This can't happen...

[fronebullare]

Mine is a silent rage, but rage nonetheless. I can't believe they're even considering this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_739836.html

There is a petition going around, not nearly enough people are signing it. Please take the 2 seconds it takes to sign it. Also, if you're on facebook or any other social networking site, share it there as well. These things are allowed to happen because not enough people know about them, this is something that we can't let slip by.

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/

[FarenKar]

Obama change is good... sieg heil Obama.

Seriously, though; signed. Government has enough control over my life already.

[W0LB0T]

I'm feeling a strong sense of Deja vu

[Powder Keg]

Shitty bills like this are introduced like this all the time. Don't get me started on the RIAA, for example.

Doubtful things like these get passed.

[Volcompat321]

Wow.... is all I can say.

How can people edit things you PAY for?
Wasn't there a whole controversy about this and radio? That's why we have to pay for uncensored radio.
We pay internet bills to look up whatever the fuck we want. If you want censored shit, go to the PSU forums! (haha jk).

Anyway, like Artea said, stuff like this happens all the time, no need to get seriously raged up over it.

[Tetsaru]

I never saw the point of censorship. If you're trying to hide something, there's a good chance that, one way or another, that information is going to get spread around. If it's something like cursing or showing sexual acts, kids are going to learn about it eventually anyway.

I just don't think it's right to hide things, y'know? It evokes a sense of mistrust to me. People should be informed, not deluded. If you find it offensive, just don't watch it/listen to it, lol.

[Neo Flint]

Wow.... is all I can say.

How can people edit things you PAY for?
Wasn't there a whole controversy about this and radio? That's why we have to pay for uncensored radio.
We pay internet bills to look up whatever the fuck we want. If you want censored shit, go to the PSU forums! (haha jk).

Anyway, like Artea said, stuff like this happens all the time, no need to get seriously raged up over it.

I second this. Signed.

[Tyreek]

I never saw the point of censorship. If you're trying to hide something, there's a good chance that, one way or another, that information is going to get spread around. If it's something like cursing or showing sexual acts, kids are going to learn about it eventually anyway.

I just don't think it's right to hide things, y'know? It evokes a sense of mistrust to me. People should be informed, not deluded. If you find it offensive, just don't watch it/listen to it, lol.

I think censorship on matters such as sexual acts or violence is a different matter on hand in my opinion. For instance, do you want your kid looking at something considered pornagraphic at a young age of 9 or 10? What about gore and graphic violence in your usual anime? That's the thing about it. Children are impressionable these days, and only few are competent enough to know that its not wise to be mimicing stuff you see on media, as we inevitably found out from a certain Naruto fan trying to do Sand Coffin on his friend and put him in critical condition. Hence why we have soccer moms causing shitstorms on our favorite shows because they couldn't keep their kids from looking at it, regardless of the age ratings.

The internet on the other hand... They're not gonna win. That bill will burn faster than an ant being hit with a magnifying glass.

[Tetsaru]

I think censorship on matters such as sexual acts or violence is a different matter on hand in my opinion. For instance, do you want your kid looking at something considered pornagraphic at a young age of 9 or 10? What about gore and graphic violence in your usual anime? That's the thing about it. Children are impressionable these days, and only few are competent enough to know that its not wise to be mimicing stuff you see on media, as we inevitably found out from a certain Naruto fan trying to do Sand Coffin on his friend and put him in critical condition. Hence why we have soccer moms causing shitstorms on our favorite shows because they couldn't keep their kids from looking at it, regardless of the age ratings.

I can understand that, and I know it's impossible to constantly monitor a child 24/7, but I think it's also important that parents/guardians need to fucking raise their kids properly, or else remember to use a condom and not have them in the first place if they can't support them and stop having sex irresponsibly all the time. My mom is a kindergarten teacher, and in this day in age, she constantly has to deal with obnoxious kids that don't know how to behave because their parents divorced/have custody issues, are in jail, do drugs, etc. It's sad really, especially when teachers are doing their jobs, but the government keeps trying to change the curriculum and what-not when the real problem is that parents/guardians just aren't helping their kids study in the first place.

[Randomness]

Ah, here we go. It seems "Dedicated to infringing activities" is rather well defined:

Spoiler!

(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is `dedicated to infringing activities' if such site--
`(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section 2323; or
`(2) is--
`(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--
`(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or
`(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946' or the `Lanham Act'; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and
`(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.

In short, a website cannot be either already in violation of US laws, or for the sole/primary purpose of distributing copyrighted material illegally. If your definition of censorship is protecting copyrights, then please go find a dictionary.

Does anyone bother to read these bills before going along with rants? Its maybe 3 pages, tops, with spacing. Here's the bill, straight from the Senate's website. It took me all of five minutes to find the bill's number on the Judiciary Committee page and then enter it into the main Senate page to find it.