Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Ron Paul Slams SOPA
Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 01/02/12 12:09 AM
No, they didn't. Now doing it is legal.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/02/12 12:10 AM Edited by msharmony on Mon 01/02/12 12:11 AM
actually, they did under the AUMF

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Mon 01/02/12 12:16 AM Edited by Kleisto on Mon 01/02/12 12:17 AM
This is why income tax stayed with us. Not because stupid congressmen wanted us to fork over our hard earned dollars to them to satisfy their selfish greedy needs. That too, sure, but most of the income tax money is spent on other things. Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The income tax money goes right to the debt, Ronald Reagan even said that. It isn't spent on anything else. so, they take your income tax and put it in a seperate pot JUST to be spent on debt? interesting,,,, That's pretty much it, look here: http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/msg/3a3764aa8d4c5e22 You'll need a google account to open it, but if you can't, here's the most important part that verifies what I have stated: ""100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government." -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984 " If you cared to investigate further, you'll find that each year a great deal of money the government receives somehow goes unaccounted for, numbering in the millions at least. Now why do you think that'd be? Well when they're pulling something like this with our tax money, the answer becomes pretty clear I'd say. As they say, follow the money.

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Mon 01/02/12 12:19 AM Edited by Kleisto on Mon 01/02/12 12:21 AM
SOPA Will Restrict Non-Infringing Online Content o Attorney General Actions Under SOPA, the Attorney General would identify an internet site that is „committing or facilitating the commission‟ of an online copyright infringement. 2 Once established, the Attorney General would have authority to serve the court order affirming the infringement upon any internet service provider (ISP), search engine, payment network provider, or internet advertising service. The ISP would be obliged to prevent access by its subscribers to the infringing site. The search engine would be compelled to prevent the infringing site from „being served as a direct hypertext link‟. The payment network provider would have to suspend payment transactions involving the infringing site. The internet advertising service would be barred from providing ads for the infringing site. 3 Such orders might be acceptable if they only affected infringing content. But a site with infringing content almost always has a wealth of noninfringing content as well. By contemplating an order that effectively bars others from gaining access to both infringing and non-infringing content, the proposed statute goes beyond appropriate First Amendment free speech protections so, if I have a pawn shop with stolen goods, its an infringment for the law to shut it down because it bars access to the goods which might not be stolen as well? ,,.,,makes sense to me,,, if you break the laws, you get shut down customers should seek services and goods from those with no history of breaking the laws,,,,,, pretty good deterrent,,,, If that's how you're gonna look at it, you may as well kiss the internet as you know it goodbye. If this were to go through, it will never be the same again. And you'd better not complain if it isn't what you thought it'd be either, cause you wanted it. Careful what you wish for Msharmony, you might just get it.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 01/02/12 12:20 AM
actually, they did under the AUMF I don't know what that is, but apparently they felt they needed to cover some more bases with the Patriot act and that new bill. When the sheet hits the fan, they will have the law (their corporate rules) on their side.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 01/02/12 12:25 AM
SOPA Will Restrict Non-Infringing Online Content o Attorney General Actions Under SOPA, the Attorney General would identify an internet site that is „committing or facilitating the commission‟ of an online copyright infringement. 2 Once established, the Attorney General would have authority to serve the court order affirming the infringement upon any internet service provider (ISP), search engine, payment network provider, or internet advertising service. The ISP would be obliged to prevent access by its subscribers to the infringing site. The search engine would be compelled to prevent the infringing site from „being served as a direct hypertext link‟. The payment network provider would have to suspend payment transactions involving the infringing site. The internet advertising service would be barred from providing ads for the infringing site. 3 Such orders might be acceptable if they only affected infringing content. But a site with infringing content almost always has a wealth of noninfringing content as well. By contemplating an order