Goodbye Patriot Act!

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]

No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.[/quote]

And btw, FUCK Net Neutrality. The 'net is the last medium that is still truly “free” in my opinion (of excessive regulation). I want it to stay that way.[/quote]

This is a little off topic but I need to satisfy my curiosity. Do you think it is fair for faceless nameless entities to attack a business or for that matter a public figure over the Internet? I don’t have a problem with it if people actually use their names, but it seems there should be a limit to what someone can allege without using their real name.
[/quote]

Ben Franklin, Samuel Clemens, a lot of the Founding Fathers, the Colonials before the British left all favored and were big fans anon writing.

22

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]

No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.[/quote]

And btw, FUCK Net Neutrality. The 'net is the last medium that is still truly “free” in my opinion (of excessive regulation). I want it to stay that way.[/quote]

This is a little off topic but I need to satisfy my curiosity. Do you think it is fair for faceless nameless entities to attack a business or for that matter a public figure over the Internet? I don’t have a problem with it if people actually use their names, but it seems there should be a limit to what someone can allege without using their real name.
[/quote]

Ben Franklin, Samuel Clemens, a lot of the Founding Fathers, the Colonials before the British left all favored and were big fans anon writing.[/quote]

It’s not a matter of fairness, it’s a matter of freedom. True freedom is ultimately fair anyway, you reap what you sow.

23

I have said and I still say it today, I rather take my chances with the terrorists than encroach my freedoms. You want to keep an airplane safe? Give everybody a gun or a tazer. If you want to hurt people, there are hundreds of ways to do that each and every moment and nobody can stop you.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take security measures, it means they have to stop at the constitution, period.

24

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]

No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.[/quote]

And btw, FUCK Net Neutrality. The 'net is the last medium that is still truly “free” in my opinion (of excessive regulation). I want it to stay that way.[/quote]

This is a little off topic but I need to satisfy my curiosity. Do you think it is fair for faceless nameless entities to attack a business or for that matter a public figure over the Internet? I don’t have a problem with it if people actually use their names, but it seems there should be a limit to what someone can allege without using their real name.
[/quote]

So what If I don’t like your take out/delivery pizza shop because it stole my recipe, I could get some people I know to block their numbers and call you all night to keep your lines busy. Is it fair, yes. boycotts, protests, all of these are forms of our freedom of speech. Now there are laws involving private property and damages and such which are good, but not those proposed in said bill.

25

Freedom is important, but what about the financial damage caused by reckless posters? It seems we can have freedom and also take responsibility as well. The freedom to rumor monger anonymously is tantamount to terrorism.

As an example, if it were you or your business how would you feel if anonymous sources posted on the Internet that you were a wife beater and your business sold faulty products that disfigured children? Maybe then you would want the perpetrators of those lies to at least sign their name. As this could cost you a great deal of money and something far more important, your reputation. Anonymous attacks on innocent businesses or people are acts of cowardice and similar in many ways to terrorism.

And please don’t claim that lies like these are not believed by some. They are and they cost people emotionally and financially.

Freedom should not mean that you have a right to print lies without at least signing your name.

26

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]

No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.[/quote]

And btw, FUCK Net Neutrality. The 'net is the last medium that is still truly “free” in my opinion (of excessive regulation). I want it to stay that way.[/quote]

This is a little off topic but I need to satisfy my curiosity. Do you think it is fair for faceless nameless entities to attack a business or for that matter a public figure over the Internet? I don’t have a problem with it if people actually use their names, but it seems there should be a limit to what someone can allege without using their real name.
[/quote]

So what If I don’t like your take out/delivery pizza shop because it stole my recipe, I could get some people I know to block their numbers and call you all night to keep your lines busy. Is it fair, yes. boycotts, protests, all of these are forms of our freedom of speech. Now there are laws involving private property and damages and such which are good, but not those proposed in said bill.
[/quote]

But what if you are a competitor who is writing lies about my pizza shop because since I have been opened your business has been on the down turn. And since you cannot compete fairly you are now on a rumor monger campaign claiming that we put cat food as toppings on our pizza? And also claim that I as owner of that pizza shop am a tax cheat?

Don’t you feel that those lies are far more damaging than driving past the shop at 3:00 AM and throwing a rock through the window? The window can be replaced, how do you replace your reputation, or the reputation of your business?

There needs to be a happy medium between freedom to say what you want and the responsibility of telling the truth.

