Should the Internet be subject to the law? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Kiopa_Matt · 12-22-2010, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Then you need to prove that the State is more efficient, better at providing safety than the free market. then you need to come up with some numbers that support your claim.

Sure. Somalia, Ivory Coast, Sri Lanka, or take your pick. There's lots.

I think you're giving humanity too much credit. Don't kid yourself, if there were no laws being enforced in North America or Europe, we'd degenerate into the exact same society those poor bastards are forced to live in.

I do agree that the government seems to have overdosed on steroids over the past couple decades, but nonetheless, we do need laws and they do need to be enforced regardless if those actions are done offline or online.

u-Bob · 12-22-2010, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt

Sure. Somalia, Ivory Coast, Sri Lanka, or take your pick. There's lots.

I think you're giving humanity too much credit. Don't kid yourself, if there were no laws being enforced in North America or Europe, we'd degenerate into the exact same society those poor bastards are forced to live in.

I do agree that the government seems to have overdosed on steroids over the past couple decades, but nonetheless, we do need laws and they do need to be enforced regardless if those actions are done offline or online.

The only basic rule (can call it Law if you want) is the nonaggression principle. Once you go beyond that, you start committing acts of injustice.

The places you mentioned are no different from the US or EU. In those places, large gangs of thugs terrorize the population... that essentially is what the State is and does over here. Over here they may be wearing nice suits and have more guns and have created the impression of legitimacy over time, but they are essentially the same. A big gang of thugs enforcing their own set of rules and using aggression to do so. The fact that some gangs are more brutal than other gangs, the fact that some gangs enforce sharia law and other gangs enforce laws that were created by politicians who are in bed with large corporations, the fact that one gang has been in power longer than another gang... Those fact do not legitimize the power of any of those gangs.

In a free world, justice would be enforced. There would be lots of different protection services to chose from. companies selling those services would have an incentive to raise the quality and keep the prices low if they don't want to lose clients. You could also defend yourself or chose not to defend yourself. You could form alliances with your neighbors. In some parts of the world, like South Africa for example... groups that once would have been called militia's or vigilante's and private medical services have already proven to be more efficient than the State.

Quote:

I think you're giving humanity too much credit.

You seem to be forgetting that Governments are made up out of normal people. People don't turn into allknowing, unselfish, superhumans when you vote for them in an election. If you are worried people would commit acts of injustice if there were no such thing as the State, then why aren't you worried that those same people might abuse their power if you elect them to office and basically give them control over every aspect of your life?

Kiopa_Matt · 12-22-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

The places you mentioned are no different from the US or EU. In those places, large gangs of thugs terrorize the population... that essentially is what the State is and does over here. Over here they may be wearing nice suits and have more guns and have created the impression of legitimacy over time, but they are essentially the same.

Except for the fact the populous gets to elect who those thugs & gang leaders are. We don't get to elect who's in charge of the Bloods, Crips, or Hells Angels.

I do agree to an extent though, and Hells Angels are a perfect example. There's been many times where they came into a neighborhood, took over the drug trade, and kicked all the low-life thugs out. In general, everyone was very appreciative of them coming in, because they're not going to cause you a problem unless you first make one, whereas the lowlife thugs were causing everyone problems.

Nonetheless, that doesn't actually work, and you can't allow humans to police themselves. For example, look at Iraq, after the US disbanded the government & military. It was total anarchy. People had to setup neighborhood watch programs, but unlike the US, these consisted of groups of neighbors rotating nights, carrying around AK-47s at 3am to ensure a militia doesn't rape their wife & kids, and steal all their possessions.

That's the exact world we'd live in if we didn't have laws in place, and a government to enforce them. I'll agree, the government has overstepped their bounds, and many laws we have should be repealed, but nonetheless, we do need laws and they do need to be enforced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

In a free world, justice would be enforced. There would be lots of different protection services to chose from. companies selling those services would have an incentive to raise the quality and keep the prices low if they don't want to lose clients.

I'm sorry, but that thinking is just delusional. I'm sorry, but things wouldn't play out like that AT ALL. If you don't believe me, again, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, Republic of Congo, and the list goes on, and on, and on...