that effectively bars others from gaining access to both infringing and non-infringing content, the proposed statute goes beyond appropriate First Amendment free speech protections so, if I have a pawn shop with stolen goods, its an infringment for the law to shut it down because it bars access to the goods which might not be stolen as well? ,,.,,makes sense to me,,, if you break the laws, you get shut down customers should seek services and goods from those with no history of breaking the laws,,,,,, pretty good deterrent,,,, Msharmony don't be such a company slave. Laws are not really laws, they are corporate rules and regulations. When the government slips in things like the Patriot act and these other bills, and they bribe and threaten congress to pass them, and we loose our personal rights and freedoms, those are not "laws." They are B.S.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/02/12 12:26 AM
This is why income tax stayed with us. Not because stupid congressmen wanted us to fork over our hard earned dollars to them to satisfy their selfish greedy needs. That too, sure, but most of the income tax money is spent on other things. Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The income tax money goes right to the debt, Ronald Reagan even said that. It isn't spent on anything else. so, they take your income tax and put it in a seperate pot JUST to be spent on debt? interesting,,,, That's pretty much it, look here: http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/msg/3a3764aa8d4c5e22 You'll need a google account to open it, but if you can't, here's the most important part that verifies what I have stated: ""100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government." -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984 " If you cared to investigate further, you'll find that each year a great deal of money the government receives somehow goes unaccounted for, numbering in the millions at least. Now why do you think that'd be? Well when they're pulling something like this with our tax money, the answer becomes pretty clear I'd say. As they say, follow the money. Id say, that would be because they are as human as the civilians they represent, who Im sure cant account for 100 percent of every penny they spend either,,, and I do research further http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/debt.htm

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 01/02/12 12:33 AM
I just watched a documentary about debt and how crooked and unethical the credit card companies are and they are often cheaters and crooks. They are adding to the personal debt of millions of people. The banksters are stealing people's homes with foreclosures etc. They are thieves. Shut them down.

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Mon 01/02/12 12:34 AM
This is why income tax stayed with us. Not because stupid congressmen wanted us to fork over our hard earned dollars to them to satisfy their selfish greedy needs. That too, sure, but most of the income tax money is spent on other things. Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The income tax money goes right to the debt, Ronald Reagan even said that. It isn't spent on anything else. so, they take your income tax and put it in a seperate pot JUST to be spent on debt? interesting,,,, That's pretty much it, look here: http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/msg/3a3764aa8d4c5e22 You'll need a google account to open it, but if you can't, here's the most important part that verifies what I have stated: ""100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government." -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984 " If you cared to investigate further, you'll find that each year a great deal of money the government receives somehow goes unaccounted for, numbering in the millions at least. Now why do you think that'd be? Well when they're pulling something like this with our tax money, the answer becomes pretty clear I'd say. As they say, follow the money. Id say, that would be because they are as human as the civilians they represent, who Im sure cant account for 100 percent of every penny they spend either,,, and I do research further http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/debt.htm Number one, don't you find a little bit funny that we're expected to be completely forthright about every last penny we make each year, with very little leeway at all, yet for them it's somehow ok to be MILLIONS of dollars short each year? What's that word.......hypocritical? As for the link, that pretty much reads as a propaganda piece trying to make people who think like this look bad, and considering the source I'm not too surprised. I don't find it very credible.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 01/02/12 12:36 AM
Yeh and in government, and corporations, billions of dollars just vanish. Nobody knows where it went. That is unexceptionable.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/02/12 12:39 AM
