Say goodbye to freedom as we know it.

Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:01 am by Killa

Maybe you've heard about this. Reciently the Senate passed a law making Internt control okay, which basically means they can control what websites you're allowed to visit, and they're allowed to charge you extra for access to other websites. If the House of Representitives passes this, then it will become law. (Either the House of Rep. or the Senate, but I forget which was involved first, I may have this backwards.)

Is the government just asking for an armed revolt? Are they just daring the citizens to rise up against the recient hypocrocy and tyranny of the United States Federal Government? Thanks to the ****ing PATRIOT Act, they already have the right to arrest you without a warrant, search your house without a warrant and you'd never even know they were there, they can tap your phone calls without a warrant, they can plant bugs on your car which tells them your location/most likely route/closest known address/current speed/which doors are open and can even disable the starter, lock all doors and windows. They're allowed to tap your computer to see what websites you've been visiting (and with this new bill they'll be allowed to control which websites you visit) and on and on. They're trying to make it illegal to keep anything more powerful than a handgun in your house (no rifles, shotguns, or any kind of machine guns), which is a direct violation of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.

We, as United States citizens have the right that if a government becomes tyrannical and opressive, then we have the right to rise up and destroy that government, but how the hell are we supposed to do that with ****ing handguns? How are we supposed to be able to defend our Civil Liberties when our TVs, Internet, and music are censored? They're trying to make it illegal to use any kind of recording device not approved by Hollywood, they're trying to make it illegal to create mixed CDs, and now, make it where you can't visit certian websites.

It's sad, that just in the last few years (mostly since September 11th) we've seen our Civil Liberties that we have as human beings be thrown out the window, disreguarded and destroyed. The rights we have now are rights that our founding fathers fought and died for are just being swept aside and ignored.

This Internet control bill is just one step closer to turning the United States of America into Communist China. It's just like what the Patriots were trying to do in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. I can just see it now. If this keeps up, sometime within the next twenty years there is going to be an armed revolt and the United States government will be destroyed, then another one will be founded that will work perfectly for a while longer before it becomes just like our government is now. I'm not saying a revolt is the answer, but damn it, something has got to be done about this. God, the United States is turning into the freaking Soviet Union or Communist China.

But enough of that rant. I have to go. I'm just curious as to your thoughts on the matter. What would you do if this Internet control bill actually got passed and became law?

Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:58 am by Accushot

I'm not sure I agree with all the points you make there but the Internet Control Bill is certainly a very large step in the wrong direction. It does threaten the whole philosophy of the internet as being the largest free-flowing, uncensored information store in the world; this is heading towards a situation similar to the Great Firewall of China. Although admittedly more extreme in China where websites deemed 'subversive' (i.e. contrary to governmental ideals) are forbidden, censorship is censorship.

You would assume that the US government isn't going to go to those extremes though, and the bill will likely be used to restrict access to websites linked to terrorist organisations and their propogandist messages. Still, it is a serious breach of human rights and I don't see how the opposition haven't pounced on it already.

However, the legislative implications are far more serious. Essentially the supreme court ruled that the internet is an information source (like cable TV) rather than a telecommunication service like the telephone. This is an enormous difference, because it grants the cable companies the right to exclude ISP's from using their pipes and in a nutshell enables them to control the internet. This also opened the door for telephone companies like AT&T to seize control of modem connectivity to the internet, which they took within weeks of the bill being passed. They could now, by charging ISP's an additonal premium for bandwidth, end the reign of the internet as a free information source overnight.

Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:29 am by Killa

The thing I don't get is that even though there may be legal loopholes that allow people to get around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I just don't see how the courts allow things like that to pass. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. If that's the case, then go back to 1950s and 60s America and tell the African-American population that what the government is doing to them is okay because legally it's okay. Two hundred years ago, it was a law that a citizen could own slaves. Did that make it right? Did that one law make it okay to treat another human being that way?

As the title of this topic says, I'm saying goobye to my freedoms and Civil Liberties right now. Goodbye.

Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:14 pm by Cold_Void

this is an issue of payola - republicans supporting the bill called COPE or "Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement" expect a big payoff from teleco's next time they're up for election. Democrats expect their payola to come from microsoft and google.

The only way to make certain they do what we want, is to write to your reps and senators right now, and tell them we don't want a two-lane information highway with access to users based on tolls.