27

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Freedom should not mean that you have a right to print lies without at least signing your name. [/quote]

I am rich, smart, handsome, strong and have a huge penis.

Signed,

Big Banana

28

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Freedom is important, but what about the financial damage caused by reckless posters? It seems we can have freedom and also take responsibility as well. The freedom to rumor monger anonymously is tantamount to terrorism.

As an example, if it were you or your business how would you feel if anonymous sources posted on the Internet that you were a wife beater and your business sold faulty products that disfigured children? Maybe then you would want the perpetrators of those lies to at least sign their name. As this could cost you a great deal of money and something far more important, your reputation. Anonymous attacks on innocent businesses or people are acts of cowardice and similar in many ways to terrorism.

And please don’t claim that lies like these are not believed by some. They are and they cost people emotionally and financially.

Freedom should not mean that you have a right to print lies without at least signing your name. [/quote]

Zeb beats his wife with a shovel.

Worse, he is an alter ego of Headhunter or vice versa.

29

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Freedom should not mean that you have a right to print lies without at least signing your name. [/quote]

I am rich, smart, handsome, strong and have a huge penis.

Signed,

Big Banana[/quote]

Yeah?

Your pizzas still suck.

30

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But what if you are a competitor who is writing lies about my pizza shop because since I have been opened your business has been on the down turn. And since you cannot compete fairly you are now on a rumor monger campaign claiming that we put cat food as toppings on our pizza? And also claim that I as owner of that pizza shop am a tax cheat?

Don’t you feel that those lies are far more damaging than driving past the shop at 3:00 AM and throwing a rock through the window? The window can be replaced, how do you replace your reputation, or the reputation of your business?

There needs to be a happy medium between freedom to say what you want and the responsibility of telling the truth.
[/quote]

If there are rumours, ask for proof. If they’re false, then it shouldn’t be hard to refute.

31

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Freedom is important, but what about the financial damage caused by reckless posters? It seems we can have freedom and also take responsibility as well. The freedom to rumor monger anonymously is tantamount to terrorism.

As an example, if it were you or your business how would you feel if anonymous sources posted on the Internet that you were a wife beater and your business sold faulty products that disfigured children? Maybe then you would want the perpetrators of those lies to at least sign their name. As this could cost you a great deal of money and something far more important, your reputation. Anonymous attacks on innocent businesses or people are acts of cowardice and similar in many ways to terrorism.

And please don’t claim that lies like these are not believed by some. They are and they cost people emotionally and financially.

Freedom should not mean that you have a right to print lies without at least signing your name. [/quote]

Zeb beats his wife with a shovel.

Worse, he is an alter ego of Headhunter or vice versa.

[/quote]

First of all my wife said “hand me the shovel” so I did. And as far as the Headhunter comment, that’s just mean.

32

I can understand some of you younger guys not quite agreeing with what I have to say. But in all seriousness, when you get to the age where you actually have assets and a reputation to protect the Internet can be a double edged sword.

33

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I can understand some of you younger guys not quite agreeing with what I have to say. But in all seriousness, when you get to the age where you actually have assets and a reputation to protect the Internet can be a double edged sword. [/quote]

So can fliers, so can billboards, so can word of mouth.

most of what you are mentioning requires some form of login or has a IP logger associated. If it is your site.

It’s like caller ID. There things that can be done, But you don’t take peoples rights away to do it.

34

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Freedom is important, but what about the financial damage caused by reckless posters? It seems we can have freedom and also take responsibility as well. The freedom to rumor monger anonymously is tantamount to terrorism.

As an example, if it were you or your business how would you feel if anonymous sources posted on the Internet that you were a wife beater and your business sold faulty products that disfigured children? Maybe then you would want the perpetrators of those lies to at least sign their name. As this could cost you a great deal of money and something far more important, your reputation. Anonymous attacks on innocent businesses or people are acts of cowardice and similar in many ways to terrorism.

And please don’t claim that lies like these are not believed by some. They are and they cost people emotionally and financially.

Freedom should not mean that you have a right to print lies without at least signing your name. [/quote]

Investigation.

35

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I can understand some of you younger guys not quite agreeing with what I have to say. But in all seriousness, when you get to the age where you actually have assets and a reputation to protect the Internet can be a double edged sword. [/quote]

So can fliers, so can billboards, so can word of mouth.

most of what you are mentioning requires some form of login or has a IP logger associated. If it is your site.

