SOPA opponents unveil "Digital Bill of Rights"

• Yoorah wrote on 2012-06-14 20:50
  Whether you agree with laws or not doesn't matter; you still have to follow them. If you don't like 'em, then do what you can to have them changed. Most of our laws are very reasonable, anyway. People tend to break them on the 'net just cause they can (for now).. and that's not right.
  
  Rest assured, the NSA can monitor you all they want. Technically, they're only allowed to monitor you without a warrant if your communication is with a party outside of the US, but... leave the rest to your imagination. :)
• whocares8128 wrote on 2012-06-14 20:51

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;886870:

  The right to a free and uncensored Internet.

  
  lol, this is never gonna work unless they change it. "Uncensored" means anything goes. Anything goes means illegal things go. "Except illegal things" means the government can stop free speech. They're really gonna have to think about this and modify it unless they want everything, even the videos of killing and people sticking jars up their butts to be open and accessible to everyone. Personally, even though I don't participate in that side of the internet or even really look at it, I'd like for this to be open and uncensored just to know that it's there and people have the choice to look at it. I would like everything, even the things that offend me, to be like that. I just know from a legal standpoint, that isn't gonna work out. If they can make this work, they're gonna end up putting an asterisk next to it and write "(except things we don't like)". People simply cannot handle knowing that something is there, somewhere, even if they never have to see it or think about it.

  
  
  Seriously? "Uncensored" does not mean everything is legal. There is already an "except illegal things" clause in free speech. You still can't yell "FIRE!!" in a building, without there being a fire. You still can get charged with disturbing the peace for being loud and obnoxious. You must be genuinely concerned about this stuff too, right?
  
  It's common sense that if someone were to post child porn on the Internet, it would be removed (if possible). If you play your music way too loud and are arrested for disturbing the peace, do you really think the police will leave your stereo playing at full volume?
  
  

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;886870:

  Many countries with shitty governments don't.

  
  These rights don't apply to the world, just like the US Bill of Rights don't either.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-06-14 21:22

  Quote from Yoorah;886968:

  Whether you agree with laws or not doesn't matter; you still have to follow them.

  
  I'm not arguing what's going to happen or whether I have to follow them or not. I'm arguing how things should be rather than how they are. I'm also saying I don't think things will necessarily go in the direction you're indicating.
  

  Seriously? "Uncensored" does not mean everything is legal. There is already an "except illegal things" clause in free speech. You still can't yell "FIRE!!" in a building, without there being a fire. You still can get charged with disturbing the peace for being loud and obnoxious. You must be genuinely concerned about this stuff too, right?

  Yes, I am concerned with those things from the standpoint of wanting the choice. Do I want to yell "fire!" in a building? No. Do I want to disturb the peace? No. Do I want to watch guys stick jars up their butts? No, even though curiosity might get the best of me here for about 5 minutes, ahaha. Do I want to watch killing? Hell no, it makes me angry and offends me more than anything in the world. But I don't believe these things should be restricted on the internet just because I, or a lot of people, find them disgusting or offensive. I think people should have the right to kick others out of buildings for whatever they want because it's their property and websites should have the right to have the rules they want, but to have general rules on the whole damn internet is excessive.
  
  I definitely do not approve of any abuse of human rights at all. I'd be lying to say it doesn't bother me or upset me or make me furious, but so what if it does? These are real life issues that should be dealt with in real life and we should be allowed to know what really goes on in the world, even if it's pretty ugly.
  
  I'm not saying the internet shouldn't "count" or should be fake, or that it's detached from everything, either. What I'm saying is it should be used to transmit information and not all information is favorable and pleasant to see or hear about. I'd like to say information should be the same in real life, but it's a lost cause at this point.
  

  If you play your music way too loud and are arrested for disturbing the peace, do you really think the police will leave your stereo playing at full volume?

  Do I think they will? No. Do I think they should? Maybe, if it's in a place where no one is forced to hear it, such as private property in an enclosed, soundproof room. It might be polite to turn it off anyway to save electricity, though.
  
  The main difference between what occurs while walking down the street and what happens on websites is that people have choices. You don't have the option of someone playing loud music on the street but you do have the option of seeing things that offend you on the internet (well, unless you're offended by cat videos and The New York Times). Personally, I tend to stay far away from things that I don't want to see, and so should everyone else, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.
  

  Quote from whocares8128;886970:

  These rights don't apply to the world, just like the US Bill of Rights don't either.

  
  The internet should be the same internet to the whole world. It won't be, but it should. I would love to give the people in China and North Korea the ability to see all the things we see, even if the whole "getting online in the first place" remains a challenge in some areas.
  

  Seriously? "Uncensored" does not mean everything is legal.

  
  The problem I have with this is that we're looking at the word "uncensored" differently. Uncensored, to me, is supposed to me entirely without censorship. To censor things we don't like and uncensor the things the government doesn't like, but some random group of people do, is not keeping things uncensored. Maybe people use the word that way, but that's not what it means.
• Hazeri wrote on 2012-06-14 21:32

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;886870:

  I like this one! Don't need every other site tracking what I browse without my knowledge/consent.
  lol, this is never gonna work unless they change it. "Uncensored" means anything goes. Anything goes means illegal things go. "Except illegal things" means the government can stop free speech. They're really gonna have to think about this and modify it unless they want everything, even the videos of killing and people sticking jars up their butts to be open and accessible to everyone. Personally, even though I don't participate in that side of the internet or even really look at it, I'd like for this to be open and uncensored just to know that it's there and people have the choice to look at it. I would like everything, even the things that offend me, to be like that. I just know from a legal standpoint, that isn't gonna work out. If they can make this work, they're gonna end up putting an asterisk next to it and write "(except things we don't like)". People simply cannot handle knowing that something is there, somewhere, even if they never have to see it or think about it.
  
  Many countries with shitty governments don't.
  
  There's plenty of laws on the internet, it's just that they're either ignored or no one bothers to enforce them much, at least over here.

  
  
  How is a video of someone sticking a Jar up their butt illegal?
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-06-14 21:39

  Quote from Hazeri;887014:

  How is a video of someone sticking a Jar up their butt illegal?

  
  It's just an example. I'm referring to the person who did that and it shattered or something (which was almost certainly very bloody). I haven't personally seen the video and I'm not sure I'm allowed to say what it's called, but it's very commonly talked about all over the internet.
  
  The porn laws about this are kind of vague and I believe it basically comes down to anything that is seen as too "vulgar" is illegal. I know there's some porn director or something who got into big trouble and had to go to jail because, even though he didn't do anything "illegal", it was just overall considered too graphic. This is probably something that isn't heavily enforced if they enforce it at all, but that doesn't change the fact. I don't know a lot about this and you'd have to ask someone who does to get a clearer answer.
• Rin wrote on 2012-06-15 16:50

  Quote from whocares8128;886067:

  While I'm not going to argue about the conflicting interests that are certainly within the list, I think you are misunderstanding the quoted right.
  
  I believe its purpose is to ensure that everyone is permitted access to the internet, that no region or persons are willfully excluded, in the same way that one can't discriminate on who is allowed to drive (beyond having a driver's license, which everyone must have) nor where they can or can't go.
  
  People still need a vehicle to drive on the road. If you cannot afford one, one will not be provided to you. In the same vein, you have the right to bare arms, but the government isn't going to hand out guns to everyone either.
  
  
  The government's role would simply be to ensure that the private businesses follow these ideas, which for the most part, they already do.

  
  
  Then that's fine.
  
  I honestly thought that section was to reflect the quality of public internet rights in South Korea. Which is what some lawmakers want for the US in the first place.