SOPA Will Restrict Non-Infringing Online Content o Attorney General Actions Under SOPA, the Attorney General would identify an internet site that is „committing or facilitating the commission‟ of an online copyright infringement. 2 Once established, the Attorney General would have authority to serve the court order affirming the infringement upon any internet service provider (ISP), search engine, payment network provider, or internet advertising service. The ISP would be obliged to prevent access by its subscribers to the infringing site. The search engine would be compelled to prevent the infringing site from „being served as a direct hypertext link‟. The payment network provider would have to suspend payment transactions involving the infringing site. The internet advertising service would be barred from providing ads for the infringing site. 3 Such orders might be acceptable if they only affected infringing content. But a site with infringing content almost always has a wealth of noninfringing content as well. By contemplating an order that effectively bars others from gaining access to both infringing and non-infringing content, the proposed statute goes beyond appropriate First Amendment free speech protections so, if I have a pawn shop with stolen goods, its an infringment for the law to shut it down because it bars access to the goods which might not be stolen as well? ,,.,,makes sense to me,,, if you break the laws, you get shut down customers should seek services and goods from those with no history of breaking the laws,,,,,, pretty good deterrent,,,, If that's how you're gonna look at it, you may as well kiss the internet as you know it goodbye. If this were to go through, it will never be the same again. And you'd better not complain if it isn't what you thought it'd be either, cause you wanted it. Careful what you wish for Msharmony, you might just get it. as an author and a lyricist and an artist, I am very aware of what Im 'asking for', the internet is able to be abused like any other medium and needs regulations and laws in place to handle those times when thefts occur,,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/02/12 12:44 AM
This is why income tax stayed with us. Not because stupid congressmen wanted us to fork over our hard earned dollars to them to satisfy their selfish greedy needs. That too, sure, but most of the income tax money is spent on other things. Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The income tax money goes right to the debt, Ronald Reagan even said that. It isn't spent on anything else. so, they take your income tax and put it in a seperate pot JUST to be spent on debt? interesting,,,, That's pretty much it, look here: http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/msg/3a3764aa8d4c5e22 You'll need a google account to open it, but if you can't, here's the most important part that verifies what I have stated: ""100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government." -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984 " If you cared to investigate further, you'll find that each year a great deal of money the government receives somehow goes unaccounted for, numbering in the millions at least. Now why do you think that'd be? Well when they're pulling something like this with our tax money, the answer becomes pretty clear I'd say. As they say, follow the money. Id say, that would be because they are as human as the civilians they represent, who Im sure cant account for 100 percent of every penny they spend either,,, and I do research further http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/debt.htm Number one, don't you find a little bit funny that we're expected to be completely forthright about every last penny we make each year, with very little leeway at all, yet for them it's somehow ok to be MILLIONS of dollars short each year? What's that word.......hypocritical? As for the link, that pretty much reads as a propaganda piece trying to make people who think like this look bad, and considering the source I'm not too surprised. I don't find it very credible. I , likewise, dont find the source very credible due to apparent bias and subsequent reports by the departments it criticized,,, "President Reagan created the Grace Commission to find areas where the income taxes collected by the U.S. Federal Government were wasted or misused by the departments or agencies to which they were awarded"http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-grace-commission.htm

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 01/02/12 12:45 AM
msharmony you don't understand what the current excuse is that they are using to shut down a website. It is not about any "law." Its about what is normally a "tort" and involves copyright violation. If I as an artist, found someone who was using my artwork on something to sell and make money on without my permission, I have to sue them. Even then, I would have to have that art registered in order to file a law suit. And what they are doing, is shutting down websites that have just been accused of copyright violation which is b.S. and just wrong. It is not "legal." It is a violation of the right to free speech.