It’s like caller ID. There things that can be done, But you don’t take peoples rights away to do it. [/quote]

You’re very wrong if you think that having an IP stops people from liabling others over the Internet. Do some research to see how brave people become when they are able to lie about others anonymously.

-It could be a customer who is disgruntled without cause

-It could be your competitor trying to destroy you

-It could just be someone who is jealous and wants to hurt you

You are quite mistaken if you think an IP address prevents liable over the Internet. Why do you think they make you sign your name to a letter to the editor to your local newspaper? And because of that we don’t have runaway liable from those letters. If there is no check and balance there is freedom, only tyranny.

36

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]

No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.[/quote]

And btw, FUCK Net Neutrality. The 'net is the last medium that is still truly “free” in my opinion (of excessive regulation). I want it to stay that way.[/quote]

This is a little off topic but I need to satisfy my curiosity. Do you think it is fair for faceless nameless entities to attack a business or for that matter a public figure over the Internet? I don’t have a problem with it if people actually use their names, but it seems there should be a limit to what someone can allege without using their real name.
[/quote]

You can also post reviews of your own shop and deceive people that way.

37

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]

No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.[/quote]

And btw, FUCK Net Neutrality. The 'net is the last medium that is still truly “free” in my opinion (of excessive regulation). I want it to stay that way.[/quote]

This is a little off topic but I need to satisfy my curiosity. Do you think it is fair for faceless nameless entities to attack a business or for that matter a public figure over the Internet? I don’t have a problem with it if people actually use their names, but it seems there should be a limit to what someone can allege without using their real name.
[/quote]

So what If I don’t like your take out/delivery pizza shop because it stole my recipe, I could get some people I know to block their numbers and call you all night to keep your lines busy. Is it fair, yes. boycotts, protests, all of these are forms of our freedom of speech. Now there are laws involving private property and damages and such which are good, but not those proposed in said bill.
[/quote]

But what if you are a competitor who is writing lies about my pizza shop because since I have been opened your business has been on the down turn. And since you cannot compete fairly you are now on a rumor monger campaign claiming that we put cat food as toppings on our pizza? And also claim that I as owner of that pizza shop am a tax cheat?

Don’t you feel that those lies are far more damaging than driving past the shop at 3:00 AM and throwing a rock through the window? The window can be replaced, how do you replace your reputation, or the reputation of your business?

There needs to be a happy medium between freedom to say what you want and the responsibility of telling the truth.
[/quote]

You have a point, but how often does this happen? Do you have personal experience with this? I’m thinking no because you said it was a curiosity based question. I did a search using some key words that would have been used in a case like this but can’t find a single article. I guess this scenario would only play out on a small business which has no chance of making headlines. I’m sure it has happened, but not enough to censor the internet or make a law in response. That would be like passing a law authorizing our govt. to spy on every American citizen in response to 19 guys hijacking 4 planes and flying them into 3 buildings…

If someone says you put catfood on your pizza and you are low tech then print some coupons with a deal to good to pass up and get your customers back.

Could you sue the website hosting the comments if the person’s identity could not be determined? Just curious. You wouldn’t get anything for damages, but the comments would probably be gone.

38

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I can understand some of you younger guys not quite agreeing with what I have to say. But in all seriousness, when you get to the age where you actually have assets and a reputation to protect the Internet can be a double edged sword.

So can fliers, so can billboards, [/quote]

It takes a lot more initiative to actually spend money to harm another persons business and reputation. In addition to that both of your examples can be easily tracked and lying cowards know this.

Rumor mongering has always been with us and will always be with us. But giving people a world wide venue to do so anonymously is insane!

[quote]most of what you are mentioning requires some form of login or has a IP logger associated. If it is your site.

It’s like caller ID. There things that can be done, But you don’t take peoples rights away to do it. [/quote]

First of all there have been lawsuits brought by some companies and people who have spread lies through the Internet have been found and dealt with in a court of law. But for every one that has been found there are literally thousands who get away with it.

One more point, how can you in your wildest imagination define “freedom” as a right to tear another person down on the Internet anonymously? What about the person’s reputation who was falsely accused? If I were to believe your fantasy then it’s my right to walk onto your property and take an apple from your tree and eat it. How dare you take away my right to do that.

Theoretically speaking we all want everyone to be able to express themselves. But, just like the right to swing your arm ends at the point where it strikes another person in the face, no one has the right to anonymously make false and malicious claims about you anonymously. Once again, if you had a business and people were writing lies about it you wouldn’t be so quick to claim that it’s someone’s freedom to lie about you to the public. In fact, that’s quite preposterous.

