This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
ACTA destroyes the web as we know it.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
There's always been sarcasm missed. We're too sophisticated for them.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Sounds like you're talking about the the optional blacklist mentioned in (e)(2)(B)(i) and (j)(1)-(2) which allows ISPs to block sites which are believed to be involved in copyright infringement, and not the blacklist which requires the website be shut down and the domain name locked under (e)(i) and further to shut down any recreation of the website under (h)(1)(A)(i)-(ii).
You mean:
`(A) the Attorney General may apply for a modification of the order--
`(i) to expand the order to apply to a domain name that is reconstituted using a different domain name subsequent to the original order, and
`(ii) to include additional domain names that are used in substantially the same manner as the Internet site against which the action was brought,
by providing the court with clear indicia of joint control, ownership, or operation of the Internet site associated with the domain name subject to the order and the Internet site associated with the requested modification;
This section simply says that if an order has been made to shut down a domestic site, or for ISPs to blacklist a foreign site, that the same order can be used to perform the same actions on substantially the same site under other domain names. So if I create Squishalot.com, and it gets blocked, and so I create Squishalot2.com, the order to block Squishalot.com can be expanded to cover Squishalot2.com.
It should be worth noting that US service providers have no access to any domains maintained by the Asia-Pacific DNS providers. So even if the term 'service providers' includes domain managers, their sphere of influence only extends to US-hosted or US-managed domains.
If enough ISPs block the site, you'd need ISP-level backbone access to bypass them.
Or a foreign proxy server.
Trying to legislate American censorship on a worldwide non-centralised network is not fine and definitely not required.
If this bill passes, America is going to get laughed at, just like everyone laughs at Chinese censored internet now.
It's local censorship. Just because you can't view kiddy porn sites hosted in Nigeria doesn't mean that Joe Blogs anywhere else in the world can't, providing that it's not covered under the US domain servers.
Are you afraid of being laughed at? What precisely do you laugh at the Chinese about, the fact that they're censored, or the degree of censorship? I personally feel it's the degree of censorship (in terms of content removal), rather than the fact that anything's censored in the first place.
To use the argument that the Australian Government uses (which I don't necessarily agree with, but serves as a counterfoil to yours) - do you really want child pornography in the hands of anyone with an internet connection?
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
/facedesk
well I just failed horribly
Could've been worse.
Post by
Monday
/facedesk
well I just failed horribly
Could've been worse.
That's my new all-time favorite Paladin thread.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
181961
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
O_o
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.