How SOPA (as written) might kill ATS and free speech online (UPDATED)

Originally posted by jeichelberg
Current Moderators are not PAID...

Being paid does not make someone good at their job... volunteers do amazing things.

Current moderators can be held accountable for job performance, but not in a fashion that would meet the requirements of SOPA...that is, that would shield the site owners from penalties...

Provide written evidence please from SOPA that would require paid moderators? SOPA is an attempt to shut down free speech, and forums such as ATS. It has nothing to do with paying moderators.

Do you realize that 99% of discussion forums would cease to exist if you had your way?

One way or another it seems they want to kill free speach. Either raise the costs of site maintaince and operations or just outright play the new china capitalist card. Much like gun ownership: tax the # out of everything and enforce a 10 day cooling off period.

Most people get tired of all the hassle and just give up without a fight. Now if alternative sites charge a service fee like many mainstream outlets require, I see the membership dropping drastically, which means less revenue for the owners and more misinformed people. It can only have a negative impact!

I could be harsher, but it is not worth getting hit with a 1500 point fine........

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


Listen, a person who is unpaid could independently hold themselves accountable to a standard that would protect the site owners here from violations of SOPA...you ready to sign that pledge and bite the bullet concerning penalties and fines? I would not...

People who are paid on the other hand can be taken to court as agents of the corporation and can be held to a different standard....

This is not rocket science...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

 

Listen, a person who is unpaid could independently hold themselves accountable to a standard that would protect the site owners here from violations of SOPA...you ready to sign that pledge and bite the bullet concerning penalties and fines? I would not...

People who are paid on the other hand can be taken to court as agents of the corporation and can be held to a different standard....

This is not rocket science...

I am still waiting for you to post some written reference material to back this argument up.

We are ALL still waiting...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I am at a loss whether the ultimate outcome of SOPA is killing free speech...perhaps, perhaps not...

I still remain convinced one should not be free to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, unless a fire actually exists...

Petition signed...even if we are able to stop SOPA, the NDAA provides the government with a backdoor solution to controlling the internet under section 945, entitled "Military Activities in Cyberspace.

Source

The National Defense Authorization Bill 2012, unanimously backed by the Senate and passed in the House of Representatives Thursday, contains some language that allows the Pentagon to effectively wage a cyberwar on any domestic enemies of the state. The bill is a serious violation of First Amendment human and civil rights, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the legislation could potentially hinder the movements of both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party campaign, as well as quash attempts from the whistleblowers in independent news media from exposing corruption from within the government.

Pentagon releases strategy for cyberspace

Homeland Security Committee Unveils Cybersecurity Bill

H.R. 3674 2011

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


The best I can offer is my experience as a paid agent for the State of Indiana or any other employee of the State of Indiana who has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit levied by an offender against the State...

As an employee of the State, I was responsible for what was called the principle of "vicarious liability." In other words, I had an affirmative responsibility to preserve the rights of the individuals under my charge to the extent any reasonable person would do so...Since I was a paid agent, I could be held to this expectation through a written code of conduct that had the weight of US and State Constitution, along with appropriate written codes and statutes and policy/procedure...

Volunteers have some of the same responsibilities and do sign some agreements to do their "schtick," but when it comes down to ultimate responsibility, the site owner would take the hit in case of volunteer misconduct, malfeasance, or failure to perform....

I will make phone calls and write letters, but, my perception is that our elected leaders don't care what we think. They know what is best for us, and they get re-elected no matter what they do.

Lets vote some of these people out.

If you really believe in a smaller, hands off government. Consider who is proposing just that in the 2012 election and vote accordingly.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I am at a loss whether the ultimate outcome of SOPA is killing free speech...perhaps, perhaps not...

I still remain convinced one should not be free to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, unless a fire actually exists...

Many newspapers and magazines have gone out of business because people can get news for free, and paradoxically free can be better than paid member service. Plus posting anonymously has advantages over posting onymously, especially when exposing governmental corruption.

