Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 01/09/2012 10:12:29 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Well howdy, precious! I haven’t heard anything about that. Got details?
Well howdy, precious! I haven’t heard anything about that. Got details?
Well howdy, precious! I haven’t heard anything about that. Got details?
When a post on the internet can cause a riot where people get trampled and killed, then I would agree it's time to discuss limitation.
Until then...why are we discussing it...to save some music mogul his livelihood?
I think I speak for all FReepers when I say that I am totally afraid of what the government tells me to fear and I know that they know I’m not a terrorist, but you might be. If they say they have to stop your terror speech and they say it will keep me safe, I believe them. This is America! I believe the government! I’m a free FReeper because I trust the government! They need more power to keep me safe! I think it was Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson who said “Ask for safety and the government provides!”.
“There’s no way Santorum could’ve voted for TARP and GM bailouts if he wasn’t in office at the time.”
I wish more people would provide links with their comments. There’s so much false information going around.
ping
Do I need to answer you all three (3) times???
http://sheilab.hubpages.com/hub/IS-RICK-SANTORUM-ELIGIBLE-TO-BE-PRESIDENT
Yes I was wrong on the TARP (see post 16).
Go Newt!
I’d call him a “cultural conservative”, which is the same as a cultural collectivist. The big government part is redundant. This is the opposite of one of Ronaldus Maximus’s keys to success.
I’d call him a “cultural conservative”, which is the same as a cultural collectivist. The big government part is redundant. This is the opposite of one of Ronaldus Maximus’s keys to success.
Didn’t even look at the article yet... The headline grabbed me quick enough — what limits is he talking about??? This goes for ANYONE who suggests “limits” - are they talking about RESPONSIBILITY for one’s actions (like not providing child pornography on the internet, or support for known violent terrorist groups), or are they trying to take over the power to control a vast majority of things on the internet in the name of “our own good”? There’s a difference between the two actions.
Live killings or videos, terrorist or other criminal propaganda or providing access to illegal materials (like child pornography for instance) or providing support to or materials from known criminals, or is he talking about the “people” and our right to access information.
Google is already rolling out “personalized” search results based on what you and your friends look at one the internet through Google+ instead of the “whole net”. How long till they roll that out for “everyone”? With politicians who support this line of thinking as “friends”, it wouldn’t surprise me if they all support this SOPA legislation.
SOPA gives too much power to the government, plain and simple. Any politician who doesn’t see the danger inherent in that shouldn’t be President, IMO.
[Now I’ll go and read the article - don’t throw stones at me if this is some hit piece on him, OK? I don’t like bad journalism just as much as I dislike bad politicians.]
That’s a pretty damning statement of his personal view of things. L(l)ibertarians I have known have all felt that the “bedroom” was a place for consenting adults, period - some believe that not to be true. Is he one of those people? I’m not saying that anyone should get special rights depending on whom they choose as a partner, just that if anyone decides to do that I don’t need to treat them as second-class citizens, either.
I have the right to be “left alone” only as long as I’m not violating someone else’s rights with my actions. Society has the right to hold me accountable for actions which interfere with others who come in contact with me - libertarians would never tell you otherwise. We ALL have a right to protect ourselves and those we care about from those among us who wish us harm.
[If anyone believes homosexuality to be religiously or morally wrong then it does not then become a person’s duty to then treat them disrespectfully or with malice. People are supposed to be treated as they would want to be treated in regards to all of “God’s children” while at the same time protecting the innocent and vulnerable from those who wish to do them harm in any way. ALL JMHO.]
I agree with you... And, if they only did it to the most egregious violators and left the “benign” criticisms alone people wouldn’t necessarily realize it right away either. Yes, there should be some enforcement of laws involving the internet (like harassment, defamation or slander/libel).
Any legislation that is made to deal with violation of federal laws (that ARE allowed by the Constitution) - for instance defense reasons (dissemination of viruses, or hacking by a foreign gov’t, etc..) must be extremely narrow in focus if they are made. They can only limit someone’s ability to continue violation of others, and not give gov’t the power to silence critics from any “side” unless they are being outright in their desires to harm others, are actively hurting others, or giving others a platform on which to actively commit illegal acts.
Basically, I don’t see why we need a new law as most things are already “illegal” anyway and can be dealt with in other ways. Anytime the government wants to pass laws like this I don’t think you can blame people for being skeptical of their true intentions in doing so.
Again, all JMHO.
I had been dithering over the two, but any candidate that finds SOPA or any similar regimen acceptable is not acceptable to me.
Leave the Internet alone. No more laws to regulate the Internet.Government will find some line in a 3000 page Internet law and use that line to destroy the Internet and our freedom , no matter how much good the politicians and media say this law will do.
SOPA and Issa's Open bill can go in the trash bin as far as I'm concerned. It's good Issa is fighting SOPA but he is doing it to favor his own bill.
Santorum needs to quit and allow Gingrich to win. Santorum is just helping Romney.Santorum is wrong in supporting this horrible tyranny called SOPA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.