The Right Scoop- Anonymous
You mean, he prefers to actually READ and understand a bill before passing it? Remarkable……
- Anonymous
Sounds downright UnAmerican!!
- Anonymous
Doesn’t he undestand that the Constitution says you must pass it to learn what is in it? OH, wait that’s the pelosi rule, not the Constitution.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Florey/100002838321254 Mike Florey
To be fair, the Pelosi rule allows illiterates to serve in congress. Basically democrats.
- Linky1
Say it isn’t so! No wonder he’s labelled as an extremist!!!!!
- Anonymous
Too bad there wasn’t the 3 page max. purposed by certain candidates, then Rick might have a full understanding by now.
We miss you Herman Cain
- Anonymous
I am still pissed at Christy. He was my favorite until A. He chose not to run and B. Threw his support behind romney.
I miss Heeman Cain, too.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan
Cain never endorsed Romney, what are you talking about?
- Anonymous
Christy did. It isn’t clear but it is what I meant.
I like Cain, I was commenting on Christy, however.
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger
9 – 9 – 9……miss hearing that!
- PFFV
Neither Christy nor Romney are true Conservatives. Once again it looks as if the National Media/Hollywood smear machine will pick our candidate for us. I hate to say this but I think it is to late for us to change the course of our corrupt establishment system. Government will not cut its own special interest perks and side money for the good of the nation because it is the right thing to do. Would you take a pay cut to do the same job you do? I doubt it. All governments have waste, fraud and corruption. The situation in our government is that it is already to big and bloated to get the majority to agree to cut their special interest packages. I fear the only way to turn Fedzilla around (barring a miracle) is going to be through a major revolution. If RomneyCare wins the nomination I can assure you of it. Our days are numbered until the dollar collapses. We are running out of time fast. The National Debt grew by .23 Trillion in just 60 days! The majority of people are living in a fantasy world and are not thinking about the potential dark times ahead. If we don’t elect a true conservative and we sit around letting government compound its daily disgraceful debt we are doomed. The idiots that think Romney will cut the size of government need to ask themselves what are Romney’s accomplishments? RomneyCare? The only candidates claiming they will cut government seriously are Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, and Paul the 9-11 truther and anti-Semite. This leaves us with either Perry or Newt. At this point Newt is the most electable of the two. It makes me sick how these talking heads are backing Romney like he is a true conservative. Laura Ingrahm and Ann Coulter are examples of this. Don’t get me wrong though, I will cast my vote for the Republican nominee so we can at least slow the bleeding of the mortal wound Obama has inflicted upon us all.
God bless RS and all its patrons as well as our fellow true conservatives.
- BS61
Love Christie’s attitude! I would never elect him now that I read http://conservativenewjersey.com/the-myth-of-christie-conservatism-intro. This site is from NJ and shows what he has done or not done for the conservative realm. I read it and wept!
- Anonymous
Christy is a big lib underneath his great talk-back to the unionized teachers.
- Anonymous
RS, I hope you have similar outrage over Rick Perry smears that have taken place on this site. I don’t mean two people seeing the same issue differently. I am talking easily disprovable lies.
I thought Santorum gave a good answer. I don’t entirely agree with the basis of his answer, but the end result is correct.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez
thanks for setting the record straight Scoop
- Anonymous
A more accurate headline would be “Santorum takes no position on SOPA.” He didn’t say he does not support it or does support it.
Saying “Rick Santorum does NOT support SOPA” does not accurately reflect what he said.
- Anonymous
The accurate headline is “Santorum wants to regulate the internet”.
- Anonymous
That would be true too.
- Anonymous
I second that, and would add that there are those who have a candidate they prefer and would go to just about any length to undermine the other candidates even to the point of distorting and demonizing the other candidates. As TRS said he doesn’t see the need to smear the other candidates and neither should we with falsehoods.
- Anonymous
I am against smears and giving undue credit to candidates, e.g. Santorum “opposes” SOPA , Santorum is for sending troops back to Iraq, Santorum is a limited government conservative.
- BS61
Which is slightly better!
- Anonymous
You say you don’t like smears but you keep smearing Red State. Why? You are free to disagree but you are doing what you say you do not like.
- http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop
how did I smear RedState?
- Anonymous
Just the other day you criticized Erick for tweeting about Rick Santorum. My point; you are criticizing him and his site; he is criticizing Santorum and what he has done. What’s the difference? During this primary everyone has criticized everyone else and by the time the nomination takes place nobody will like the nominee or each other. It’s not right and I don’t agree with it but how do we learn about the candidates if people don’t tell us? I do a lot of research on my own but I miss things or forget about them and want to know all I can to make my choice.
Thanks for getting back to me. I really enjoy this site. I also apologize if I offended you.
- http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop
I didn’t criticize EE for tweeting about Santorum. I criticized him for what he tweeted. It wasn’t accurate and had no credibility.
If I tried to smear a candidate as such, I would expect to be criticized for it as well. I’m just trying to keep people honest.
And thanks for your compliments and you didn’t offend me
- Anonymous
Unfortunately for the Senator it was true. When I linked to the site down in the comments there was a link to the newspaper; I think it was the Lehigh Daily Mail and I saw it with my own eyes.
- Anonymous
redstate and ee should be smeared…..
ee is a tyrannical little turd who is a paid political pundit for the communist news network (CNN). no true conservative would work for a network that spends 24 hours a days/7 days a week distorting the truth, trashing America, and trashing conservatives.
if you try to defend Santorum on redstate by providing facts against the onslaught of lies and distortions, you will be banned from logging in. I speak from experience.
Since when did conservatives believe in censorship? His tactics belong to the radical left!
- Anonymous
Don’t agree. I read Red State all the time and there are a lot of Perry supporters but there are a number of Santorum supporters and others. This entire primary has been one person critical of another. Nobody can claim innocence because everyone is supporting somebody, so they are pointing out another’s flaws. The only people surprising me are Fox who are in the tank for Romney but I still watch.
- Anonymous
That video of Santorum not only proves he’s exactly what his critics have been saying about him, that he’s a “big government conservative”, but it also shows what a blatant hypocrite he is and how his whole “family values” schtick is just that, a schtick.
How can any conservative watch that video and not get enraged at what Santorum said? He wants to regulate the internet. He made that clear. If you don’t think he did, go back and watch it again and listen to what he says and how he says it. He does not believe in unregulated freedoms? It’s mind boggling that any conservative could hear those words and not be enraged.
The two worst things he said specifically:
Freedom of speech is not absolute because you can’t do things like yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s a liberal argument.
Santorum’s example of the 12 year old boy on the internet exposed him as a hypocrite with his family values crap. Uh, Rick? Your entire spiel is all about the family and the rights of the family. Oh, but you expect the government to make sure your 12 year old brat doesn’t see boobs on the computer YOU pay for? Watch your own damn kids and don’t regulate the whole of the internet because some people are lousy parents, you moron.
Until people are willing to think for themselves this country is doomed. Stop latching onto a person so you can give your brain a rest. Think.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez
Impossible to regulate boobs off the internet
- Anonymous
“Freedom of speech is not absolute because you can’t do things like yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s a liberal argument.”
That’s not really a liberal argument. It’s a legit argument and not the only one. While we have freedom of speech, we have defamation laws. There are also laws against misrepresenting a product or service. You cannot impersonate another individual. And on and on…
- http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth
What is absolute is that the freedom exists. What is absolute is that the First Amendment protects it. What is also absolute is that you may not exercise your rights in a way that demonstrably causes harm to others (Second Amendment, anyone?).
- Anonymous
“…you can’t do things like yell fire in a crowded theater.”
Does anyone know what the hell that means anymore? Every time it’s used, it’s almost exclusively voiced by liberals…liberals of the Joe Biden variety. And whenever it’s used I tune out whoever uses it.
It’s so egregious, I just put it in the lexicon data base along with words like racist, redistribution of wealth, social justice and extreme right.
And if a conservative uses it, they have no clue how they’ve been had and suckered by the left’s definition of almost everything they hate.
Ugh!
- Anonymous
I thought Santorum and I explained what yelling fire in crowded theater meant.
Just because you believe there are occasions where there needs to be sane boundaries to rights doesn’t mean you’re anti-freedom or leftist or statist.
Do you believe the rights in the Bill of Rights have any limit?
In regards to pornography, I think he’s talking about how we regulate it, i.e. deny access to minors, deny minors be a part of it, deny public display of, etc. If he thinks regulating it on the Internet is possible, good luck with that.
- Anonymous
If he thinks regulating it on the Internet is possible, good luck with that.
I agree with you… I don’t believe he’s anti-freedom either.
Currently, freedom of speech is regulated by simple application of criminal law… Where I come from, Canada, it’s probably the same in the US… and that is use of death threats, libel and slander. Private individuals and business can exercise their own controls on what they can do or publish and public institutions have their own regulations and public norms dictate certain behaviours.
But the whole darn subject just leaves us constantly fighting and rehashing the same old things.
- http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth
Does anyone know what the hell that means anymore?
The late Christopher Hitchens called Oliver Wendell Holmes “fatuous and overpraised” with regard to the verdict where the “crowded theater” example was first used, a verdict that, if you read it, goes against what the First Amendment stands for, by saying that a time of war warrants greater restrictions on your and my free speech rights such as to avoid upsetting the government’s efforts to prosecute a war. No, a time of war is when we must most protect the First Amendment. Shredding the Constitution at a time when it is most unpopular to defend it is the time when it must be defended at all costs, and yet the Supreme Court stuck a dagger in the heart of the First Amendment by saying the State can restrict your free speech rights when history shows a time of war to be the time when they should be the most open.
Thankfully that case (Schenck v. United States) has been substantially weakened in later jurisprudence and the “clear and present danger” test that Holmes established in his opinion has since been replaced by the “imminent lawless action” test in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which builds on prior jurisprudence in Noto v US and Yates v US.
- Anonymous
It is a liberal argument. I didn’t say it wasn’t legitimate. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. You can’t incite a riot. You can’t talk someone else into committing murder. But all those things are crimes in their own right and on not infringements on the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not apply to criminal behavior and it’s a liberal argument to use restrictions on freedom of speech to “protect” something else.
That’s what liberals do. They use extreme, outlandish, rare incidents as an excuse to curtail the rights of everyone else. Freedom has a price and part of that price is the recognition that nothing is perfect. For someone who claims to be a conservative to jump right into regulation as an answer tells us all we need to know about Rick Santorum.
The 12 year old boy example he gave proves his entire family values platform is a sham. All of society should not be affected because some parent can’t control their child. Santorum wrote a book called It Takes a Family in response to Hilary Clinton’s book It takes a Village. Oh, right. Except when it comes to 12 year old boys and boobs on the internet. Riiiight.
Rick Santorum is done. Any conservative who supports him after that little exchange is an idiot. Any conservative who makes their living off the internet and still defends him after that exchange is a moron.
- Anonymous
RS it would be more helpful if you could print an entire transcipt, the video sound is very hard to make out.
I listened to his answer and felt that he was dodging the question about not being familiar with the bill, but then he goes on to address almost everything that is in the bill.
He knew enough about it, to highlight the piracy and copyright concerns addressed within the bill. Then he said “with any freedom there has to be regulation”, “responsible, (well-fitted?) discussed, regulation”, “if there is abuse,as there is in pornography, and a lot of other areas where we are destroying the moral fabric of our country….” and then later,” your risky choice can be very harmful to someone else “. (My apology, I must be going deaf, because this was very,very difficult to make out. I tried not to deliberately leave things out.)
So he did say that we should be careful how the regulation is written, but I think he definitely came down on the side of regulation of some sort, and clearly did not say no to this particular legislation.
I think it is the Santorum background as a culture/moral warrior, that gives me at least the impression, that he would be willing to pass a version of SOPA that could saacrifice freedom of speech, if it allowed regulation of pornography and other areas that he sees as deficient, in his moral view. It may be interpreted differently by others listening to this video. I think if it had been Romney, Gingrich,Perry or even Huntsman, they do not have the moral warrior tag, that to many would set off censorship flags. I know that my take on this may not be popular with RS, I am just thinking of those who are of a more Libertarian persuasion and how this plays in the general. - http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez
lol are you worried Santorum might take your internet porn away? Just joking with ya, even if he wanted to I think it’s impossible for him to do that.
- Anonymous
Steven,
For the record I don’t look at porn, internet or otherwise. I just know that when any administration (especially this one) gets the opportunity to squash political speech that they find “distasteful” or “unfair”, they take it. I am all for protecting the livelihood of people’s private property through anti-piracy and copyright law, but SOPA is a poorly written bill and once government starts down the slope of regulating things that we think are “destroying the moral fabric of our country”, how soon do you think they will shut down sites that have “unfair or socially unjust political hate speech”.
