Wikipedia Blackout

[-:Undertaker:-]

Another topic, but i'll briefly go into it anyway as its all about liberty and freedom...

Of course I do not agree with this as it repels freedom and liberty and actually goes against the US constitution. It also against giving people proper rights, which has been happening in a while. I was not arguing on population censuses, what I was saying was more people are up in arms about this because of the large population percentage. As for your argument of homosexuality, we still have a ban on gay marriages in most places, which then effects this smaller minority.

With gay marriage, the correct response to preserve freedom & liberty is to get the government out of marriage - not to have the government enforce peoples idea of marriage on the other side. Therefore, in a free society people could exchange contracts between one another and call them whatever they wish aswell as allowing insitutions to have their own definition of marriage (such as Churches sticking to the usual definition of what marriage is, whereas other places of registery would allow homosexual 'marriage'). My point is, that when I say this and have done in the past, a lot of people think they have a right to impose their definition of marriage on Churches just as the state currently imposes its definition of marriage on homosexuals.

..and thats not defending personal liberty, thats using the state to impose your values and views upon others.

[FiftyCal]

GTA Forums is doing this too, now its called Grand Theft Censored and Niko has tape over his mouth. Lolz

[xxMATTGxx]

*post*

That's a lot of people and that's just for Wikipedia.

Thank you.

The Wikipedia blackout is over — and you have spoken.

More than 162 million people saw our message asking if you could imagine a world without free knowledge. You said no. You shut down Congress’s switchboards. You melted their servers. From all around the world your messages dominated social media and the news. Millions of people have spoken in defense of a free and open Internet.

For us, this is not about money. It’s about knowledge. As a community of authors, editors, photographers, and programmers, we invite everyone to share and build upon our work.

Our mission is to empower and engage people to document the sum of all human knowledge, and to make it available to all humanity, in perpetuity. We care passionately about the rights of authors, because we are authors.

SOPA and PIPA are not dead: they are waiting in the shadows. What’s happened in the last 24 hours, though, is extraordinary. The internet has enabled creativity, knowledge, and innovation to shine, and as Wikipedia went dark, you've directed your energy to protecting it.

We’re turning the lights back on. Help us keep them shining brightly.

[Chippiewill]

Laws are different from regulation, i'm talking about regulation which infringes the freedoms of innocent people;- laws against homosexuality, equality laws which remove freedom of speech, disability laws for example which require business to install costly lifts, the minimum wage which forces employeers to pay a certain wage, maternity/paternity leave which forces individuals to grant paid-leave of months to others against their will.

People have to be baby-sat, FACT. What separates Tobacco from illegal drugs? Tobacco is Taxed. As far as I'm concerned it should all be outright banned. In regards to "laws against homosexuality" and "equality laws" YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME COIN, unfortunately legislation is needed to prevent discrimination against Disabled, Ethnicities, sexism because people resist change. Of course a company needs to be forced to add in wheelchair access just as a child needs access to a good education.

If you believe in freedom, then stand up for it - not when it simply suits you.

I stand up for freedom when FREEDOM is being taxed, not people being inconvenienced slightly. Further, an attack on my is not an attack on the argument, get back on topic.

The internet, if it is to be free, is a part of a free society - defend the free society and liberty when its under attack at all times, otherwise you are not arguing a principle and your stance for freedom is worthless rubbish.

The internet is far more a principle against oppression than smoking in pubs or being allowed to not give maternity leave.

Just like banning smoking won't stop cancer, as cancer isn't linked to second hand smoke - and even if it were linked to cancer, thats still a choice to walk into a smoke-filled bar.

Maybe it is a choice, but I'm glad of the inconvenience to smokers because it prevents overly passive smoking.

Where were you when that freedom was under attack? what goes around comes around ladies and gentlemen.

As I have said I will stand up when there's an actual freedom to defend, and not some people moaning that they have to accommodate races other than Caucasian in their hotel.

Final reason why it shouldn't be allowed is that it breaks security in verifying DNS records are valid (Hijacking spoofed records, which is what the ISPs would be forced to do, breaks SSL encryption amongst other things meaning MITM attacks can occur), if your website is pulled down unfairly you cannot sue back at those who took it down (This is the equivalent of the Police smashing up your shop and beating your customers and then realising it's the wrong store and not being liable for it).

