Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th May 2011 16:22 UTC
Legal "A new bill backed by movie studios and other large copyright holders takes a novel approach to curbing access to piratical Web sites: an Internet death penalty. That's a good way to describe the approach adopted by the legislation introduced today, which specifies a step-by-step method for making Web sites suspected of infringing copyrights or trademarks vanish from the Internet. It's called the Protect IP Act. The U.S. Department of Justice would receive the power to seek a court order against an allegedly infringing Web site, and then serve that order on search engines, certain Domain Name System providers, and Internet advertising firms - which would in turn be required to 'expeditiously' make the target Web site invisible." ...because the interests of big content are obviously far more important than socialist communist terrorist nonsense like freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, innocent until proven otherwise, and so on. This is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. Honest.
Thread beginning with comment 472986
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not surprising
by Zifre on Fri 13th May 2011 17:59 UTC
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

Yesterday I had a conversation with my father about this type of thing. He told me that the founding fathers probably wouldn't have given us so much freedom if they had access to advanced technology like the internet.

He's pretty liberal by US standards. So when the general population doesn't even believe in freedom, I really am not surprised by this...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Not surprising
by looncraz on Sat 14th May 2011 03:01 in reply to "Not surprising"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Yesterday I had a conversation with my father about this type of thing. He told me that the founding fathers probably wouldn't have given us so much freedom if they had access to advanced technology like the internet.

He's pretty liberal by US standards. So when the general population doesn't even believe in freedom, I really am not surprised by this...


I hate to say but your father doesn't sound to be very versed on the various ideologies of the U.S. founding fathers.


They ranged across the board, naturally, however the winning ideology was that of preventing freedoms in government by enforcing freedoms of the peoples.

This is not the same as it is today, due to the civil war, however. The idea of the times was that each state was independent, but bound in a common cause through a highly restricted union.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of what people can do, it is a list of what the FEDERAL government can / can't do. States are bound by their own constitutions, but not the bill of rights.

This is why elected federal officials are not drug tested: it is illegal for the federal government to perform drug testing. ( Yes, if you are a federal employee, you can try and fight your drug testing - do the research! ).

Business can drug test because they are not bound by these restrictions, though I believe they should.

Anyway, back into the freedom thing...

The idea of enforcing personal liberty was to encourage free thought and expression by creating a perfectly safe environment. If the people have the means to express themselves and explore the truth, they will be more able to function in a democratic process. They will also be more willing to fight to protect those freedoms.

Today we take what we have for granted, and as such are losing what we have had one step at a time. The founding fathers knew this would happen and so did the best they could to create a government which was highly inefficient at passing laws. The consequence was that the nation would be slow to respond to a crises, and so you needed some way to provide quick responses without the negative effects of those decisions being made by a bunch of idiots.

Thus the need for a powerful leader became evident, but was a tough thing to accept given the state of affairs. Finally, it was decided we would have a weak leader most of the time, unable to affect change without going through many layers of red tape, but that the leader would be able to command the Armed Forces at all times, but that the Armed Forces would be separated from the office of the president and permitted to utilize both the judiciary and legislative branches of government to deny the president his orders. Thus an extremely powerful leader, but one with many checks and balances.

The idea then spread to including these checks through-out the government, meaning the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branches could all disagree and fight it out.

The biggest failing point is in the judicial branch, with the Supreme Court. Life-long membership, appointed by the president, with senate confirmation as the only requirement.

Seriously, these should be elected offices. These people have the most power of any people in the government. Nine people hold all the power of the judicial branch and can re-interpret the law virtually however they see fit.

8 years in office, then replace them. Possible to be re-elected twice.

Also need term limits for senators and congressmen. I say allow 12 years total. That is a long time, but we need to stop this career politician crap right now!

Hmm... ramble ramble...

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Not surprising
by rhavyn on Sat 14th May 2011 06:01 in reply to "RE: Not surprising"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

FYI, most of what you've written is factually incorrect. I don't have time to correct everything, but I'll pick a few whoppers...

I hate to say but your father doesn't sound to be very versed on the various ideologies of the U.S. founding fathers.


They ranged across the board, naturally, however the winning ideology was that of preventing freedoms in government by enforcing freedoms of the peoples.

This is not the same as it is today, due to the civil war, however. The idea of the times was that each state was independent, but bound in a common cause through a highly restricted union.


The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution flat out says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." In other words, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it trumps state law. If you'd like specifics directly from the Founding Father's mouths, read the Federalist Papers. James Madison was outspoken of his support for a strong federal government. The Civil War didn't change anything except show that a President was willing to use the full force of the US military to ensure that states lived up to their constitutional obligations. Secession is 100% unconstitutional.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of what people can do, it is a list of what the FEDERAL government can / can't do. States are bound by their own constitutions, but not the bill of rights.


The Incorporation Doctrine, brought about by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has made the Bill of Rights apply to the state governments.

Thus the need for a powerful leader became evident, but was a tough thing to accept given the state of affairs. Finally, it was decided we would have a weak leader most of the time, unable to affect change without going through many layers of red tape, but that the leader would be able to command the Armed Forces at all times, but that the Armed Forces would be separated from the office of the president and permitted to utilize both the judiciary and legislative branches of government to deny the president his orders. Thus an extremely powerful leader, but one with many checks and balances.


The United States Military is fully under the Executive Branch of the Government. The Secretary of Defense is a cabinet level position. The President is the Commander in Chief and the military has, effectively, no ability to disobey his orders. If military leaders don't want to do what the president commands, he is perfectly within his rights to fire and replace them. The only real powers Congress has over the military is budgetary and passing an Act of War (which to be fair are very strong powers, but besides saying you can or can't go to war and how much you can spend, they cannot dictate how the military conducts the war). The Judicial branch has virtually no power over the military, the military even has it's own internal judicial system.

The biggest failing point is in the judicial branch, with the Supreme Court. Life-long membership, appointed by the president, with senate confirmation as the only requirement.

Seriously, these should be elected offices. These people have the most power of any people in the government. Nine people hold all the power of the judicial branch and can re-interpret the law virtually however they see fit.


The Founding Father's did not want to make the Supreme Court disposed to listen to the whims of the people. By making appointments for life, justices can make their own decisions with no fear of losing an election because of a disliked decision.

Reply Parent Score: 4