Blingbaby · 12-22-2010, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SallyRand

The problem here, Paul is the the FCC has no real stautatory authority to "regulate" the interent as such. By the "Interent Neutrality" decision the FCC has simply GRABBED power over something it has no business controlling and the sheeple are weak enough to allow it.

Homeland Security were out testing the power to shut down websites anad seizing domains without warrants or court orders, preparatory to the FCC GRABBING this POWER from the PEOPLE and they got away with it!

This is a POWER GRAB and POWER GRAB only by the Administration and we will all suffer for it.

You do understand that other countries can access the interwebz as well yes?

Barry-xlovecam · 12-22-2010, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry Jew Cat

But it is weakly enforced. If at all. If a law exists it should be enforced, online or off, no? Would you not agree with that?

I am 99% positive this thread spawned from the thread about the proposed UK porn filter. So if openly presenting pornographic material to children is against the law, and everyone and their uncle is smearing porn across the net with easy access and no age verification needed, would that not constitute open distribution of pornography to the under 18 crowd? ...

1.) Most countries have national laws but their enforcement differs. Priorities or for political reasons?

2.) In the US, the C.O.P.A. statute, restricting access to sexually explicit material was struck down as unconstitutional for reason of it's adult verification restrictions being technically unachievable. There is no AVS (adult verification system) that is sure to be accurate. The Parliament in the UK has taken a different approach ? the opt-in to porn one. Good luck if you expect John Q. Public to state that he wants authorization to view porn online ? that is ludicrous!! Hopefully, this UK law will meet it's death in the UK Courts.

More directly, DMCA is a US law ? it is only enforceable in the United States. Most countries are signatories to the Berne Convention of Copyright, making copyright internationally recognized.

Chinese persons need follow Chinese law, US persons need follow US Federal and State laws, EU persons need follow both EU statutes and their country's laws, etc. ... There is also certain limited International Law that the courts in some political jurisdictions will consider admissible and follow, limited being the key word.

There is no recognized world government that decrees the "Law of the Internet."

Sabby · 12-22-2010, 09:41 PM

we always need to set boundaries.

and there will always be those who push them.

not because the act they request actually turns them on... its because its "forbidden".

You can "roleplay" for these fuckers or pass them along... but whats next???

The less you offer... the more they want.

Sabby

Sabby · 12-22-2010, 09:50 PM

Its not a long shot to say there will be a universal internet law in our future.

(hopefully Im dead by then)

Sabby

Paul Markham · 12-23-2010, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicmike

People check their brain at the door when they go online. This thread is proof.

Well some do even when it's obviously a trick question for the slow thinkers. And warned to think about it first.

What stops a company like Microsoft buying up main service providers and any other service that controls people access to the WWW?

Is it a little law about Net Neutrality?

With the Internet not subject to any laws, someone could turn your Internet connection into another version of your cable TV connection. Your basic connection allows you to see this list of sites, if you want to surf Torrents you need the Torrent package, if you want to surf porn sites you need the Porn package, if you want to surf social network site you need that package emails also come with an extra charge and so on. The profit potential is amazing.

Microsoft or Google or some other company would control the Internet.

Don't fear the little scammers from an Internet not subject to laws and controls. Fear the big man.

There's no such thing as real freedom. We need laws and regulations to maintain the illusion of freedom.

Paul Markham · 12-23-2010, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Look, what I'm saying is: People are master of their own body and property and are free to do with their body and property what they want as long as they don't cause damage to another person or his property. That's 1 very basic rule/principle to prevent injustice. A principle that doesn't change depending on the situation or your geographical location.

Now, if you want an organization like that State... basically an organization that enforces its own set of rules onto people who just happen to be living within certain artificial borders... an organization that constantly creates new rules, rules that are not aimed at preventing injustice but at serving the system... an organization that infringes on people's rights... an organization that violates people's property rights... all in the name of safety and efficiency.... then the burden of proof is on you. Then you need to prove that the State is more efficient, better at providing safety than the free market. then you need to come up with some numbers that support your claim.

