Patrick.net

Please Post Links To Forbidden Websites, To Honor Our Fallen Soldiers

By Patrick   Follow   Mon, 28 May 2012, 7:08pm   3,153 views   22 comments
In Menlo Park CA 94025   Watch (2)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

For Memorial Day, let's see whether the first amendment is still honored in America, or whether it can be violated at will by corporations and the government. Did all our soldiers die in vain?

Please post links to censored sites that you want to discuss. Just links to sites to see if we can discuss them without being shut down merely for exercising our right to free speech. I think exercise of free speech should be the main event every Memorial Day!

A little reminder to our corporate/government friends:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'll go first: http://thepiratebay.se/ is a very interesting site, since they really do allow complete freedom to share any file you want on the internet, via Bittorrent. The Swedes have real freedom of speech. Do we? I suspect we do not.

Here are some other live links that Google censors because they don't think free speech is really worth fighting for:

http://filestube.com/

http://torrentz.eu/

http://4shared.com/

http://zippyshare.com/

http://kat.ph/

Got those from http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-infringing-link-removal/

Most Liked Comments

1. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,188 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

   1   5:08pm Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Kevin says Equating anti piracy efforts with censorship is just as bad as the people who equate piracy with theft. When anti-piracy efforts openly violate the first amendment, they are definitely censorship. A link is simply a pointer to information, it is not in itself infringing anything. To forbid even saying where some information is is definitely "abridging the freedom of speech".

2. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   2   8:00am Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Silly Patrick. Don't you know that Speech = Money? You're only allowed to "speak" (buy politicians) if you have sufficient net worth to do so.

3. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 52 threads 2,639 comments Premium

   3   9:14am Thu 31 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Dan8267 says Think about all the cultural exchange that was loss because of U.S. forbidding travel to Cuba. Think about the social and political progress that could have been made in Cuba if Americans were allowed to travel to Cuba and trade with Cuba this past half-century. Not to mention the total futility. Cuba trades with everyone BUT us. They can import everything from anywhere, so it doesn't do jack. They also get plenty of European and South American tourism. The ban on visiting Cuba is 100% whinebag ex-top 1% exiles. Note, they made a proviso that THEY can visit Cuba. Isn't it discrimination to say that only people with Cuban family members can visit a country, but other citizens can't?

4. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,188 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

   4   7:44pm Mon 28 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   On a related note, aren't National Security Letters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letters amazingly similar to the worst abuses of freedom of speech by the Soviets? National Security Letters require no probable cause and no judge to sign a warrant. They just require someone in the government to secretly decide that YOU must SHUT UP, RIGHT NOW or you will go to prison. Or maybe you'll even just disappear.

5. rubyrae Follow Befriend (1) 39 comments

   5   7:27am Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   How about the lawsuits over Direct TVs ad skipping DVR. There are no laws saying that we have to be forced to watch advertisements. This lawsuit should not even be allowed in the courtroom. http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/25/technology/dish-auto-hop-lawsuit/index.htm People need to understand there is a great deal of subliminal messaging going on, not only during commercials but also during scheduled programs. On youtube a woman caught the KILL being flashed on a major news network??? She accidentally caught it on her cell phone while taking a photo. The word flashed backwards, you have to understand how the brain works to see this was not an accident. Very disturbing to say the least. Cut and paste the link below to see the clip. &feature=related

6. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 52 threads 2,639 comments Premium

   6   11:29am Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   wthrfrk80 says Silly Patrick. Don't you know that Speech = Money? You're only allowed to "speak" (buy politicians) if you have sufficient net worth to do so. "I paid for this microphone..."

7. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   7   12:35pm Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   http://wikileaks.ch/

8. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   8   12:37pm Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   http://www.cubagob.cu/

9. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,188 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

   9   2:09pm Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Dan8267 says http://www.cubagob.cu/ Very interesting! I'd like to know what the government of Cuba actually says, instead of relying on what the US government says the Cuban government says. Unfortunately, their English version says "Under Construction" and Google translate fails to translate the Spanish version to English. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cubagob.cu%2F Wait, now it works. Weird.

10. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,188 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

    10   2:20pm Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   rubyrae says How about the lawsuits over Direct TVs ad skipping DVR. There are no laws saying that we have to be forced to watch advertisements. This lawsuit should not even be allowed in the courtroom. I agree, you should definitely be able to skip whatever you want if you own the device. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-broadcasters-sue-dish-for-commercial-skipping-dvr-20120524,0,1779831.story This is similar to the problem with "User Operation Prohibitions" (UOPs) that are built into DVD players, to prevent you from skipping the bogus FBI warning that the FBI does not put there. There was also a case where a Mormon video rental company was renting videotapes with certain scenes deleted. They were prohibited by law from doing that, even though that was exactly what their customers wanted. I'm with the Mormons on that one.

11. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    11   2:36pm Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Patrick says Very interesting! I never thought the U.S. government should even have the power to deny people the right to visit Cuba. That's Unamerican. The very foundation of our society is free speech and interacting with other people, and you can't do that when the government throws a wall between you and others. Think about all the cultural exchange that was loss because of U.S. forbidding travel to Cuba. Think about the social and political progress that could have been made in Cuba if Americans were allowed to travel to Cuba and trade with Cuba this past half-century. And think about the utter hypocrisy that we can't while we can trade with, travel to, and hire people in China. And the hypocrisy that the U.S. did nothing to stop the genocides in Darfur, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Syria. And yet, somehow we're opposing this evil dictator in Cuba. The evil dictator in Libya that was recently killed we were ok with because we put him in power. Oh, and if money is speech like the Supreme Court said in Citizens United then isn't my right to purchase ads and goods in Cuba protected by the First Amendment? Complete hypocrisy.

12. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    12   3:20pm Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Patrick says There was also a case where a Mormon video rental company was renting videotapes with certain scenes deleted. They were prohibited by law from doing that, even though that was exactly what their customers wanted. I'm with the Mormons on that one. Many years ago I was in Cairo and went out to see "American Beauty". The move gets a little racy, and having already seen it in the US, I could tell it had certain scenes that were edited out. If you had seen it perhaps you remember near the end Kevin Spacey's character has a moment of redemption where he chooses not to have sex with a teenage girl. Funny thing is that the Egyptian version had the sex cut out, and it was during a sex scene that his character was redeemed. So, Kevin Spacey's character seemed like a huge scumbag in the Egyptian movie because the scene cuts as the sex starts then jumps to them hanging out after implying that they did actually have sex. Yes, the what the mormon company was doing sounds benign, but I think that it is unethical and should be illegal to twist the content and message of the work of another so that it "fits" with and "approved" -- by the state/religion/or anyone's -- world view.

13. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,188 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

    13   3:27pm Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Maybe representing the edited work as the original is unethical, but I disagree that it should be illegal, assuming the viewers know about it. The work should perhaps just be required to prominently say "Altered, scenes deleted" up front, and give a website where you can see exactly what was deleted.

14. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    14   3:51pm Tue 29 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Patrick says assuming the viewers know about it. Viewers never pay attention to those things and without watching the entire movie in context it is hard to tell how the message was changed by altering the movie. The problem with altering a movie is that you change the message that was intended by the creators. I don't think that Sam Mendes (Director of 'American Beauty') and Alan Ball (Screen writer of 'American Beauty') would be please that there name is on work that makes it look like they wrote a story where the protagonist likes to seduce and molest young teenage girls -- and everyone seems OK with that. If they really want to change the movie from what was intended by the creators they should remove the original creators name and put their own. It should be illegal to alter the work of another then send it out with their name still on it as if they indorse the alteration. What if I have customers that want to see mormons portrayed as petty douchebags? I bet mormons would be playing a different tune if I re-edited 'Singles Ward' to reflect the desires of my customer base. Hell, I could even hire some body doubles to shoot some steamy man-on-man action to edit into the movie.

15. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    15   4:35pm Wed 30 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   So when are you going to post links to child porn? If you won't, then clearly you agree that some information should not be pointed to. You just have a different line than some people.

16. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,188 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

    16   4:45pm Wed 30 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   No, I do not agree that there is any information that should be illegal to even point to. Putting up a public link to child porn should not in and of itself be a crime. The creation and publishing of that content is the crime, not simply saying where it is. In fact, pointing to it probably helps law enforcement find and prosecute the people who create and distribute it. The other big reason you will hear that we should abridge freeom of speech and the press in direct contradiction of the Constitution is nuclear proliferation. The government will say that it is a crime even to say where instructions for building a bomb are. But once again, public linking to that helps law enforcement find it.

17. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    17   1:45am Thu 31 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Your distinction between "linking" and "publishing" barely exists in law, and in most cases where linking has been brought up (child porn, top secret information leaking, and piracy), linking has been classified as distribution, which most "publishing" laws also apply to. It's really hard to argue that there's much of a difference. If I write a href="//illegal-content-here.org/" it's hard to argue that there's a meaningful difference from img src="//illegal-content-here.org" You could try a really low level technical argument that you didn't publish it unless you're the one who uploaded it, but that's a tactic that has been tried and failed repeatedly in court. If I take illegal content that you uploaded and copy it to S3, am I a publisher? What if an automated tool scrapes the illegal content and puts it on another site? While there hasn't been a supreme court decision on the matter, so far linking has been treated by lower courts as a form of distribution, and plenty of people have been prosecuted under laws that apply to distribution of illegal material. You can't just assert that linking to things helps law enforcement. I haven't heard that argument from any law enforcement organization, nor have I seen any studies supporting that claim. Even if it were true, it's irrelevant to the original question of what should or should not be legal. Lots of things would help law enforcement (not having to get warrants, being allowed to use deadly force under any circumstance), but that's not reason in and of itself for something to be legal or illegal.

18. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    18   8:51am Thu 31 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Kevin says [Patrick's] distinction between "linking" and "publishing" barely exists in law Then the law should be changed. The laws regarding copyrights, patents, trademarks, and intellectual property are so one-sided as they were all written by corporations and handed to their whore politicians. At least when Thomas Jefferson and James Madison debated the subject and came to a compromise, it was a reasonable one that protected all people instead of maximizing the profits of one party at the expense of all of the rest of society. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. - Thomas Jefferson But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good. - James Madison Ultimately, these two founders, legislators, and presidents came to the conclusion that limited copyrights were necessary, but that the power must be limited or monopolies would cause copyright laws to do more "evil than good". Today, we are in exactly the situation that James Madison described, and he was the one arguing for copyright laws.

19. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,188 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

    19   9:45am Thu 31 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Kevin says Your distinction between "linking" and "publishing" barely exists in law, and in most cases where linking has been brought up (child porn, top secret information leaking, and piracy), linking has been classified as distribution, which most "publishing" laws also apply to. It's really hard to argue that there's much of a difference. If I write a href="//illegal-content-here.org/" it's hard to argue that there's a meaningful difference from img src="//illegal-content-here.org" So you're saying there's not much of a difference between saying "there's a lot of money in that bank" and actually stealing the money from the bank?

20. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    20   10:04am Thu 31 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Patrick says So you're saying there's not much of a difference between saying "there's a lot of money in that bank" and actually stealing the money from the bank? Well, it is more than saying that there is money in the bank. It is more like passing out all the security information (codes, key imprints, combinations, etc.) giving anyone access to the money in the vault.