New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, you'd defend my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded room ?
I covered this, it is against the law and not covered by free speech if done in a public place where it can be assumed people would be injured by the subsequent panic. I can yell "FIRE!" in a public park and be perfectly fine if it would not cause a stampede.
Christian Graus wrote:
To tell people that they should rob your house because your political beliefs or race or hair color take away your rights to property ?
You can tell them that all you want. There's no law against it unless it incites a riot, and that's for inciting the action. I could tell everyone here where you live and your phone number and that they should threaten you in an ominous manner, doesn't mean jack.
Christian Graus wrote:
To suggest that all people of any particular race should be killed for the good of society ?
People do that in America all the time. Fully protected speech. No law against it. Now if these things were being done in front of a person's house, at 2 am with a lawn ornament on fire, that would be against the law since they would never have been given a permit to hold a public demonstration, and the fire would be considered an actual threat to the person's life. In the case of free speech, the context of where and when matters.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I could tell everyone here where you live and your phone number and that they should threaten you in an ominous manner, doesn't mean jack.
CSS tried to threaten me with that already :P But, if it can be shown that someone did rob me because you encouraged and pushed them to do it, have you not committed a crime at that point ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Then, really, I can't call you a liberal. I'd call you authoritarian. Look, the freedom of speech is precisely the one thing that made this country great. That, and as presented to me before, representation. So really, if you draw the line somewhere, then that line will continually be moved. In the end it comes down to the fact that either you're free, or you're not. Either you have the right to speak, or you don't. Your choice.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Look, the freedom of speech is precisely the one thing that made this country great. That, and as presented to me before, representation. So really, if you draw the line somewhere, then that line will continually be moved. In the end it comes down to the fact that either you're free, or you're not. Either you have the right to speak, or you don't. Your choice.
Here's the line, as effectively enforced: You can say whatever you like so long as it does not cause harm to someone else. Technically you can say 'Go kill that judge', but the moment someone tries you can wind up on trial. I say this using a case of a particular brand of nutbag who did just that, and was surprised when he got raided by the feds. Which is the same line as 'Your freedoms don't trump mine' that most liberals back. Compared to the 'My freedoms are the only ones that ever matter' approach folks like CSS take.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Look, the freedom of speech is precisely the one thing that made this country great. That, and as presented to me before, representation. So really, if you draw the line somewhere, then that line will continually be moved. In the end it comes down to the fact that either you're free, or you're not. Either you have the right to speak, or you don't. Your choice.
Here's the line, as effectively enforced: You can say whatever you like so long as it does not cause harm to someone else. Technically you can say 'Go kill that judge', but the moment someone tries you can wind up on trial. I say this using a case of a particular brand of nutbag who did just that, and was surprised when he got raided by the feds. Which is the same line as 'Your freedoms don't trump mine' that most liberals back. Compared to the 'My freedoms are the only ones that ever matter' approach folks like CSS take.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So you can say it, so long as you don't mean it ? I disagree, here. My freedom should never impinge on the freedom of others.
Technically, speaking it doesn't impinge on theirs, here. Here, you have to be caught in the act, or acted on it already. There is such a thing as conspiring to commit the act, which is an act of aggression anyway, and that's why conspiring in this case is a crime. But saying it, in the open, will get you public distrust anyway, and is immoral too. So obviously I don't think you'll see anyone running around the streets saying they're going to kill people, but I think you should be free to do so. With freedom comes responsibility. You have to use freedom with your own caution, but feel free to act in any manner you choose. In this case, though, I think we can safely agree it's a matter of property rights.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
So obviously I don't think you'll see anyone running around the streets saying they're going to kill people, but I think you should be free to do so.
I was trying to create an example that led more to people encouraging racism or other hate crimes.
josda1000 wrote:
With freedom comes responsibility.
There's no responsibility if there's no consequences for being irresponsible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
So obviously I don't think you'll see anyone running around the streets saying they're going to kill people, but I think you should be free to do so.