So you dream of some sort of Utopia where everyman is free to decide on his own course of actions, the laws he will abide to and no controlling influence above him.

So go buy a desert island and live there in the fear that no one with a bigger gun than yours decides to live there with you as his slave.

In the real world there's always controls and always someone in charge of you. The concept of freedom as you see it doesn't exist and couldn't exist. Whether it's a democratically elected council on a kibbutz or a Senate there are people laying down the law.

Just pray you have some input and chance to turn the system around because the alternative is dictatorship, by a few men. Usually backed by there army.

Prove the State is "more efficient, better at providing safety than the free market." Prove there is such a thing as the free market. I've never seen it. Even on your desert island you're controlled by Mother Nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

btw: I have been robbed... well, at least they tried... and they didn't succeed... not because the State stopped them, because the state did nothing to stop them... The robbers didn't succeed because I defended my property.

= I had more power than them.

Next time you might not. In your dream world you definitely wouldn't. Think harder.

Paul Markham · 12-23-2010, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

The only basic rule (can call it Law if you want) is the nonaggression principle.

I stopped reading there to change my pants, I pissed myself with laughter.

u-Bob · 12-23-2010, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt

I'm sorry, but that thinking is just delusional. I'm sorry, but things wouldn't play out like that AT ALL. If you don't believe me, again, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, Republic of Congo, and the list goes on, and on, and on...

THE PRIVATE PRODUCTION OF DEFENSE:
https://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

The Myth of National Defense:
http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

u-Bob · 12-23-2010, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I stopped reading there to change my pants, I pissed myself with laughter.

The Declaration of Independence was based on the same idea...

TheSwed · 12-23-2010, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

1.) Most countries have national laws but their enforcement differs. Priorities or for political reasons?

2.) In the US, the C.O.P.A. statute, restricting access to sexually explicit material was struck down as unconstitutional for reason of it's adult verification restrictions being technically unachievable. There is no AVS (adult verification system) that is sure to be accurate. The Parliament in the UK has taken a different approach ? the opt-in to porn one. Good luck if you expect John Q. Public to state that he wants authorization to view porn online ? that is ludicrous!! Hopefully, this UK law will meet it's death in the UK Courts.

More directly, DMCA is a US law ? it is only enforceable in the United States. Most countries are signatories to the Berne Convention of Copyright, making copyright internationally recognized.

Chinese persons need follow Chinese law, US persons need follow US Federal and State laws, EU persons need follow both EU statutes and their country's laws, etc. ... There is also certain limited International Law that the courts in some political jurisdictions will consider admissible and follow, limited being the key word.

There is no recognized world government that decrees the "Law of the Internet."

Thanks for that post

nice to see that I'm not the only one that understand Internet is not a U.S.A property

michael.kickass · 12-23-2010, 07:04 AM

I think not.

topnotch, standup guy · 12-23-2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt

I do agree that the government seems to have overdosed on steroids over the past couple decades,

Yeah, no shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt

but nonetheless, we do need laws and they do need to be enforced regardless if those actions are done offline or online.

Tell that to the poor fucks who live in Australia.

They're about to enter into a virtual dark age that will most certainly last a few years and could go on for as long as a lifetime for many of them.

Australia isn't Iran. What's happening there could happen anywhere.

Watch what you wish for.
.

Paul Markham · 12-23-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

The Declaration of Independence was based on the same idea...

I laughed because in a previous post you hinted you protected your property with aggression. Then you abdicate we all live by non aggression treaties. Independence wasn't gained by non aggression.

The problem with your dream is it would never work without men around you to make sure those who don't agree don't come gunning for you. Your dream is unworkable.

Society needs rules and laws to hold it together and make it work.

Look at what Barry-xlovecam wrote. Someone decided to ban something they didn't like and it was struck down by LAWS.

WITHOUT THOSE LAWS OTHERS COULD DECIDE WHAT YOU WATCH AND WHAT YOU DON'T WATCH VERY EASILY.