Support the Snowe-Dorgan proposal;
The proposal says network providers would generally not be allowed to "block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair or degrade" access to content or to prevent users from attaching devices of their choosing to the network. Network operators would also be barred from making special deals with content providers to ensure speedier delivery or improved quality of service and would be required to offer all Internet material on an "equivalent" basis.

now, there's no need to run around like a chicken without its head - we have a bicameral legislature which means that any bill from the house or senate must be reconciled first before it passes the entire congress to be signed by the president( seeing as how he's NEVER excercised his veto, count this as having a snowballs chance in hell) - and seeing as how the senate and house couldn't agree on immigration this will probably be similarly delayed - but its important we mobilize here in the US and fight for the Snowe-Dorgan bill

Edited by - Cold_Void on 6/27/2006 2:14:30 PM

Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:29 pm by meezookeewee

I seriously doubt that this bill would pass. Not if the ACLU has anything to say about it. It's election year, that's why these boneheads are doing this. Same deal with banning flag-burning. It's a stupid move and political suicide in my opinion. Not to mention they're going to be pissing a lot of people off. That's not a good idea in an election year.

Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:06 pm by H.Q. Victor

Before this thing even gets off the ground, someone will bring it into court, stopping it why its debated even more that has already been. The likelyhood of it happening, is in the single digets of percentage.

Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:10 pm by topher

Maybe I am too trusting or too optomistic, but I don't see the problem here.

The internet is not free, you always have to pay - some sites you have to pay extra for, like game sites or music sites. These types of limits being proposed are to inhibit certain access to sites for good reasons: sites that have the layout of major buildings(government, sporting venues, malls, etc...), explosive manufacturing, and places like that.

The telephone tapping thing I have no problem with. You might say, "invasion of privacy" but will you ever know? I am not worried about it because I'll never do anything that would get me into trouble like that. Confiscating my computer wouldn't bother me unless they erased the pics of my family that aren't readily replacable. Proxy into my computer wouldn't brother me either - what do I care if the Gov knows where I have been on the internet?

This type of paranoia reminds me of a man that was in line in front of me at a Subway. He was with a younger co-worker of his and they were discussing this and that. When they got up to pay, the younger produced a credit card and the older man said something to the effect of - You're using a card? I'm not, never do. I don't want "the man" to know where I spend my money. - I just don't understand your point of view I guess.

If these things going thru the house and senate are intended to ensure the safety of my family, friends, and country... then I have no reservations about them. I know I cannot protect my family from everything, but those things that I cannot do I expect the laws and officers of such to be able to.

Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:46 pm by Cold_Void

topher, these bills are not about imposing government limits on access to content, and i don't know where you heard such an ignorant thing - they're about shifting the financial burden of upgrading privately owned infrastructure onto third parties, mostly the big internet companies that deliver rich media content.

re: irrelevant comments about privacy
i don't mind the government searching your house or computer either - its mine I'm concerned about. if you want some sort of opt-in warrantless search program that's fine, you just keep your fourth ammendment violations off my property and out of my life.

re: content access
its not paranoia to people in china, who can't access information the government doesn't want them to - like pro-democracy sites, political texts, and other dangerous revolutionary materials. your willingness to give away your freedom in the face of so much oppression around the world fills me with dread for our future - i only hope you were being facetious

the best source of information on net neutrality and other relevant electronic communications issues in the US is without a doubt EFF.org

Edited by - Cold_Void on 6/27/2006 7:01:13 PM

Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:25 pm by J Dawg

Surprising that I haven't heard of this yet... Before I take a stand, I'd like to read the bill or a general synopsis first...

Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:42 pm by Killa

EDIT: J Dawg, you don't really need to. If this thing actually does pass, then it will be up to your ISP wether or not you will be allowed to visit certian sites, and you pretty much will have no freedoms left when it comes to the Internet.

Yes, I went to EFF this afternoon right before I posted this. They have a funny little animation there called The Corruptables.

Tropher, if you don't mind the government invading your privacy, then that's fine. But if you surrender certian freedoms in a time of crisis, you'll never get them back. What you said about the sites charging for additional content, well, that is the site's right, not the ISPs right. Think about the Great Firewall of China.

The fact of the matter is this; they claim to be doing this to root out terrorists, but have they done it? The government is run by a bunch of money-grabbing dickwabs that only care about the upper class. I don't hate America, but I sure as hell hate what America is turning into. What America is becoming is exactly the thing that our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to prevent. They wrote it to make sure that the citizens have the final word, to make sure that they won't have to suffer from tyranny and opression, and that if they do, then they have the right to rise up and destroy it.

