringement? What other issues are important enough that the websites themselves should face criminal and civil claims?

Most of the sexual exploitation crimes like human trafficking and child pornography trade don’t actually take place on legitimate websites, and it is already illegal to operate a website that exists for the purposes of those sex crimes. This is just the government’s way of trying to get a tighter grip on the internet and they’re doing it, like they always have done, by pretending to care about the victims of sex crimes. They’ve been trying this shit since the 1990s. Also, think about it, if two people are organizing a prostitution meet-up through Facebook messenger (meaning private messages) does that mean that Facebook is liable?

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865

(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

Websites have long been protected from liability for what its users do. The fact that this law allows criminal and civil penalties against a website that “facilitates” is problematic, if one cares about the internet remaining as open as it has been. Craigslist has closed its personals section in response to passage of this bill.

Now that there is a crack in the dam, how long before big copyright holders convince the government there should be liability for a website that “facilitates” copyright infringement? What other issues are important enough that the websites themselves should face criminal and civil claims?

Most of the sexual exploitation crimes like human trafficking and child pornography trade don’t actually take place on legitimate websites, and it is already illegal to operate a website that exists for the purposes of those sex crimes. This is just the government’s way of trying to get a tighter grip on the internet and they’re doing it, like they always have done, by pretending to care about the victims of sex crimes. They’ve been trying this shit since the 1990s. Also, think about it, if two people are organizing a prostitution meet-up through Facebook messenger (meaning private messages) does that mean that Facebook is liable?

No doubt, many would like to restrict the internet in a variety of ways. If you get the right set of facts together any site might be liable. Find one executive was aware it was happening and did nothing about it because they didn’t want to lose any revenue and maybe that’s enough to bring a case, if not enough to win it.

Each little step will seem reasonable to some and at the end of it, the internet will be a very different place. Speaking of copyright concerns, the site keepvid (allowing downloads of videos from sites like youtube) recently shutdown due to copyright complaints.

Yeah, this bill is trash.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ted-nugent-parkland-survivors-mushy-brained-children-article-1.3907005?utm_content=bufferd628d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

It’s definitely a first, at least for this incarnation of the thread.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865

(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

Websites have long been protected from liability for what its users do. The fact that this law allows criminal and civil penalties against a website that “facilitates” is problematic, if one cares about the internet remaining as open as it has been. Craigslist has closed its personals section in response to passage of this bill.

Now that there is a crack in the dam, how long before big copyright holders convince the government there should be liability for a website that “facilitates” copyright infringement? What other issues are important enough that the websites themselves should face criminal and civil claims?

Most of the sexual exploitation crimes like human trafficking and child pornography trade don’t actually take place on legitimate websites, and it is already illegal to operate a website that exists for the purposes of those sex crimes. This is just the government’s way of trying to get a tighter grip on the internet and they’re doing it, like they always have done, by pretending to care about the victims of sex crimes. They’ve been trying this shit since the 1990s. Also, think about it, if two people are organizing a prostitution meet-up through Facebook messenger (meaning private messages) does that mean that Facebook is liable?

100% agreed.

DominicCobb said:

Tyrphanax said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The right-wing response to the Parkland survivors’ demand for gun-control has done more to expose how evil the right wing is than any exposé liberals have ever done.

Yeah it certainly doesn’t help the discussion to be bashing children who survived a tragedy, even if you disagree with them.

Fixed.

In your opinion. ;D

JEDIT: To be fair, though, I did consider phrasing it that way but felt like being a bit inflammatory.

Not all of them want that, but whatever they still suck because they’re participating in the march for life.

Like mfm says, that’s a generalization and one I think is wrong anyway.

I’m not likening anything except treatment of youths who express themselves on matters of political and social significance.

So, under the proposed bill, would our arguing the merits of decriminalizing certain illegal drugs constitute “promoting” criminal acts, and thus make this site guilty of a crime?

TV’s Frink said:

Whatever man, whether you want to admit it or not, that’s exactly what you did, and I think it was a shitty thing to pull out.

Not what I did. I respect your situation and the pain from it but not every discussion of these political issues is some kind of offense.

TV’s Frink said:

Whatever makes you feel better.

You’re calling someone out for being inconsiderate?

Yeah, this bill is nothing but guilt by association.

My point was that it sounds like a mechanism for squashing all dissenting debate. The very act of discussing a change to a law could be labeled “promoting” illegal activity, and all involved with running the forum where the discussion took place could be criminally charged. That sounds rather patently un-American to me. A dangerous precedent.