I was trying to create an example that led more to people encouraging racism or other hate crimes.
josda1000 wrote:
With freedom comes responsibility.
There's no responsibility if there's no consequences for being irresponsible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I was trying to create an example that led more to people encouraging racism or other hate crimes.
I noticed.
Christian Graus wrote:
There's no responsibility if there's no consequences for being irresponsible.
Was I suggesting that?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
I was trying to create an example that led more to people encouraging racism or other hate crimes.
I noticed.
Christian Graus wrote:
There's no responsibility if there's no consequences for being irresponsible.
Was I suggesting that?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Was I suggesting that?
Not directly, but that's the point I was seeking to make in saying there must be limits on the freedom of speech.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Right. For probably a limited amount of time, they would, to certain ISPs. But not the whole damned thing. I mean I know what you're saying, but the way it was spun is completely uncalled for. What I'm concerned about is the constant banning of certain channels on youtube... that's the start of it. And then this bill. So yes I'm in your court, but it's still incorrect. And yes, it will inhibit freedom. As usual. The purpose of the federal government was to protect liberty, not destroy it. And that's what we see. Correct?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Right. For probably a limited amount of time, they would, to certain ISPs. But not the whole damned thing.
You are trying to deny the fact that the president will have the authority to shut down the internet in America. You can try to play it down or reason with yourself all you want but it doesn't change the bill.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I could tell everyone here where you live and your phone number and that they should threaten you in an ominous manner, doesn't mean jack.
CSS tried to threaten me with that already :P But, if it can be shown that someone did rob me because you encouraged and pushed them to do it, have you not committed a crime at that point ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Not in any real sense. Inciting someone to do something isn't considered a crime just because: 1: Freedom of speech also applies to actions. (They had the right to ignore me) 2: I didn't actually do anything to you. I might be tried with "conspiracy to commit..." but that's harder to actually convict on. "I didn't think he'd be stupid enough to listen to me" Even then, you have to show a pattern of pressure to indicate I did more than just be a blow hard. My phrasing on that was not a coincidence. :)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, you'd defend my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded room ? To tell people that they should rob your house because your political beliefs or race or hair color take away your rights to property ? To suggest that all people of any particular race should be killed for the good of society ?
Yes, I'll defend your freedom to say it. But the reasons as to why you can be arrested for such abuses: Yelling fire in a crowded room, if there is none existing, is a violation of other's freedom (property rights, fraud, perception). Telling people to rob houses because of race or political beliefs is still telling people to rob people, which is against the law. Guilt by association. But, logically speaking, being racist isn't a crime, and people are always hating on political beliefs. So that part is free, though racism is stupid, and I think we all agree there. To suggest that all people of a particular race should be killed is ok, but actually doing it is murder, and you must be prosecuted. Again, if you're going to defend freedom, you really have to defend it. Just because something's not PC doesn't mean that it's completely wrong.
Christian Graus wrote:
This sort of black and white thinking is, in my opinion, the core reason for what I see as cognitive dissonance on your part.
I know. You're not used to it. Neither am I, honestly. But I like it, it's opened up my mind.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.My yelling fire doesn't kill anyone. It's the one's who believe it and turn and stampede that kill someone. How am I responsible for other people's actions?
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
josda1000 wrote:
Was I suggesting that?
Not directly, but that's the point I was seeking to make in saying there must be limits on the freedom of speech.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Understood. I think we're on the same page then.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I suspect we're quite often closer to being on the same page that you might first think, although there are clearly issues we disagree on.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
My yelling fire doesn't kill anyone. It's the one's who believe it and turn and stampede that kill someone. How am I responsible for other people's actions?
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
You forgot the joke icon.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Right. For probably a limited amount of time, they would, to certain ISPs. But not the whole damned thing.
You are trying to deny the fact that the president will have the authority to shut down the internet in America. You can try to play it down or reason with yourself all you want but it doesn't change the bill.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are trying to deny the fact that the president will have the authority to shut down the internet in America. You can try to play it down or reason with yourself all you want but it doesn't change the bill.
