What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
137 Comments
- anitab83, on 10/12/2007, -9/+105And this guy wants to run for President? Cross him off my list ...
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -9/+73Another Republican who fears Free Speech...go figure.
- mulling, on 10/12/2007, -3/+51I wish the government would just stay the hell away from the internet. The last time they thought they had a clue we got the DMCA.
- bluenash, on 10/12/2007, -8/+49"We. as Americans, need to do our best to clog up them, there tubes"
- Superfluous, on 10/12/2007, -20/+57ATTENTION:
"Contrary to what has been reported by some news outlets, the reporting requirements in the legislation would apply only to child pornography. In addition, the bill is in no way targeted at the free speech rights of bloggers or anyone else communicating their views on the Internet." That is from McCain's site. McCain.senate.gov for more info. He clearly outlines what the legislation does and doesn't do. "The speech rights of bloggers and others online would not be impacted because the legislation does not require the monitoring of users or the content of any communication." - Myko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40You are psychotic, I am a US soldier and served in Kosovo and spent my time living in a former Serbian-ran death camp. I've seen atrocities in the area committed by both sides of the conflict. You sound like you have first hand experience with the area but I have to ask if you aren't slightly biased?
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+43No, really, this isn't a party thing. This will get dugg down as usual, but the Democrats have no better record on free speech. Who was it that fought for warning labels on music in the 80s? Gore. Who is it trying to get violent video games banned? Lieberman, and now Hillary. So if you think the Democrats are bastions of free speech, think again. No one is standing up for free speech these days between the two major parties.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38"In addition, the bill is in no way targeted at the free speech rights of bloggers or anyone else communicating their views on the Internet."
ATTENTION: this is along the lines of what they probably said about various other bills long ago (e.g. the bill of rights) - that McCain's party has recently been so fond of incrementally shaving away at. We'll wake up one day with Big Brother on our browser.
No internet bill is a good bill. - shadus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30A republican who fears free speach ... shock. Just about as shocking as democrats who fear it. Our entire government is terrified of it and through the "war on terror" is doing all it can to eliminate it. Screw em.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnexu_eGyYs&mode=related&search=
I like what HR has to say in that video. - Hegemony, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28McCain used to be a moderate republican. I didn't hate him, but I wouldn't vote for him. But now he's just trying to settle into the same neo-con niche that Bush has. I think the first clue was his visit to Liberty University. He probably has some adviser that's telling him it's the best way to win the presidency.
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23"Oh, and BY THE WAY, since that time, NO credible evidence of Serb atrocities against those poooor, innocent Muslims has come to light, despite exhaustive searches on the part of the US, NATO, and EU occupation troops in the area. The atrocities were all the other way around."
What in hell are you smoking man? No atrocities?
How about this: Mass grave of Bosnian Muslims found, 114 bodies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121200347.html
That article is from YESTERDAY! - RichPowers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18*****, and to think I wanted him to run for president.
Does he even have a way of enforcing this lunacy? - bse5150, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19ATTENTION: Anytime the Government attempts to regulate the internet, it's ALWAYS BAD and MUST ALWAYS BE FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL.
Thank you for your time, you may resume browsing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@Shadus
I guess that's somewhat fair to say seeing as the Dems signed the Patriot Act just like the rest of the House.
But the right wing rhetoric seems to hint more toward removing our rights than the left wing rhetoric does. (I listen to a lot of conservative radio. Just for laughs). - MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16No chance you're Serbian, is there?
- there, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18
Sex is just an easy backdoor to shove in legislation.
Self-righteous types fall for it every time then later complain when "big government" is taking away their freedom. - CloakandSwagger, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24McCain, go ***** yourself.
- BigKitty, on 10/12/2007, -30/+43That's the whole point - he wants to shut down the blogs because they will expose him for what he is. Same as he tried to do with McCain/Feingold.
While I still can, I'm going to let him have it with both barrels, and today I'm loaded for bear:
John McCain is dishonest, power-grubbing, and mentally unstable. Any bill he sponsors should get voted down automatically, no matter what it is. If there is any merit to it, let someone else introduce it.