39

[quote]AdamDrew wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]

No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.[/quote]

And btw, FUCK Net Neutrality. The 'net is the last medium that is still truly “free” in my opinion (of excessive regulation). I want it to stay that way.[/quote]

This is a little off topic but I need to satisfy my curiosity. Do you think it is fair for faceless nameless entities to attack a business or for that matter a public figure over the Internet? I don’t have a problem with it if people actually use their names, but it seems there should be a limit to what someone can allege without using their real name.
[/quote]

So what If I don’t like your take out/delivery pizza shop because it stole my recipe, I could get some people I know to block their numbers and call you all night to keep your lines busy. Is it fair, yes. boycotts, protests, all of these are forms of our freedom of speech. Now there are laws involving private property and damages and such which are good, but not those proposed in said bill.
[/quote]

But what if you are a competitor who is writing lies about my pizza shop because since I have been opened your business has been on the down turn. And since you cannot compete fairly you are now on a rumor monger campaign claiming that we put cat food as toppings on our pizza? And also claim that I as owner of that pizza shop am a tax cheat?

Don’t you feel that those lies are far more damaging than driving past the shop at 3:00 AM and throwing a rock through the window? The window can be replaced, how do you replace your reputation, or the reputation of your business?

There needs to be a happy medium between freedom to say what you want and the responsibility of telling the truth.
[/quote]

You have a point, but how often does this happen? Do you have personal experience with this? I’m thinking no because you said it was a curiosity based question. I did a search using some key words that would have been used in a case like this but can’t find a single article. I guess this scenario would only play out on a small business which has no chance of making headlines. I’m sure it has happened, but not enough to censor the internet or make a law in response. That would be like passing a law authorizing our govt. to spy on every American citizen in response to 19 guys hijacking 4 planes and flying them into 3 buildings…

If someone says you put catfood on your pizza and you are low tech then print some coupons with a deal to good to pass up and get your customers back.

Could you sue the website hosting the comments if the person’s identity could not be determined? Just curious. You wouldn’t get anything for damages, but the comments would probably be gone.

[/quote]

1- It happens all the time about almost every business. Just type in “Walmart sucks” for example and you’ll read a host of lies from anonymous people too cowardly to sign their own name. Of course it’s not just Walmart, use any business name that you want; “McDonald’s sucks,” "Home Depot sucks etc. There is no end to the abuse of what some call freedom to defame a business or person.

2-A business should not have to go to the time, trouble and expense trying to prove that they don’t put cat food on their pizza because some disgruntled 19 year old was fired from his job of delivering pizza’s. I am for freedom to say anything you want, just sign your name to it. Suddenly we wouldn’t hear from these cowards.

3-You can try to sue the website but they’re pretty much covered. You have to go right to the source. And if you are lucky enough to find the source and sue him/her and win you have to actually collect. In most cases it’s some kid in his dad’s basement acting like a big shot on the Internet.

Once again, say what you want but sign your name. That impinges on no one’s freedom. What about the freedom of the business (or person) to operate without being harassed? And if they’re guilty of something the person who wants to tell the world can still do so - the just have to sign their name.

40

List of tea party candites voting FOR the renewal of the patriot act:

Tim Griffin (AR-2), Paul Gosar (AZ-1), Steve Southerland (FL-2), Allen West (FL-22), Sandy Adams (FL-24), Bob Dold (IL-10), Adam Kinzinger (IL-11), Marlin Stutzman (IN-3), Todd Young (IN-9), Jeff Landry (LA-3), Dan Benishek (MI-1), Tim Walberg (MI-7), Michelle Bachmann (MN-6), Vicky Hartzler (MO-4), Renee Ellmers (NC-2), Frank Guinta (NH-1), Joe Heck (NV-3), Michael Grimm (NY-13), Steven Chabot (OH-1), Bill Johnson (OH-6), Steve Stivers (OH-15), Jim Renacci (OH-16), Tim Scott (SC-1), Jeff Duncan (SC-3), Trey Gowdy (SC-4), Mick Mulvaney (SC-5), Scott DesJarlais (TN-4), Bill Flores (TX-17), H. Morgan Griffith (VA-9), Sean Duffy (WI-7), Reid Ribble (WI-8), David McKinley (WV-1)