Stop using weak analogous circumstances to push your own agenda.

[-:Undertaker:-]

People have to be baby-sat, FACT. What separates Tobacco from illegal drugs? Tobacco is Taxed. As far as I'm concerned it should all be outright banned. In regards to "laws against homosexuality" and "equality laws" YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME COIN, unfortunately legislation is needed to prevent discrimination against Disabled, Ethnicities, sexism because people resist change. Of course a company needs to be forced to add in wheelchair access just as a child needs access to a good education.

Then, again, you don't believe in free choice, a free society and liberty so stop pretending that you do.

I stand up for freedom when FREEDOM is being taxed, not people being inconvenienced slightly. Further, an attack on my is not an attack on the argument, get back on topic.

You stand up for freedom at all times, not when it suits you. I give the example of above where you say that people ought to be forced to accept peoples of differing abilities/colours/sexualities onto their property simply because you think thats morally right. I also think thats morally right. But is it moral for me to force others to do what I think morally right? no, of course its not.

All of these measures you support are measures of force by the state, and thats not freedom at all.

The internet is far more a principle against oppression than smoking in pubs or being allowed to not give maternity leave.

To you it is, to others not .. thats freedom duh.

Maybe it is a choice, but I'm glad of the inconvenience to smokers because it prevents overly passive smoking.

Then i'm glad of the inconvenience to internet users, maybe i'm even glad.

Pot kettle black, suck on it and eat that my friend because you deserve everything you get.

As I have said I will stand up when there's an actual freedom to defend, and not some people moaning that they have to accommodate races other than Caucasian in their hotel.

Then you still don't have an idea of what freedom is, therefore stop pretending you care about it.

Final reason why it shouldn't be allowed is that it breaks security in verifying DNS records are valid (Hijacking spoofed records, which is what the ISPs would be forced to do, breaks SSL encryption amongst other things meaning MITM attacks can occur), if your website is pulled down unfairly you cannot sue back at those who took it down (This is the equivalent of the Police smashing up your shop and beating your customers and then realising it's the wrong store and not being liable for it).

Yeah but I don't care if your inconvenienced (sound familiar?).

Stop using weak analogous circumstances to push your own agenda.

I still don't think you quite understand liberty, and you pretending to care about it is embarrassing whilst watching you state that you want to er, ban things or control things of which you do not like .. just like the government now wants to ban elements of the internet and control it.

Liberty is a principle, not a word you can tack on to an argument when you are in need of freedom.

[Richie]

Hopefully the protests make a difference

[Chippiewill]

Then, again, you don't believe in free choice, a free society and liberty so stop pretending that you do.

Well technically I'm a determinist so no, I don't believe in free choice, but that's besides the matter. No I do not believe that we require entirely free societies, it serves no purpose and to be perfectly honest it seems like you're encouraging people to be ubermensch.

To you it is, to others not .. thats freedom duh.

Sorry, I didn't realise that the right to smoke in a pub was used to fight oppression in countries like China and Iran, and that the banning of such practise is a huge leap to a 1984 esque society, how sorry for your loss and for this grave, grave misunderstanding.

Then you still don't have an idea of what freedom is, therefore stop pretending you care about it.

A line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise we're left lawless and as barbarians.

Yeah but I don't care if your inconvenienced (sound familiar?).

It's not an inconvenience it's a crime.

I still don't think you quite understand liberty, and you pretending to care about it is embarrassing whilst watching you state that you want to er, ban things or control things of which you do not like .. just like the government now wants to ban elements of the internet and control it.

I don't think you understand that TRUE liberty was described a hundred or so years ago by Nietzsche and it's a terrible idea.

Liberty is a principle, not a word you can tack on to an argument when you are in need of freedom.

If this is true then you are just as much at fault here.

-snip-

American domain name servers do not an internet make.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't believe in free choice

I don't think you understand that TRUE liberty was described a hundred or so years ago by Nietzsche and it's a terrible idea.

Thank you, thats all I needed - kudos for being honest in the end amongst all the babble.

I'll be reminding you each and every time you post on internet regulation that true freedom (an unregulated internet or even a half-regulated internet) is a, to quote, a terrible idea.

Just for the record, the choice is there's either liberty or there isn't - liberty isn't democracy.