It is not rocket science my friend. By increasing site expenditures the owners probably need additional income which probably means no more advertising which probably means paid membership only. I don't think paying costumers would appreciate seeing viagra commercials for instance.

reply to post by jeichelberg


You logic is consistently flawed and ignores all policies that define how we operate ATS.

SOPA initiates guilty until proven innocent. If a complaint we to result in an ATS blockage, we would first be blocked, then subject to a 90 day process to prove our innocence.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

You logic is consistently flawed and ignores all policies that define how we operate ATS.

Point by point, please deconstruct my arguments and demonstrate the flaws...You have the opportunity...you are the owner...Either you understand what I am writing and are able to do this or you do not understand what I am writing and are not...You have all your site policies and you have my logic (or your understanding of it)...should be quite an easy process...If you believe I am ignorant, then please live up to your site motto and conclusively put it to rest...

SOPA initiates guilty until proven innocent. If a complaint we to result in an ATS blockage, we would first be blocked, then subject to a 90 day process to prove our innocence.

So does a speeding ticket...once you are written the ticket, you are guilty...

However, in this case I have provided you a clear out....it is up to you whether you want to do the work or not...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
So does a speeding ticket...once you are written the ticket, you are guilty...

Absolutely incorrect...that ticket that they write and you sign is a legal summons...and notification that you understand the charges against you.

I know because I have beaten several traffic tickets in court...not "guilty until proven innocent".

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


And for all intent and purposes, so is any action taken against Internet Sites in the case of SOPA...SO does not want you to understand this concept however...

Believe me, the weight of the officer word in the case of a speeding carries more effect in a court than does yours...and you are required to fight the basis of the charge in court...a ticket is a summons to appear....but in many more instances than most like to think, guilt is already assumed, especially in the case of a speeding ticket...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

 

And for all intent and purposes, so is any action taken against Internet Sites in the case of SOPA...SO does not want you to understand this concept however...

Except when I get a traffic I do not have my driver's liciense revoked...see the difference.

At a traffic stop I sign the paperwork, go on about my day, and make my appearance in court.

SOPA is the equivalent of revoking my license and impounding my car on the spot, with no legal recourse for 90 days...not even close to the same.

I think this is the worst part that is causing such an uproar:

SEC. 104. IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.

No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that--

(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and

(2) the action is consistent with the entity's terms of service or other contractual rights.

It all hinges on the phrase "reasonable belief" and that lousy "or" in point #1.


Exactly what is "reasonable"? And why would a company want to take a "voluntary" action unless it's in their own self interest?


So Time Warner believes Comcast has stolen their idea for a sit-com, so they block Comcast's network on their cable system to prevent their subscribers from watching their sit-com on the Comcast network. So Comcast will have to take them to court and show that this was not a "reasonable belief."

Or put another way:

So Time Warner believes Above Top Secret has some of their copyrighted material on it's site, so they block Above Top Secret on their internet system to prevent their subscribers from visiting abovetopsecret.com. So Above Top Secret will have to take them to court and show that this was not a "reasonable belief."

It seems to me Time Warner does not in anyway have to show that there is actually any of their copyrighted material on Above Top Secret, unless Above Top Secret actually takes them to court, and then it's on Above Top Secret to prove otherwise.

Sounds to me like trouble without any participation whatsoever from the Justice Department.

Ya got me!!

I'm just starting my ATS day with my usual tingle of curiosity and expectation and to see your SOPA splashscreen come up sent my heart straight to my mouth.

I have posted some pretty edgy stuff in the 9/11 forums here and in other places and to be honest, at times I have been wondering if the authorities might have an interest in me. I thought, "Oh boy, here we go,the clamp down is starting."

I've got to go back to the beginning of the thread and read it properly, but I just had to release some nervous energy with this post.

Viva ATS! Long may it flourish. May we all help and heal the nation that gave it birth.

I woke up this morning this topic and a song was on my mind,

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Think about it.

I will add the quote from my signature.
“Those with the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.”

Thats scary..............
But only you Americans can change your own
destiny.

Anyone claiming SOPA isn't necessarily bad clearly hasn't read the bill...or understands the importance of the Internet imo

reply to post by jeichelberg


I don't have the time or desire to track the details of bad logic... What are your points?