I think McCain just wants to be president so that he can get his fingers on that nuke button, and he doesn't care what he has to do or say to get there. An issue like this - supposedly "for the children" - is tailor-made for what he's after.
Too bad he didn't mind bombing a whole bunch of Serb kids during the Kosovo War, including tiny babies in a maternity hospital.
Back in the late 1990s, McCain was an enthusiastic booster for the Clinton Administration's totally unjustified warfare against the Christian Serbs in the Balkans. If you don't remember, then go back and research the ugly remarks that he made, egging everyone on to further bloodshed. Even if you DO remember, go back and remind yourself just how disgusting and hypocritical and dishonest and bloodthirsty John McCain actually is.
During that time, US/NATO forces bombed the Christian Serb cemetery in Pristina FIVE TIMES. US/NATO mouthpieces claimed it was accidental. If they'd done it once, maybe they could've passed it off as an accident, but five times??? Bombing a cemetery is sick, folks! Especially considering the fact that, at the time, the only people in the cemetery were grieving Christian Serb civilians. Of course, if jihadis had been in the cemetery, the pilots would have taken care not to drop those bombs until they had left.
Oh, and BY THE WAY, since that time, NO credible evidence of Serb atrocities against those poooor, innocent Muslims has come to light, despite exhaustive searches on the part of the US, NATO, and EU occupation troops in the area. The atrocities were all the other way around. But there has been no apology for the U.S. for having fought on the side of the al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadis in that war...not from McCain, not from the Clintons, not from the Bushes, not from the House or Senate, certainly not from the military. There has been no effort to undo the damage done to the Serbs, nor to dislodge the Muslim narcoterrorist jihadis from the stronghold that the the US, the UK, and NATO so stupidly gave them in the Balkans.
The bottom line is that the US was, and still is, aiding and abetting the Bosnian Muslims and the KLA, who are the local branches of al-Qaeda in the Balkans, and John McCain was, and still is, part of the problem.
In terms of the long-forgotten US Constitution, let's look at what this means. Osama's fatwa against the US was, and is, both a declaration of war and a mobilization order. Osama's henchmen have perpetrated many acts of armed aggression against the US.
This makes him Osama and all branches of his organization an enemy of the US, whether Congress deigns to admit it or not. Anyone who gives aid and comfort to him or his forces, in any way, shape, or form, has committed treason! Anyone who fights on his side is, in fact, making war upon the United States, even if they are using the US military to do that!
Here's the question I am going to keep raising, until I finally get an answer: Were the American public to demand the traditional penalty for treason, according to its Constitutional definition, how many (or how few) in Washington, DC would escape the noose? After all, the Constitutional definition of treason requires two witnesses or an admission in open court. But these treasonable acts are committed in public, on television, and before the eyes of all the world!
He has no respect for the Constitution (as with the McCain-Feingold repeal of free speech), nor does he have any genuine concern about the major threats that we are now facing, thanks in no small part to McCain himself. After all, how can we expect to win the "war on terror" if our own government has troops on both sides? And why aren't we demanding an explanation of why the US is keeping troops in the Balkans, where they continue to aid and abet the terrorist activities of al-Qaeda? - marmanukem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13If it ain't broke, stay the ***** away from it.
- kcasper, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Superfluous you don't know quite what you are talking about. This still requires monitoring of the users. Worse, if a person doesn't like what is on the blog, they can post something illegal in comments and hope that the blog owner doesn't notice anytime soon.
This isn't punishing the person who does something illegal. It is punishing the blog owner for something someone else might do. - RonaldLewis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14The Internet is the world's only "open enterprise". Let's keep it that way.
US Government: Keep your &%&$@!# hands off the Internet! - jdog2050, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@superfluous:
This bill is only against child porn, my ass. Where are these blogs that are posting child porn? And no, 4chan is not a blog - Tawni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10John McCain has admitted that he knows nothing about computers and prefers a pencil and paper as well as his paper day planner. He does not go on line and knows nothing but what his staff tells him about computers. His staff has to print his email for him.
He has no business trying to regulate something he knows NOTHING about. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I usually agree with McCain, but this is ridiculous...
