The problem is to have any kind of serious change not only do you need to reach the American public at large but you also have to convince them to help with said message. Breaking into the media (not the ebul Internet media) is virtually impossible today. No news channel or broadcast have the guts to stand up for what is right. But assuming you could get the message out there to stand up for your rights...

The American public are idiots. They lack critical thinking and the desire to stand up for themselves. For lack of a better word, the vast majority of our population have become cattle. Fat, stupid, and unwilling to think for ourselves.

So if the government comes out and says "OMG! THE INTERNETZ WILL HELP CHINA TAKE UR JOBZ!", the media will pick up "WE MUST REGULATE THE INTERNET TO PROTECT UR JOBZ!" and people will hear that and go "WHAT ABOUT MAH JOBZ?!"

Dramatization, of course.

Excuse me?

I meant the politicians are discussing passing this bill. I didn't mean people concerned about freedom discussing this. The fact that I made a 2nd post after my first ought to have made you understand that much.

A better understanding of context should've made for you to infer what I was talking about, despite my grammar not directly saying it to your liking - even though of course I mentioned those main government forces I feel are behind this.

So that's to say I'm not foolish at all.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

So who here actually read the bill instead of immediately panicking and signing the petition based on the title and someone's word that it's evil? Anyone? Bueller?

Of course. Yeah most every American media (and Cdn, to be fully fair) has lost all credibility with me. It's all bullshit. I mean, I still go on CNN.com to check out what's happening in the world, but I never listen to their opinions or the opininons of the politician's they give air time to. It's much more fullfilling to think for myself, and not digest any lies.

However, I'm convinced that there's alot of people within America's business sector & law enforcement sector, and in Canada's business, political, law enforcement, and military sectors (the latter not indicating of a war, juss intel), that are wise to the games the Obama administration and supporting branches play in their quests for power, subterfuge and dominance, and are working to stop it. I obviously don't have any documented evidence to give you of these things, but the fact that Obama was worried enough that he established his desire for a 2nd term before *ANY* other potential runners declared was enough of an indication to let me know he's not getting his way in things (presidents in office rarely declare their desire for a 2nd term as early as he did).

I also don't believe killing Bin Laden will be a major strong point in his quest for a 2nd term (it'll garner him a good %'age of votes, but not as much as one would expect), especially with oil prices going UP since that killing, when all laws of economics said that oil prices should've went DOWN w/that killing.

Also, the fact that groups such Wikileaks and Anonymous have shown they've the strength and the will to put a dent in the secretive gov't's plans shows that the public have some forces working on their behalf, that previous evil & secretive regimes didn't have to contend with.

We're living in an interesting time, to say the least.

Internet was the only place where forces of old and evil didn't have absolute control, where people could socialize without supervision. And now they are determined to snuff that last bit of actual freedom away.

Lots of good comments here. The main thing this made me think of is that we really need some kind of system where bills can't be reintroduced this quickly. If a bill shares the same intent of a previously rejected bill there should be like a 4 year delay or something.

Also, even if this did pass the Supreme Court would kill it.

I agree with you, I am just saying in the doomsday scenario if this passed somehow the SC would kill it anyway.

Word.

Would they though? It's not like there's anything in the constitution about the Internet...not surprising, it was written a couple of hundred years before :P

Internet can be, and is sometimes, defined as a "media", so would "freedom of the press" really defeat a bill like that? I'm not so sure. Especially once the corporate lobbyists get their claws into them :\

Movies didn't exist in 1776 either but they are still covered by free speech and free expression. If the internet isn't related to freedom of expression then I'm the Queen of England.

As long as you swear life-long obedience.

don't know why you think a bill is needed for this stuff to be done. Various institutions in the US have already taken down or blocked websites from other countries. There was that massive sting operation when loads of sites were labelled as child porn sites (some were, some weren't, all were and still are seized). There was the ruling that a site should be blocked because it was an internet gambling site, and despite the fact it wasn't based in the state, it was still taken down because gambling is wrong there.

Bills make it easier for governments to do what they're already doing. It doesn't mean they won't do it anyway.

very nearly mis-replied to this post because I didn't know what you meant by CP, and thought it was just about gambling. Nearly justified child porn. phew, close one. :)

Ok, I am not justifying child pornography, I am saying that they took down sites which *might* have had child porn on them. There were innocent sites on that list, they are trying to get their domains back, but have not yet managed it.

However there is the more interesting issue you bring up of should the US take down a foreign site because it contains what they consider to be child porn. There is already the dichotomy in UK law that you can sleep with a 16 yr old, but can't film it. What if another country places the age of consent to be involved in such films at 16. Is it right for the US to take the site away from that country?

Same argument for gambling, would it be right for New York to block access to websites in Vegas? Even take them down?

I can definitely see the Supreme Court okaying websites used for illegal acts being taken down if it ever comes before them. I don't think that is what the OP is talking about though really. I thought we were talking about websites being taken down because companies don't like them, or a nationwide firewall like China has. That stuff will never be legal here no matter what Congress tries.

In the area of copyright infringement there are many foreign countries where that is not illegal, and those countries can host websites. The only way to block that as far as I know is that kind of nationwide firewall, which the US will never have. So it's kind of moot, isn't it?

Unless I am missing something. I'm not an internet super genius what-so-ever.

The sites were suspected of containing such content, a lot didn't. This suggests it was more a blanket silencing that occurred. I can't find a link to it, but basically they took down sites that they didn't have any jurisdiction over. Just because they are investigating it (note: no proof), does not mean they can just walk over the internet and destroy what they suspect to be wrong.

I was wrong on the gambling one, it got reversed: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/21/kentucky_land_grab_reversed/

This is not quite what the OP was talking about, but some of America is taking the view that they own the internet, without borders. That worries me, and supports the concerns of the OP.

EDIT: Oh, and it was not the supreme court, it was just law enforcement.

EDIT 2: Damn, I was factually wrong, but have left my comments for my own shame. However there was a seizure without justificaiton: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/18/fed_domain_seizure_slammed/