You want to say that they actually care about us? Just prior to September 11th, Bush was on vacation on his stupid little ranch in Texas (big suprise there) when the CIA gave him word that Bin Laden had threatned to attack the US very soon by hijacking airplanes. What did he do? What did the CIA do? Nothing. Then it happened, and over three thousand American citizens were killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Now, they say they want to protect America by prohibiting the use of TiVos and DVRs that aren't approved by Hollywood, and by arresting citizens without a warrant, searching their homes, tapping their computers, etc. What good has it done? How many terrorists have been brought to justice because of that? There is no such thing as freedom anymore, and it's only getting worse. The government is trying to gain tighter control to prevent an uprising, because they know they've backed themselves into a corner and are just trying to protect themselves. They know that citizens already have enough of a reason to revolt, and they're trying to stop it.

Some of you disagree, this I already know. But this is the way I see the world, and either way you look at it, it sucks. We don't want America turning into China or the Middle East, but thanks to our government, which is supposed to be the fairest and most concious about human rights, it is.

Edited by - Killa on 6/27/2006 8:44:24 PM

Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:45 am by TerraN

As Benjamin Franklin once said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

the U.S.A. used the country of freedom and liberty, was supposed to be an example to all...
What the goverment should have done after 9-11 was to ensure the civil rights and liberties and show the world and the terrorists that, thatever they do, they could not hope to destroy freedom or liberty...

Instead, the goverment is now doing EXACTLY what those terrorist want: destroying the freedom and liberty in the US, bit by bit, restriction by restriction. This is just one more example in a list of many... Guantanamo Bay, those "Torture flights" about wich more and more evidence piles up, US marines murdering villages full of innocent civilians, or even the description of captured people as "unlawful combattants", a term only invented so they fall outside the Geneva Convention considering prisoners of war, so that they can do with them whatever they want...

The Internet is a source of information, a place that anyone and overyone should be able to visit. Restricting this or certain areas would definately be in violation of people's freedom. For the reasons Cold_Void and meezookeewee already mentioned I don't think (hope!) this bill will pass, but the very fact that this bill exists in the first place is bad!

U.S.A., the country of freedom? not anymore I fear... or atleast not for long if this keeps up. -_-

Edited by - TerraN on 6/28/2006 5:13:53 AM

Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:57 am by H.Q. Victor

This topic is borderline politics. Please stay away from current events that are flamable material please, or a hardware device may be used

Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:27 am by topher

Ok, I see your point Killa, with help from TerraN.

If we relinquish control of things then we are very unlikely to get that control back. A better solution would be preferable. I still worry about the safety of my wife and Future children... probably always will. That is one of the only reasons that I worry. If I could find a carrier that provided for my family the way it does now, one that I could move to Wyoming and do, I would. I don't like living near huge metropolitain areas because of 9/11 - that really messed up my view of our safety in this country.

I appoligize if I heated up the discussion anymore than it was.

So, on that note... What do you feel would be a better solution to this problem we are facing? Maybe we can all write our Senators and Representatives with another option.

Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:55 am by Killa

Better solution? Veto it. Get the president to veto the bill (which is very unlikely because Bush does whatever Rumsfeld and Dickhed Cheney tells him to do.) This bill is a serous violation of rights, but do they care? Of course not. I suppose after the Great Depression is when things really started going downhill in this country, but after 9/11, well, you get the point. The balance of power has shifted too far towards the government and away from the people, and it's only getting worse.

Although it doesn't cover this new bill, watch Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t episode on Big Brother. It will give you more information.

And as TerraN said, hopefully it won't pass, hell, it probably won't. But it's almost scary to know that a bill like that can even exist in the United States of America. I completly agree with TerraN, and I can't really express my views anymore without repeating exactly what he said.

@FD: Please, even though this topic is turning into current politics, don't lock it. No one is being flamed, no one is flaming, and no one is argueing. It's more of a discussion or a debate, not a fight. If it does degrade to that, then please, I'm asking you to lock it by all means. But if not, please leave it open, it's not hurting anyone and the truth must be heard. Not to mention, you can't really discuss the bill without bringing up current politics anyway.

Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:00 am by topher

No, I meant a better solution to the problems that this bill is somewhat adressing, i.e. routing terrorist cells out of America.

How can the Gov do this more effectively? What kind of things can we come up with and then pass along to our Senators and Representatives?

Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.

To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport