Members John81 Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 There are a lot of things I don't like about these bills, but I think the biggest problem with it has been ignored by the media. These bills completely turn our system of jurisprudence upside down. Nowhere in American history has the government (whether it is the courts or an executive agency) ever been given the power to declare someone guilty without a trial. That is exactly what this law allows them to do. They can shut down your domain on suspicion of piracy, and then you have to take it to court in order to prove your innocence and have your domain restored. You get no hearing, trial, or even notice before your domain is shut down, and then you must take the government to court (likely at your own expense, since you will be the plaintiff in the case) in order for it to be restored. No longer are you innocent until proven guilty, you are guilty until proven innocent. There are plenty of other reasons to not like this bill, but that argument is the one that I cannot believe no one is talking about. Yes, that's my major concern. The bills are very poorly written, giving far too much power to the government and opening wide the doors of abuse that could bring about instant censorship of the internet. If passed, these as law could eventually used to shut down Christian websites and those of political opponents and those posting speech the government doesn't want heard. As written, all this can be done whether a person or group is guilty or not. The hoops that could easily be set up for one to prove their innocence could be prohibitive to most. If the bills were written in a way they truly only targetted those engaged in piracy, and targetted them in accord with the Constitution, then I could support them. As they are now, they are unconstitutional, therefore illegal, and they are very dangerous and should be opposed. jchahl 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jchahl Posted January 22, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 This site does not deal in file sharing of movies, songs, & junk, & there's lots & lots sties that do not deal in such things. But if users here uploaded a video of a song, or used a copyrighted picture in their avatar, the site could be held accountable. At least that's one way I understood it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted January 23, 2012 Members Share Posted January 23, 2012 But if users here uploaded a video of a song, or used a copyrighted picture in their avatar, the site could be held accountable. At least that's one way I understood it. Yes, that's one of it's many problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1Timothy115 Posted January 23, 2012 Members Share Posted January 23, 2012 But if users here uploaded a video of a song, or used a copyrighted picture in their avatar, the site could be held accountable. At least that's one way I understood it. That was my first impression too. I think this legislation also requires that websites police there user's content to insure no plagiarism occurs. I don't know if Matt has the resources to do that. I even think that sites who fail to prevent persons using copywrited material can be shut down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Invicta Posted January 23, 2012 Members Share Posted January 23, 2012 And hymns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.