A) I'm not trying to change the bill. B) No, it does not give him the power to shut down the internet. C) You're making the implication that he could shut down the internet, and you are actually the one reinterpreting. This last fact is why you and Christian do not get along; you both reinterpret. It says what it means and means what it says. Don't be like them where they try to reinterpret the law, the constitution. You're reinterpreting as well.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
My yelling fire doesn't kill anyone. It's the one's who believe it and turn and stampede that kill someone. How am I responsible for other people's actions?
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
Not in any real sense. Inciting someone to do something isn't considered a crime just because: 1: Freedom of speech also applies to actions. (They had the right to ignore me) 2: I didn't actually do anything to you. I might be tried with "conspiracy to commit..." but that's harder to actually convict on. "I didn't think he'd be stupid enough to listen to me" Even then, you have to show a pattern of pressure to indicate I did more than just be a blow hard. My phrasing on that was not a coincidence. :)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Even then, you have to show a pattern of pressure to indicate I did more than just be a blow hard.
Yes, I am thinking of places where a pattern exists. Saying once 'I wish that bastard was dead' is plainly not something that you should be able to get in trouble for. Dedicating your life to vilifying one person or one group, is something else.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Was I suggesting that?
Not directly, but that's the point I was seeking to make in saying there must be limits on the freedom of speech.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
time and place are usually enough along with the immediate safety concern. I don't want my kid hearing an eff-bomb on tv, but as long as I know they are coming, I can police that myself, I don't need someone doing it for me. Same goes in public.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I suspect we're quite often closer to being on the same page that you might first think, although there are clearly issues we disagree on.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are trying to deny the fact that the president will have the authority to shut down the internet in America. You can try to play it down or reason with yourself all you want but it doesn't change the bill.
A) I'm not trying to change the bill. B) No, it does not give him the power to shut down the internet. C) You're making the implication that he could shut down the internet, and you are actually the one reinterpreting. This last fact is why you and Christian do not get along; you both reinterpret. It says what it means and means what it says. Don't be like them where they try to reinterpret the law, the constitution. You're reinterpreting as well.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
A) I'm not trying to change the bill.
You are trying to change what the bill means in your mind. As all people do, they go into denial to block out bad things.
josda1000 wrote:
B) No, it does not give him the power to shut down the internet.
Yes it does, the president will have the power to command ISPs to shutdown service to some or all people, and to block websites. The bill has language that will permit the feds to compensate the ISPs during down time.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Chris Meech wrote:
OTOH, anyone who thinks that a kill-switch can or does exist for the Internet, doesn't understnad how it works in the first place. So, uhm good luck with that
Read the bill. The law states that IPS must comply with federal demands to shutdown service, and ISPs will be compensated for down time.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
You poor dilusional fool. Have you the faintest idea how the internet - that's the communication network - works? The network is deigned to be resilient to any external atttempts to close it and does not have a single point of failure. Even if the US of A decided to 'switch off', their is nothing you can do to make the rest of the world - Free, Red or French - go off-line. Why the frak do you think anyone outside of the tin-foil brigade will give a flying monkey gonnad about this? The bill is a waste of time and will only prevent you - US citizens - from bugging the rest of the world with your complaints. Now get back to your sock cooking.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
josda1000 wrote:
A) I'm not trying to change the bill.
You are trying to change what the bill means in your mind. As all people do, they go into denial to block out bad things.
josda1000 wrote:
B) No, it does not give him the power to shut down the internet.
Yes it does, the president will have the power to command ISPs to shutdown service to some or all people, and to block websites. The bill has language that will permit the feds to compensate the ISPs during down time.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
As all people do, they go into denial to block out bad things.
No, you're in denial to try to find the worst possible reading and assume it is the most likely one. Amusingly, exactly the way that AGW alarmists behave.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.