I once argued in an English class against students who wanted to take WWE wrestling off cable. I have never watched wrestling, but I figured it was none of my business what other adults wanted to watch, particularly when they were paying for it. I got clobbered by the Professor and a bunch of lib students that told me “wrestling was disgusting, and so was I for defending it”. - Josh
Santorum has a point and I believe that he handled it beautifully. There is no such thing as a free society and no such thing as an unregulated Internet. Once two or more people get involved, rights have to have boundaries. These boundaries have to be established when immoral idiots try to test the limits of society. So don’t blame the ones that have to consider regulation, blame the criminally idiotic who are out there ruining the Internet for everyone.
- http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth
“blame the criminally idiotic who are out there ruining the Internet for everyone.”
You make it sound like the Internet was devised for people like you and me. Like many other things, the Internet was once a military technology that was expanded for civilian use, initially among academia, then among general consumers.
Further free speech is about testing the limits of society. It’s about countering the mainstream. If the only speech spoken agreed with the consensus and mainstream points of view, it’s not free speech but a broken record. Someone is engaging in true free speech when they say something that goes against what you believe, when they say something that causes you to reconsider what you know or believe or respond with what you know or believe.
We do have limits on it, and that is when speech is used to cause harm or incite others to cause harm. However if what is spoken merely offends you or causes you to think, then the idea of free speech has been served once again.
So how is the Internet ruined or being ruined when it has expanded the idea of free speech further than ever could possibly be imagined? Speech has never been more open, its exercise never easier, and the opinions of the people reach further than ever before.
SOPA has the potential to bring all of this to an end…
- Josh
I know what the Internet was developed as. I am a computer programmer and network administrator. It was not designed to be a marketplace, but a durable and scalable decentralized information delivery system. I guess we can think Al Gore for the current state.
Completely agree with your view of SOPA. From what I have read, it sounds like a short-sighted, uninformed bill written by lawyers who have never encountered the Internet before.
In any case, I am completely FOR allowing free speech on the Internet. Even though there is some really nasty garbage out there, it is the user’s responsibility if they do not want to see or read it. However, I have to agree with Santorum that when commerce is threatened or where live users interact, there must be some form of rules and some body to enforce them.
- http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth
And typically moderators and administrators of the forums where people interact can do better at regulating that interaction and enforcing a set of rules better than the government. So do we need the government directly involved? Do we need additional laws on top of what is already there? I don’t think so.
Moderators and administrators where people interact can (in most cases) respond very quickly to problems and problematic individuals, much faster than the government, and with much less collateral damage than the government.
- Josh
OK, so no government regulation? I can live with that. However, the current laws must be updated to classify these crimes though. For example, emailing someone a threat should be the same as mailing them a threat, or saying it to their face? There is no proof that they are the ones who sent it. How do you prove that someone stole your song? You would have to get a search warrant for a digital device. Even then, they may have been hacked to put that song on their device. Without proper classification, it turns into a nightmare!
I understand the liberty perspective, but I also firmly believe that the current laws are inadequate to manage such a landscape.
- http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth
And what makes you think these aren’t crimes? Let’s take the first example:
For example, emailing someone a threat should be the same as mailing them a threat, or saying it to their face? There is no proof that they are the ones who sent it.
The fact you made a threat on someone is the crime. How the threat is delivered to the person being threatened only determines with what else you will be charged. Make the threat over the phone or by e-mail or through another electronic communication and you may also be charged with violating Federal wire communication laws. Make the threat by mail and you could face charges on violating postal laws and regulations.
And don’t underestimate the ability of Federal investigators to establish the trail needed to secure an arrest and conviction. It happens.
How do you prove that someone stole your song? You would have to get a search warrant for a digital device. Even then, they may have been hacked to put that song on their device.
Copyright violations are civil matters until a violation of 17 USC § 506 can be shown. Until it rises to the level of criminal copyright violation, search warrants don’t apply and it is up to the copyright owner to seek redress through a civil lawsuit.
This means that instead of a search warrant, subpoenas apply. Since copyright violations fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies. The target of the subpoena also has the ability to contest the subpoena.
If the person wants to raise a defense that the device in question was hacked, that is their purview, and also their burden to prove it in a civil case.
If the violations rise to the point of criminal investigation, then the full protections of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments come into play, meaning the entire burden to prove the charges rests on the Department of Justice.
I don’t think the current laws are inadequate. There are plenty of crimes laid out in State and Federal laws that define specific actions that can still occur in a digital landscape, and are still fully prosecutable under current laws.