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Mon 01/02/12 12:47 AM
SOPA Will Restrict Non-Infringing Online Content o Attorney General Actions Under SOPA, the Attorney General would identify an internet site that is „committing or facilitating the commission‟ of an online copyright infringement. 2 Once established, the Attorney General would have authority to serve the court order affirming the infringement upon any internet service provider (ISP), search engine, payment network provider, or internet advertising service. The ISP would be obliged to prevent access by its subscribers to the infringing site. The search engine would be compelled to prevent the infringing site from „being served as a direct hypertext link‟. The payment network provider would have to suspend payment transactions involving the infringing site. The internet advertising service would be barred from providing ads for the infringing site. 3 Such orders might be acceptable if they only affected infringing content. But a site with infringing content almost always has a wealth of noninfringing content as well. By contemplating an order that effectively bars others from gaining access to both infringing and non-infringing content, the proposed statute goes beyond appropriate First Amendment free speech protections so, if I have a pawn shop with stolen goods, its an infringment for the law to shut it down because it bars access to the goods which might not be stolen as well? ,,.,,makes sense to me,,, if you break the laws, you get shut down customers should seek services and goods from those with no history of breaking the laws,,,,,, pretty good deterrent,,,, If that's how you're gonna look at it, you may as well kiss the internet as you know it goodbye. If this were to go through, it will never be the same again. And you'd better not complain if it isn't what you thought it'd be either, cause you wanted it. Careful what you wish for Msharmony, you might just get it. as an author and a lyricist and an artist, I am very aware of what Im 'asking for', the internet is able to be abused like any other medium and needs regulations and laws in place to handle those times when thefts occur,,,, Then say goodbye to any freedom of speech we still have on the net, cause once the government has a say over it, it's going bye bye. That's the big reason they wanna control it, it's the one place they can't block the truth. They can try, they can censor and take down and in fact have, but they still can't totally control the flow of information like they can with other media forms. It is a threat to their power. Maybe you wanna go back in the dark ages where they tell you what the news is with nothing to go against it, but not me. Like I said, careful what you wish for.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/02/12 12:47 AM
msharmony you don't understand what the current excuse is that they are using to shut down a website. It is not about any "law." Its about what is normally a "tort" and involves copyright violation. If I as an artist, found someone who was using my artwork on something to sell and make money on without my permission, I have to sue them. Even then, I would have to have that art registered in order to file a law suit. And what they are doing, is shutting down websites that have just been accused of copyright violation which is b.S. and just wrong. It is not "legal." It is a violation of the right to free speech. I found nothing in the text of the bill authorizing websites shut down for just being 'accused' of a violation,,

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Mon 01/02/12 12:49 AM
This is why income tax stayed with us. Not because stupid congressmen wanted us to fork over our hard earned dollars to them to satisfy their selfish greedy needs. That too, sure, but most of the income tax money is spent on other things. Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The income tax money goes right to the debt, Ronald Reagan even said that. It isn't spent on anything else. so, they take your income tax and put it in a seperate pot JUST to be spent on debt? interesting,,,, That's pretty much it, look here: http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/msg/3a3764aa8d4c5e22 You'll need a google account to open it, but if you can't, here's the most important part that verifies what I have stated: ""100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government." -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984 " If you cared to investigate further, you'll find that each year a great deal of money the government receives somehow goes unaccounted for, numbering in the millions at least. Now why do you think that'd be? Well when they're pulling something like this with our tax money, the answer becomes pretty clear I'd say. As they say, follow the money. Id say, that would be because they are as human as the civilians they represent, who Im sure cant account for 100 percent of every penny they spend either,,, and I do research further http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/debt.htm Number one, don't you find a little bit funny that we're expected to be completely forthright about every last penny we make each year, with very little leeway at all, yet for them it's somehow ok to be MILLIONS of dollars short each year? What's that word.......hypocritical? As for the link, that pretty much reads as a propaganda piece trying to make people who think like this look bad, and considering the source I'm not too surprised. I don't find it very credible. I , likewise, dont find the source very credible due to apparent bias and subsequent reports by the departments it criticized,,, "President Reagan created the Grace Commission to find areas where the income taxes collected by the U.S. Federal Government were wasted or misused by the departments or agencies to which they were awarded"http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-grace-commission.htm Of course they're gonna deny, they're not stupid Msharmony. If it was the truth, do you think they'd dare admit it? It would destroy any credibility they have with the people then, you think they'd be that foolish to jeopardize that?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/02/12 12:51 AM Edited by msharmony on Mon 01/02/12 12:52 AM