What exactly does he mean by illegal images and videos... I myself never see blogs that discuss rape, child molestation, or anything obscene enough to legislate against. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12This is the same guy who, having been tortured, eventually agreed to condone torture. The question I have is, why does a guy that old, with nothing to lose, whore himself like a cheap Bangkok street hooker? Does he just want to make sure Satan gets dibs on his soul before he dies so he can reserve a better table in Hell than Bush?
- radioact1ve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9govt agent 1: hmmm this site/blog/etc doesn't agree with us and is getting to big.
govt agent 2: lets create random/fake accounts and post child porn on their site to take them down! Maybe we can find something else!!
govt agent 1: Why didn't I think of that!! - Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10One problem with this bill is that "sex offender" is such a broad term. In some states (California, for example), if you're under 18 and you have sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend who is the same age, you both become sex offenders. This bill would require sites like MySpace to take down the profiles of anyone who commits that "crime".
- rinkjustice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The US government will use reasons like sex crimes, identity theft, spam etc for reasons to "regulate" the internet (ie: control what information goes on and off the internet), but they will flex this control to crush anyone who speaks out against government policies and interests. Be careful about that. It's like allowing someone in your home to fix your broken washing machine, and they end up taking you hostage!
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11So much for McCain. *checks him off*
- GameNasty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I just seems like there is a hidden agenda behind every New Internet law they are trying to pass..
- Snarfy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I hate the whole debate over child pornography. In the end, it's just another piece of media.
The vast majority of people of in the world are morally against child pornography. I think we all understand and accept that. We've never needed any government to dictate that morality to us; we already have it innately in us. The fact that the media is illegal means they are dictating, and they shouldn't be. What they should be doing is figuring out why those people that are into child pornography have morals different than the rest of society and ways that they can fix it. Making it illegal is pointless. We all know how well prohibition works with humans. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Why do the Republicans hate freedom ... so very much?
First the patriot act, now this? ( From the only Republican opposed to the legislated right to torture, no less...) - adb22791, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Yeah, honestly. I don't see how people think this guy is so amazing (hes bi-partisan this, fair that). Half the people don't even know or understand his political views.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I hope you Yanks don't screw up again. If McCain is elected in 2008, he is every bit on the payroll of the large corporate conglomerates and special interests that Bush is. Admittedly he is a hell of a lot smarter than Bush - and sometime (just occasionally though) some of the things he says do sound like they make sense) but ultimately he still knows very well what side his bread is buttered on. So if you are expecting major change if you vote, for McCain, then think again.
Anyway dumb and corrupt is a bad enough combination - clever and corrupt has the potential to be infinitely worse and infinitely more dangerous. (Look at Nixon - they didn't call him 'tricky Dickie for nothing).
If anything I hope that maybe you elect that cool sounding guy Barack Obama - if for nothing else than it will show that America really is an open and tolerant society - and that this nationalistic xenophobic march to the extreme right was noting more than a temporary aberration - and a short lived blip in your history. - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yeah, but knowing our federal government, it'll be expanded to include "copyrighted" materials. I just have a bad feeling about this.
- shteinb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Its a shame. I had a lot of respect for the guy in the past. Its all gone now... He used to be a libertarian-esque senator not too long ago. WTF has he done to himself to get elected... Its a shame that politicians have to swing so far to the right to even be considered for their parties nomination.
Although upon closer reading of the bill it seems like the blogger is exaggerating a bit. Still a lot of his actions recently are dissapointing. - Superfluous, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19It's not. Read the legislation. A user, blog publisher, or ISP has no responsibility to seek it out. Only a responsibility to report it if they observe it. Granted, this fuzziness in terminology could allow someone to say they just didn't notice it when they knew, but the cause is noble. However, given your scenario, if someone were to post the pornography then report the site the blog publisher is not responsible for user comments. The only real downside i see is that this method could be abused to allow government access to logs IP's of posters. I'm not saying McCain's legislation is golden rays of fluffy sunshine. I'm just saying it isn't this "lets regulate the internet and keep free speech down" ***** people are making it out to be.