- Josh
Once again, you are technically correct. Please answer this as succinctly. Should it be illegal for Google to have a fully nude model on it’s homepage?
Yes=Regulation is required.
No=Regulation is not required. - http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth
I already know that for it to be illegal would require not just the law, but some kind of regulatory model to implement the law, and that answering this question with anything but an unconditional No requires some kind of law and regulatory model.
But regardless of how I answer this question, you could pose a slightly altered question that might elicit a different response, so I have to ask what your intent is behind this question and what is its relevance to what is being discussed?
- Josh
Just to be honest and outright, it is a trap. Albeit a justified one. To say that there should be no regulation at all is to allow individuals and corporations to regulate themselves. You and I both know that would be an epic fail for society. My initial point was that I agree with Santorum in that some regulation is necessary but this bill may not be the way to go. Your argument was that regulation can prevent productive free speech, and that current laws are enough. My rebuttal was that the current laws are inadequate and need to be redressed.
Having argued my point to what I considered to be a deadlock, I sought to trap you in a catch-22 situation so that you would at least acknowledge my point: the Internet can NOT be a landscape free from regulation, but how that regulation is defined needs to be very carefully considered by people who know what they are discussing.
- http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth
I could sense it was a trap, but it would not have been necessary had you paid full attention to and comprehended what I was actually saying. Never did I say the Internet should be a “landscape free from regulation”, nor have I said anything like it. On that I do agree and, as I said, I’ve never made any explication or implication to the contrary, as you had already noted:
Your argument was that regulation can prevent productive free speech, and that current laws are enough.
Your argument that the “current laws are inadequate and need to be redressed” (I think you mean readdressed) is what is problematic. You aren’t arguing the lack of regulation, but the difficulty of enforcement with regard to the digital landscape.
But then how do we make enforcement of these laws easier? Well there’s only one of two ways: defer to those operating the online communities to enforce a set of rules and regulations while reporting any possible criminal activity to law enforcement, or have the government do this.
If you advocate the latter, your personal liberties must take a back seat to this.
Sure there are going to be places online where lawless activities occur. That’s the same offline. There are also going to be people who get away with crimes both online and offline.
I know of people who regularly receive death threats, but determining who exactly sent the threat so they can be arrested and locked up is a difficult task — not impossible, mind you, just difficult. But making laws easier to enforce through arbitrary requirements on online content and service providers necessarily and unjustifiably encroaches on the personal liberties of innocent persons.
That is the concern I was addressing when I say that what currently exists is adequate.
- Anonymous
Once again, Mr. Issa came close to losing me as he just makes too much sense.
Mr. Santorum was back-pedaling from the get go. His panel, committee or gestapo would stomp all over my porn in a millisecond. Then my disagreements with the policy would be kept off the net in their censorious ways. Other distasteful stuff would / will follow closely.
“Don’t worry, we will only move to ban semi-automatic assault weapons.”
Let me put Mr. Santorum’s remarks in another form; Why should breathing be different from anything else?
Shouldn’t some people (smokers, halitosians and garlic lovers) be taxed for exhaling their trash into the public air waves?
I expect water, rather than air, to be the next openly taxed area, but on the way the internet seems handy enough.
GB
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez
Fight for your Right for Internet Porn? LOL.
- Anonymous
Ugggh, who cares? Is this make or break? No. Santorum cannot win period. He has some good points like voting against NAFTA and a few others but nothing that stands out enough. Nothing distinguishable. SOPA will have zero impact one way or the other with regards too him.
Santorum is Bob Dole folks. Zero charisma. Doesn’t evoke a lick of enthusiasm. Watching him give a speech is like watching ice melt. He is like a hospital tan, it just isn’t there. The country will not rally around him.
Down with SOPA!
- Anonymous
I don’t have a problem with people downloading things (music, games, movies) on the Internet, since they’re not trying to sell that intellectual property and make a profit – The only problem I have is with people who do.
Someone downloading a song (without paying for it) and playing it on their ipod is not the same thing as someone downloading a song and then selling it to a bunch of people to profit off someone else’s intellect.
Yes yes, it may be argued that people still “profit” off a download, since they don’t need to buy whatever it is, and they get all the benefits of having the item – But that is a hell of a lot different from selling someone else’s idea to other people, and I think that intellectual property law should be against the sellers of other people’s intellectual property, and not against individuals who download stuff off the Internet.