SOPA Will Restrict Non-Infringing Online Content o Attorney General Actions Under SOPA, the Attorney General would identify an internet site that is „committing or facilitating the commission‟ of an online copyright infringement. 2 Once established, the Attorney General would have authority to serve the court order affirming the infringement upon any internet service provider (ISP), search engine, payment network provider, or internet advertising service. The ISP would be obliged to prevent access by its subscribers to the infringing site. The search engine would be compelled to prevent the infringing site from „being served as a direct hypertext link‟. The payment network provider would have to suspend payment transactions involving the infringing site. The internet advertising service would be barred from providing ads for the infringing site. 3 Such orders might be acceptable if they only affected infringing content. But a site with infringing content almost always has a wealth of noninfringing content as well. By contemplating an order that effectively bars others from gaining access to both infringing and non-infringing content, the proposed statute goes beyond appropriate First Amendment free speech protections so, if I have a pawn shop with stolen goods, its an infringment for the law to shut it down because it bars access to the goods which might not be stolen as well? ,,.,,makes sense to me,,, if you break the laws, you get shut down customers should seek services and goods from those with no history of breaking the laws,,,,,, pretty good deterrent,,,, If that's how you're gonna look at it, you may as well kiss the internet as you know it goodbye. If this were to go through, it will never be the same again. And you'd better not complain if it isn't what you thought it'd be either, cause you wanted it. Careful what you wish for Msharmony, you might just get it. as an author and a lyricist and an artist, I am very aware of what Im 'asking for', the internet is able to be abused like any other medium and needs regulations and laws in place to handle those times when thefts occur,,,, Then say goodbye to any freedom of speech we still have on the net, cause once the government has a say over it, it's going bye bye. That's the big reason they wanna control it, it's the one place they can't block the truth. They can try, they can censor and take down and in fact have, but they still can't totally control the flow of information like they can with other media forms. It is a threat to their power. Maybe you wanna go back in the dark ages where they tell you what the news is with nothing to go against it, but not me. Like I said, careful what you wish for. guess what, I was alive when we didnt even HAVE access to internet, when it was just a government privilege and creation so I think Id survive IF it came to that I dont know if access to so much MISINFORMATION is any less harmful or undesirable than the access to edited information to be honest, but I somehow dont think anything new happened in the last four years to believe that it will come to that I didnt consider pre internet days as dark ages at all, but then I dont think private citizens or corporations or state government is any less likely to corrupt or abuse than the federal government is

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 01/02/12 12:58 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 01/02/12 12:59 AM
msharmony you don't understand what the current excuse is that they are using to shut down a website. It is not about any "law." Its about what is normally a "tort" and involves copyright violation. If I as an artist, found someone who was using my artwork on something to sell and make money on without my permission, I have to sue them. Even then, I would have to have that art registered in order to file a law suit. And what they are doing, is shutting down websites that have just been accused of copyright violation which is b.S. and just wrong. It is not "legal." It is a violation of the right to free speech. I found nothing in the text of the bill authorizing websites shut down for just being 'accused' of a violation,, Of course you didn't. You know, they don't word things in such a way that they confess what they are really doing.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 01/02/12 01:00 AM
This is why income tax stayed with us. Not because stupid congressmen wanted us to fork over our hard earned dollars to them to satisfy their selfish greedy needs. That too, sure, but most of the income tax money is spent on other things. Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The income tax money goes right to the debt, Ronald Reagan even said that. It isn't spent on anything else. so, they take your income tax and put it in a seperate pot JUST to be spent on debt? interesting,,,, That's pretty much it, look here: http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/msg/3a3764aa8d4c5e22 You'll need a google account to open it, but if you can't, here's the most important part that verifies what I have stated: ""100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government." -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984 " If you cared to investigate further, you'll find that each year a great deal of money the government receives somehow goes unaccounted for, numbering in the millions at least. Now why do you think that'd be? Well when they're pulling something like this with our tax money, the answer becomes pretty clear I'd say. As they say, follow the money. Id say, that would be because they are as human as the civilians they represent, who Im sure cant account for 100 percent of every penny they spend either,,, and I do research further http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/debt.htm Number one, don't you find a little bit funny that we're expected to be completely forthright about every last penny we make each year, with very little leeway at all, yet for them it's somehow ok to be MILLIONS of dollars short each year? What's that word.......hypocritical? As for the link, that pretty much reads as a propaganda piece trying to make people who think like this look bad, and considering the source I'm not too surprised. I don't find it very credible. I , likewise, dont find the source very credible due to apparent bias and subsequent reports by the departments it criticized,,, "President Reagan created the Grace Commission to find areas where the income taxes collected by the U.S. Federal Government were wasted or misused by the departments or agencies to which they were awarded"http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-grace-commission.htm Of course they're gonna deny, they're not stupid Msharmony. If it was the truth, do you think they'd dare admit it? It would destroy any credibility they have with the people then, you think they'd be that foolish to jeopardize that? or perhaps, the commission was gonna exaggerate, if they didnt, would they be able to get people panicked enough to support Raegans minimalist ideals? its possible both ways, I believe the preponderance of evidence, you can believe the isolated reports,,,

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Mon 01/02/12 01:00 AM
SOPA Will Restrict Non-Infringing Online Content o Attorney General Actions Under SOPA, the Attorney General would identify an internet site that is „committing or facilitating the commission‟ of an online copyright infringement. 2 Once established, the Attorney General would have authority to serve the court order affirming the infringement upon any internet service provider (ISP), search engine, payment network provider, or internet advertising service. The ISP would be obliged to prevent access by its subscribers to the infringing site. The search engine would be compelled to prevent the infringing site from „being served as a direct hypertext link‟. The payment network provider would have to suspend payment transactions involving the infringing site. The internet advertising service would be barred from providing ads for the infringing site. 3 Such orders might be acceptable if they only affected infringing content. But a site with infringing content almost always has a wealth of noninfringing content as well. By contemplating an order that effectively bars others from gaining access to both infringing and non-infringing content, the proposed statute goes beyond appropriate First Amendment free speech protections so, if I have a pawn shop with stolen goods, its an infringment for the law to shut it down because it bars access to the goods which might not be stolen as well? ,,.,,makes sense to me,,, if you break the laws, you get shut down customers should seek services and goods from those with no history of breaking the laws,,,,,, pretty good deterrent,,,, If that's how you're gonna look at it, you may as well kiss the internet as you know it goodbye. If this were to go through, it will never be the same again. And you'd better not complain if it isn't what you thought it'd be either, cause you wanted it. Careful what you wish for Msharmony, you might just get it. as an author and a lyricist and an artist, I am very aware of what Im 'asking for', the internet is able to be abused like any other medium and needs regulations and laws in place to handle those times when thefts occur,,,, Then say goodbye to any freedom of speech we still have on the net, cause once the government has a say over it, it's going bye bye. That's the big reason they wanna control it, it's the one place they can't block the truth. They can try, they can censor and take down and in fact have, but they still can't totally control the flow of information like they can with other media forms. It is a threat to their power. Maybe you wanna go back in the dark ages where they tell you what the news is with nothing to go against it, but not me. Like I said, careful what you wish for. guess what, I was alive when we didnt even HAVE access to internet, when it was just a government privilege and creation so I think Id survive IF it came to that I dont know if access to so much MISINFORMATION is any less harmful or undesirable than the access to edited information to be honest, but I somehow dont think anything new happened in the last four years to believe that it will come to that Firstly, my point wasn't about survival, it was about what is best for the people, and the people deserve the truth, the ENTIRE truth, not a mix-mash of lies, half truths and government propaganda carefully selected and edited before being served to the people. If the internet falls back to the government, this is what you will have. If you want them to be able to tell you what the news is, and in effect be at their mercy, fine by all means go for it, but I'll take freedom of speech and sorting things out on my own any day of the week thank you. As for the last part of your statement, there's a lot of things you wouldn't have thought they'd do over the years, but guess what? They've done it. Why? I can sum it in one word, apathy. It's time we wake up out of our stupors and realize what they have been doing to us slowly over the years, so slow we haven't even noticed. Because if we don't, it will all be gone soon.