- zappo1776, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Johnny Mac has shown his true stripes. Lets not let these people destroy what freedoms we have left.
- yidali, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10what's wrong with warning labels?
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8McCain can stick it... sometimes he makes good points... sometimes he makes bad points...
All in all: Inconsistent... thats not what I want in a politician (and yes mcain, it's me saying this, not digg.com) - MechaFenris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@koopa:
Warning labels as they exist today (the original "labeling" intent was more far-reaching to be sure) have the opposite effect of what the PMRC wanted them to have... but that's not the point.
They (the government) shouldn't have been involved in the first place. It's not the government's job to parent our kids like that. Let the parent decide if Twisted Sister or Marylin Manson is appropriate for their child. The government is doing the same thing with violent video games.... The Bill of Rights outlines those rights (not privileges) that are part of the fundamental rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. These rights do not exist BECAUSE of the government... they exist in SPITE of the government... and they exist outside the jurisdiction of same.
Those basic sets of rights are not written down so we know what rights we do have, but rather they are written down so that any American government (State, local, or Federal) from now until the end of time knows that they have NO business or right interfering, meddling, nosing around with these rights that the people have, regardless of the power they do have. The consent of the governed is not a quaint phrase to say during a Thanksgiving recital... it's the only mandate the government has... and even with the consent of the governed, it NEVER includes abridging the rights of the people (especially those first 10.) Not ever. And we have the right to remove the government when we feel the government is no longer working for our best interests. Not just by voting. By any means necessary. The Founding Fathers were a radical group, I tell you. :)
But the government sees fit to ignore the Constitution (dems AND repubs)... consolidating federal power, executive power, and more importantly... MEDDLING with our rights. Without our consent. Yet they do not fear being replaced until election time... guess they forgot what Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty...
"Sometimes the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants"
Their meddling and abuse of our Constitution will stop one way or the other... And it's up to us (not them) to decide how it's stopped.
Frank Zappa made an excellent point during the PMRC hearings.. Just google it... it's worth its weight in gold...
I think they might even have the video of it... - Nevrast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Digg the above comment down. To claim that there were no atrocities committed by Serbian forces under Milosovic is absolutely false and makes me question the motives of the above commenter.
What about Srebenicia as the most obvious example?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre - BigKitty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
I lived in Chicago for many years. It was, and is, common for the cops to shoot someone they don't like, then leave a cheap, untraceable "drop gun" on the victim's body so that they can claim that the victim had been threatening them with a firearm.
Another thing they did (and still do) regularly, to silence whistleblowers, is to plant drugs on someone's premises to use as a pretext for arrest, confiscating property, beatings, or worse.
The issue is all about too much government power.
Parental supervision and watchfulness - not the government "nanny state" - is the only efffective way to protect kids from molesters. - raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So every time some spam slips by the comment filter... I need to file paperwork?
- sawyer3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8and god, scratch that...a republican said..."let there be a new world order".
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6As they take away your freedoms one by one, they will do it in the name of fighting crime.
99% of the legislation passed to "prevent child pornography" ends up bundled with all kinds of side effects to add liability to any citizen publisher, encourage regulation and add a chilling effect to freedom of speech.
Child pornography is such a horrible crime that bill's introduced with it as a label are almost undefeatable in congress, because none would dare be caught on record voting against them.
If you think the true purpose of this bill is soley to protect children, then you probably believe the purpose of the patriot act is to preserve freedom and democracy. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6he'll get back to you after cheerleading practice is over....
- rinkjustice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Nevrast
You obviously don't understand what an analogy is.
Analogy [ a·nal·o·gy ]
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3.Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. - geniusj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6*ducks*.. Well, technically there is no exclusion for it in the Constitution. It's the method that it's obtained that of course is the issue. This is where the 'is CG "child porn" illegal' debate comes into play? It's probably not an issue yet, but I'm sure it will be a great debate in the future.
All that said, distribution is still obviously illegal as far as every judge in the country is concerned. Just playing devil's advocate a bit :) - rinkjustice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@flag564 - please inform yourself:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php
http://www.corporations.org/media/ -
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is