And yes, I am biased
- http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles Art Telles
An “OPEN” perspective…
KeepTheWebOpen(dotcom)
“OPEN: Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act
“The OPEN Act secures two fundamental principles.
“First, Americans have a right to benefit from what they’ve created.
“And second, Americans have a right to an open internet.
“Our duty is to protect these rights.
“That’s why congressional Republicans and Democrats came together to write the OPEN Act.
“But it’s only a start.
“We need your help: sign up, comment and collaborate to build a better bill.”
Art
- Anonymous
This topic is getting a lot of coverage. I think the discussion on the blog hot air seems to be balanced and fair.
- http://twitter.com/cookingstormm JaeDee L.
Yes, I am starting to see that in conservative blogs. I see either exaggerations or putting up headlines that the person is really not saying that at all. I thought they were doing much better journalism than the mainstream media. I am not so sure now. Or, is it because this is an election season and everybody has their own agenda and trying to help their candidates by tearing the others? Gee, I thought the truth has no agenda.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Liz-Theiss/100001295886095 Liz Theiss
I was ready to abandon ship over that.
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger
I think Santorum is very clear. His position is that….”he has no position” on SOPA. So this is much to do about nothing.
- Anonymous
Redstate has been pushing Perry for some time at the expense of other candidates. I stopped reading the site because it was getting so blatant. Not that I don’t like Perry….I just don’t like it when our side gets so stuck on one individual that they feel it necessary to distort facts and tear down others. I leave that for the RP crowd.
- BS61
The internet works wonderfully with out government involvement – I would think RightScoop would be the first to keep the internet free!
I really don’t understand the need to smear people in this election cycle. A blog over at RedState (not on front page) has the headline “Santorum supports SOPA” and then has the video below as the body with this little quote to mislead people:
“My general feeling is that we have a free market and a free market that works; but, like any freedom–there has to be regulation….”
Let me point this out before you even watch the video that he says this in the video regarding SOPA:
I can’t say that, with respect to that bill, that I’m familiar enough with it that I can say that I have an opinion one way or the other on it.
It’s clear he’s saying that he doesn’t know enough about that bill to put his support behind it, therefore he doesn’t support the bill. OK? It’s not that hard to understand.
That being said, the video below is really more of a general thought of his on the need for responsible regulations on the internet to protect people. And I think he makes a good case for his general position:
But in regards to SOPA, specifically, here is Rep. Issa, who is familiar with the bill citing his concerns for the bill:
—
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Florey/100002838321254
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704
- http://www.therightscoop.com/
- http://www.therightscoop.com/
I didn’t criticize EE for tweeting about Santorum. I criticized him for what he tweeted. It wasn’t accurate and had no credibility.
If I tried to smear a candidate as such, I would expect to be criticized for it as well. I’m just trying to keep people honest.
And thanks for your compliments and you didn’t offend me
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704
- http://www.kennethballard.com
- http://www.kennethballard.com
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704
- http://www.kennethballard.com
I know what the Internet was developed as. I am a computer programmer and network administrator. It was not designed to be a marketplace, but a durable and scalable decentralized information delivery system. I guess we can think Al Gore for the current state.
Completely agree with your view of SOPA. From what I have read, it sounds like a short-sighted, uninformed bill written by lawyers who have never encountered the Internet before.
In any case, I am completely FOR allowing free speech on the Internet. Even though there is some really nasty garbage out there, it is the user’s responsibility if they do not want to see or read it. However, I have to agree with Santorum that when commerce is threatened or where live users interact, there must be some form of rules and some body to enforce them.
- http://www.kennethballard.com
- http://www.kennethballard.com
- http://www.kennethballard.com
- http://www.kennethballard.com
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704
I don’t have a problem with people downloading things (music, games, movies) on the Internet, since they’re not trying to sell that intellectual property and make a profit – The only problem I have is with people who do.
Someone downloading a song (without paying for it) and playing it on their ipod is not the same thing as someone downloading a song and then selling it to a bunch of people to profit off someone else’s intellect.
Yes yes, it may be argued that people still “profit” off a download, since they don’t need to buy whatever it is, and they get all the benefits of having the item – But that is a hell of a lot different from selling someone else’s idea to other people, and I think that intellectual property law should be against the sellers of other people’s intellectual property, and not against individuals who download stuff off the Internet.
And yes, I am biased
- http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles
- http://twitter.com/cookingstormm
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Liz-Theiss/100001295886095
- http://twitter.com/113KriEger
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.