Posted on 12/11/2011 5:56:42 AM PST by JerseyHighlander
Good. At least we're on the first to know list.
So, people who own part of a company would be unprotected from gov’t confiscations. No thanks.
bfl
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815035/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815009/posts
The second article discusses it more in detail, it is an amendment to a bill, not a bill like I originally thought. My buddy says the amendment or section is numbered 1031 to the Defense Appropriations bill.
So you are willing to keep the problem alive while fighting the symptoms? If they are stupid enough to place ALL of their personal property and holdings under a corporate name instead of their own I have no sympathy. The old stories and laws indeed allowed for that, but no longer. Personal property and possessions outside of the corporation are not taken in a corporate bankruptcy, however too often we've seen where people have sheltered their ill-gotten gains inside a corporate veil. We need to fix the problem, not fight the symptoms.
Yes, it’s obvious that you don’t care about property rights, and are in fact in favor of an all-powerful state.
I would vote for Son of Sam over Obama at this point. Screw the purist on this site. If we do not get rid of Obama, there will be nothing left to save!
Great post!
If you have a Sams membership card, you're probably already on their list.
If you are a registered Republican or Independent, you're probably already on their list.
If you own more than one gun, or own a dog, you are probably already on their list.
Why worry about FR?
We are probably already on more lists than we care to know.
As against an all-powerful federal government - yes. You have a better chance to change states than to avoid the feds; true? The Founders that wrote the Constitution knew that too, which is why they regulated commerce but did nothing - federally - to regulate corporations; that was left to the States.
Ping for later
Amen brother...the time has come for principle men and women to stand together!
Mike Mathis
I have worked in the classified industries for many years but I still believe that court is not legal. It suspends habeas corpus on mere government request.
While your post appeared on another thread, it is very appropriate and important to bring *this* issue to your attention.
This article actually speaks to your points even better.
I am not a ‘serial pinger’ on FR, but I wanted to share this memo written by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75153093/Tribe-Legis-Memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1
Some excerpts that will be used by political activists to shut down opposing viewpoints and shutdown FR eventually:
• The notice-and-termination procedure of Section 103(a) runs afoul of the “prior
restraint” doctrine, because it delegates to a private party the power to suppress speech without
prior notice and a judicial hearing. This provision of the bill would give complaining parties the
power to stop online advertisers and credit card processors from doing business with a website,
merely by filing a unilateral notice accusing the site of being “dedicated to theft of U.S.
property” – even if no court has actually found any infringement.
(IMAGINE HOW THAT WILL BE ABUSED BY MARXIST AGITPROP ORGANIZERS)
• To compound the problem, SOPA provides that a complaining party can file a notice
alleging that it is harmed by the activities occurring on the site “
or portion thereof
.”
Conceivably, an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a
single page were accused of infringement. Such an approach would create severe practical
problems for sites with substantial user-generated content, such as Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube, and for blogs that allow users to post videos, photos, and other materials.
(IMAGINE HOW THAT WILL BE ABUSED BY MARXIST AGITPROP ORGANIZERS AND MSM NEWSHACKS LOOKING TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES *cough* Chris Parry of The Vancouver Sun *cough*)
• The bill’s harmful impact is aggravated by the fact that the definition of websites
“dedicated to theft of U.S. property” includes sites that take actions to “avoid confirming a high
probability of … use” for infringement. Absence of knowledge of specific infringing acts would
not be a defense. Thus, the definition would effectively require sites actively to police
themselves to ensure that infringement does not occur. In effect, the bill would impose the very
monitoring obligation that existing law (in the form of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of
1998) expressly does
not
require. SOPA would undo the statutory framework that has created
the foundation for many web-based businesses.
(IMAGINE HOW THAT WILL BE ABUSED BY MARXIST AGITPROP ORGANIZERS AND MSM LAWYER HACKS LOOKING TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES and/or to acquire/steal prime URL addresses.)
Please read the whole memo, it’s worth your time.
So that’s where we’re at as a society.
Because "they" the CIS work for the alleged rights of Hollywood and not the inherent Constitutonal rights of American citizens. They'd rather find ways to enforce laws against American citizens than against those of illegal standing who steal the identity of American citizens. Hollywood is a prime supporter of illegal immigration and the anti-gun rights movement and they regularly get special enforcement attention and taxpayer subsidies while American citizens get screwed.
Americans have forgotten one very important point....we are under what “W” designated a Declared State of Emergency and have been since 9-11-01. http://constitutionally.blogspot.com/
Our Constitutional rights were weakened after 9-11 and reaffirmed later by Obama. This is about a government and the political elite of both Parties that enjoy having more power (not less) over the people.
Read about the Declared State of Emergency that was put into effect after 9-11-01 by Bush and the Continuity of Government. We’ll likely have an annual declared terrorist event, just to keep the rationale for the emergency in place. So when those of you want events declared as terrorism, you might wish to think the implications of it. With every such event the power of government grows and the power of the people is reduced.
I have been reading a lot about this law. It would the end of the Internet as we know it.
I have already seen people team up politically and/or socially to make false copyright and community violation complaints against youtubers so they can get their channels closed down. I have seen some that I suspect orginate with politicans and government agencies like TSA and NASA who are offended by critics. Sometimes after you-tube is nagged enough, they will find the charges false and re-instate the channels but advertising income and reputations are lost in the process.
This law will make it too risky to continue community websites.
The copyright lawyers and other copyright special interests have bought the Congress and they are perfectly willing to violate the constitution to guarentee their money flow. How dishonest and disgusting that we even have to deal with a Congress so treasonous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.