It appears that you're running an Ad-Blocker. This site is monetized by Advertising and by ">User Donations; we ask that if you find this site helpful that you whitelist us in your Ad-Blocker, or make a ">Donation to help aid in operating costs.
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
#37891 - 10/14/03 01:03 PM Free Speech at Risk  
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 955
jonconley Offline
UGN Super Poster
jonconley  Offline
UGN Super Poster

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 955
Merrill, IA, USA
John C. Dvorak - PC Magazine

The United States' Bill of Rights, Amendment I: 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.

So, exactly what part of "freedom of speech" don't you understand? That's the question you have to ask the members of Congress and the President who signed into law the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. You also have to ask the courts, since they seem disinterested in real freedom of speech while simultaneously supporting pornography as somehow constituting speech. To me, speech requires vocal chords (though I'll accept written or braille words that can be read aloud by a third party). To me, this seems like a good narrow and workable definition. Meanwhile, we have yet another instance of a person merely talking aloud about copy protection, and suddenly this person is threatened with arrest for talking! What is wrong with this country that each and every citizen who sees this--allows this abomination of justice to stand? The police should never enforce this law. The District Attorney should never prosecute under this law. The courts should not command anyone to stand trial under this law.

The first instance of the abomination inflicted by the DMCA was the arrest of the hapless Russian coder Dmitry Sklyarov in July 17, 2001, for openly discussing some scheme Adobe had developed to protect eBook files (as if anyone even has an eBook). His crime? He discussed this methodology in public, was arrested, and put in jail! Mind you, this is in violation of an illegal law that Congress seems content to enforce. The history of this sordid event is an embarrassment to the country. The complaint itself was a horrible, muddy legalistic heap of mumbo-jumbo designed to obfuscate the obvious: The man spoke out loud, and exercised his right to free speech. See if your Congressional representative voted for this onerous law and fight to have him or her removed from office with all your might! Seriously. Why are we putting up with these idiots?

Just to review: 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.

Note that the framers of the Bill of Rights made these particular rights first on the list.

ONWARD. So now we have the case of Princeton student John Alex Halderman. His crime? He discovered that by pressing the shift key while loading a copy-protected CD, he could disable SunnComm Technologies' CD-3 software, which was a form of copy protection to prevent people from copying the disk to MP3 format. Duh! So Halderman mentions this on his Web site. Boom! A violation of the DMCA. SunnComm was going to sue under the DMCA but backed off. I suspect that the case was too ridiculous to pursue and could have sunk the DMCA. Someone needs to arrest this kid now so we can get this absurd law into the open!

So now what we see discussed are dubious "fixes" to the DMCA. The most discussed is HR107, which is actually a law against labeling practices, and which happens to have a Scientific Research and Fair Use Restoration amendment to the DMCA. This is simply not good enough. Free speech does not need amendments to be acceptable and all right. It's part of the Constitution. Nothing needs to be fixed. Illegal laws need to be thrown out. Period. Why is this taking so long?

I'd like your opinion on this matter in this week's forum. Let's do a little research and put together a hit list of Congressional representatives who voted for and against the law. In 1998, it was unanimously passed by the Senate and then passed by the House with a voice vote. The time has come to track these people down and get them out of office. This is especially true for people like Howard Coble (Rep, N.C.), who has publicly supported the DMCA. I thought the Republicans were big supporters of the Bill of Rights? Guess not.

Source: Yahoo

Sponsored Links
#37892 - 10/14/03 01:58 PM Re: Free Speech at Risk  
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,136
pergesu Offline
UGN Elite Poster
pergesu  Offline
UGN Elite Poster

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,136
Pimpin the Colorizzle
I think the DMCA is a pretty shitty law, but under it, the people mentioned can justly be arrested. Numerous court cases have proven that freedom of speech is not without limits. The classic example is that shouting "Fire!" in a movie theatre is not protected. The first precedent set was that of clear and present danger, in which the Supreme Court decided that if something a person said would have a dangerous impact on national security, then it could be restricted. Of course, violations of the DMCA don't fall under this, but it's an example of free speech being limited.

As for the DMCA, another precedent that was set was that of speech causing imminent lawless action. Under this, if something a person says will almost definitely lead to illegal activity, then it can be restricted. In this case, discussing how to get around copyright protection will assuredly lead to people doing so, which is a violation of the DMCA. I don't know enough to discuss the legality of the DMCA itself, but assuming it holds up (which we've seen to be the case) then the arrests and prosecutions made, along with the court's support of them, are justified.

#37893 - 10/20/03 11:37 PM Re: Free Speech at Risk  
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3
jessica6 Offline
Junior Member
jessica6  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3
sutherland, (highlands) scotla...
free speech is always at risk as long as unelected assholes are tolerated in the white house... and it will only get worse, not better... "you better watch what you say" and all that.

Hell, since when is a campaign contribution "free speech" as is the current interpretation... seems to me speech is with the mouth, or written, but not in stacks of bills... woof.

Member Spotlight
Los Angeles,CA
Posts: 70
Joined: May 2002
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Average Daily Posts0
Most Online1,567
Apr 25th, 2010
Latest Postings
by Cyrez on 12/16/17 09:19 AM
Okay WTF?
by HenryMiring on 09/27/17 08:45 AM
The History Thread...
by Gremelin on 08/11/17 07:11 PM
my old account still exists!
by Gremelin on 08/11/17 07:02 PM
My friend NEEDS your HELP!
by Lena01 on 07/21/17 07:06 AM
I'm having fun with this guy.
by gabithompson730 on 07/20/17 08:50 AM
I want to upgrade my phone
by gabithompson730 on 07/20/17 08:49 AM
Top Posters(All Time)
UGN Security 41,392
Gremelin 7,202
§intå× 3,255
SilentRage 1,273
Ice 1,146
pergesu 1,136
Infinite 1,041
jonconley 955
Girlie 908
unreal 860
Top Liked Users (All Time)
§intå× Likes: 3
Black Beard Likes: 1
Cold Sunn Likes: 1
Crime Likes: 1
Cyrez Likes: 1
fleshwound Likes: 1
Ghost Likes: 2
Gremelin Likes: 12
Ice Likes: 1
ninjaneo Likes: 1
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
(Snapshot build 20170206)