New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet
-
It changes people's thinking quickly. SCOTUS said that it is a form of fraud, and I'd have to agree with it.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
changes people's thinking quickly
So you're saying the speed at which people respond to my statements will determine whether it is okay or not. I'm still not seeing your distinction between the "FIRE" example and the "Kill all [insert whatever race] people". Oh and just for the record I think both of these speech types should be constrained. Mainly because each one is an attempt to incite hurtful/unlawful actions against others. :)
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:
changes people's thinking quickly
So you're saying the speed at which people respond to my statements will determine whether it is okay or not. I'm still not seeing your distinction between the "FIRE" example and the "Kill all [insert whatever race] people". Oh and just for the record I think both of these speech types should be constrained. Mainly because each one is an attempt to incite hurtful/unlawful actions against others. :)
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]
Chris Meech wrote:
I'm still not seeing your distinction between the "FIRE" example and the "Kill all [insert whatever race] people".
FIRE example: People will take it for granted that it's an emergency, and people need to GTFO of the building. Plus, this is pertaining to ALL people inside of the building, there's nobody excluded. KILL ALL example: People will stop to think about any and all logic inside the statement, as opposed to it being an emergency. Plus, only certain people's lives are threatened in the society.
Chris Meech wrote:
Oh and just for the record I think both of these speech types should be constrained. Mainly because each one is an attempt to incite hurtful/unlawful actions against others. Smile
Well, at least we half agree. lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Chris Meech wrote:
I'm still not seeing your distinction between the "FIRE" example and the "Kill all [insert whatever race] people".
FIRE example: People will take it for granted that it's an emergency, and people need to GTFO of the building. Plus, this is pertaining to ALL people inside of the building, there's nobody excluded. KILL ALL example: People will stop to think about any and all logic inside the statement, as opposed to it being an emergency. Plus, only certain people's lives are threatened in the society.
Chris Meech wrote:
Oh and just for the record I think both of these speech types should be constrained. Mainly because each one is an attempt to incite hurtful/unlawful actions against others. Smile
Well, at least we half agree. lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
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
-
Chris Meech wrote:
I'm still not seeing your distinction between the "FIRE" example and the "Kill all [insert whatever race] people".
FIRE example: People will take it for granted that it's an emergency, and people need to GTFO of the building. Plus, this is pertaining to ALL people inside of the building, there's nobody excluded. KILL ALL example: People will stop to think about any and all logic inside the statement, as opposed to it being an emergency. Plus, only certain people's lives are threatened in the society.
Chris Meech wrote:
Oh and just for the record I think both of these speech types should be constrained. Mainly because each one is an attempt to incite hurtful/unlawful actions against others. Smile
Well, at least we half agree. lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Good explanation of the distinction. People call me persnickety, but you might be one up on me there. :)
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 are stupid. Obama can shut down the whole internet ? OR do you just not realise that Obama has no power over the rest of the world ? Or even what the 'rest of the world' is ?
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.
Technically the Internet could be severely crippled from within the US, simply because the vast majority of the backbones are routed through the US. The Internet would adapt and stay online, albeit without the US-based servers/sites/users, but there would be a non-trivial degradation of performance. Of course, "Obama can shut down the Internet" is a completely false statement, even assuming that this ridiculous piece of legislation makes it past the first committee, gets voted on, passes, gets sent to the House, passes there, and doesn't get vetoed, all of this without being watered down... So this is all irrelevant.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
But the reasons as to why you can be arrested for such abuses:
Ah, so I am free to say it, but not free to not be arrested ? Well, that's what I believe, too. I think, for example, that neo Nazis should be given the light of day, so they can be openly mocked, in the dark, their views fester. But, some people think free speech means being able to say whatever you like, with no consequences.
josda1000 wrote:
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.
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. That's really the simple concept. I am free to not be interfered with, but so are you.
josda1000 wrote:
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.
That much is true. But, there are things that it is unreasonable for anyone to suggest are not wrong.
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:
there are things that it is unreasonable for anyone to suggest are not wrong.
You mean, things like Christianity? I'm OK if yo are willing to let someone decide what those things are, as long as I am the one. If anyone else wants to decide, screw 'em.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I think the presedent will shutdown the internet during a revolution.
Now that's a good point. But, with that in mind, there's no reason to believe it would happen. Unless, this violence escalates, which I doubt because it seems that the tea parties are already having an impact, which would hurt that cause and maybe shut them up. So I still think you're taking it way too far, even for me.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
So I still think you're taking it way too far, even for me.
It isn't me that is taking it too far, its the government. The bill is not a conspiracy theory.
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[^]
-
I didn't say Obama will actually use the power, but he will have the power, and so will the presidents after him. You can say it will cause a revolution, but will it really? I think the presedent will shutdown the internet during a revolution.
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:
I think the presedent will shutdown the internet during a revolution.
I can see the cause of your concern. While all the real activists are out changing their country, you will be sat at home with no internet.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
josda1000 wrote:
So I still think you're taking it way too far, even for me.
It isn't me that is taking it too far, its the government. The bill is not a conspiracy theory.
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:
The bill is not a conspiracy theory.
The multiple levels of illiteracy in that statement will keep me amused for days. No, the bill is not. Your theory about the bill, is.
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:
I think the presedent will shutdown the internet during a revolution.
I can see the cause of your concern. While all the real activists are out changing their country, you will be sat at home with no internet.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
If there's a revolution perhaps you'll have more pressing concerns.
Steve
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
flying monkey gonnad
Bill, is that the gonad of a flying monkey, or did someone throw the gonad of a non-flight qualified monkey?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Free speech has to have limits. I'm not saying I agree with where they are (although I can't think of any example I disagree with too strongly), but it's still true, there have to be limits, it's not some great mantra that must always be obeyed.
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:
Free speech has to have limits
Why? If the listener is of a reasonable mind then he will ignore any free speach he considers ranting lunacy. If not, then he is already sufficiently disturbed and free speach wil do nothing but affirm his mental illness.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
If there's a revolution perhaps you'll have more pressing concerns.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
If there's a revolution perhaps you'll have more pressing concerns.
Not Captain SeeVee, he exists only as a comment on a forum.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.