Do you want the Internet in the hands of Google or Microsoft or some faceless corporation?

u-Bob · 12-23-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I laughed because in a previous post you hinted you protected your property with aggression. Then you abdicate we all live by non aggression treaties. Independence wasn't gained by non aggression.

There's a difference between force and aggression.

Aggression = initiating the use of force against some one and violating that person's rights.

When someone commits an act of aggression, when he violates your property rights, he essentially gives up his own rights and you can use force to defend yourself/to retaliate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The problem with your dream is it would never work without men around you to make sure those who don't agree don't come gunning for you. Your dream is unworkable.

Like I've said many times before. In a world without the State, there would still be crime. But instead of being forced to buy protection services from the State (the state essentially is a company that sells many services like protection), you would buy them from a private protection company you chose. Or you would defend yourself or you would form an alliance with some of your neighbors or some shopkeepers would hire protection to keep their streets safe (because safer streets would attract more customers) etc...

The only difference between the current system is that those private security companies would actually have an incentive to do a good job because otherwise they would loose clients. The State/Police don't care about their 'clients' because the State simply forces everyone to pay for their substandard services.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Society needs rules and laws to hold it together and make it work.

Like I said, the basic non-aggression principle suffices. It's what Bastiat called The Law. It's when Jefferson referred to when he wrote about inalienable rights. It's what Spooner called Natural Rights. It's what Hoppe called the Natural Order. It's what some like to call Rational Rights. It's the original meaning of "The Rule Of Law".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Look at what Barry-xlovecam wrote. Someone decided to ban something they didn't like and it was struck down by LAWS.

WITHOUT THOSE LAWS OTHERS COULD DECIDE WHAT YOU WATCH AND WHAT YOU DON'T WATCH VERY EASILY.

Do you want the Internet in the hands of Google or Microsoft or some faceless corporation?

Google and Microsoft are private companies, they can use their property in any way they want. Personally I don't agree with a lot of the things Google does and stands for so I don't use their services, I don't use Gmail, I don't click their ads, I encourage other people to stop using them,...

MishaOLS · 11-22-2011, 07:12 PM

There should definitely be no violence exposed on net...in and out of adult....but if controlling would help...i don't know. And of course, nobody should steal my videos

...if controlling would help ... I don't know

...As some say, maybe governed controls would steal more

Jakez · 11-22-2011, 07:29 PM

Of course there should be laws, but you're saying we can't pick and choose which laws? Does that even make sense?

Fucking retarded thread.

AllAboutCams · 11-22-2011, 08:08 PM

who cares about 2257 its a joke anyway

RycEric · 11-22-2011, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxupdate

who cares about 2257 its a joke anyway

Who was running that show?

2intense · 11-23-2011, 12:29 AM

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Good god, everything the government touches turns to shit. PLEASE keep them the fuck off the internet or theres no hope for the future!

And the Internet with a clear lack of controls has turned out to be even shittier. Unless you profit by being one of those shitting on others rights.

An Internet not subject to the law = child porn being published online. The producing of the content is illegal, publication on the Internet is illegal. No laws makes publishing legal. Makes shaving legal, piracy legal, scamming cards online legal, phishing legal and so many other things that are illegal are suddenly made legal if you do it inside the haven of the Internet.

This is why there was no 3rd option, a little trap to see who was thinking it through. Liketopnotch, standup guy if there were no laws selling enriched uranium online would be legal. Not sure about the physical aspect of delivery and receiving. But the actual selling of it online would be legal.

Would piracy be greatly reduced? If the law on copyright theft was enforced, if it were expanded to make advertisers and billing processors liable to be sued, then yes it would be greatly reduced. Laws don't stop crimes, they reduce them and allow law enforcement to do their jobs. Some seem to think unless a law stops everything 100% it shouldn't be passed. figure that one out for yourselves, IMO great argument for criminals.

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakez

Of course there should be laws, but you're saying we can't pick and choose which laws? Does that even make sense?

Fucking retarded thread.

Yes some of the replies are retarded. That was why I put it up, to attract and expose the retards. And criminals. Amazed at all those who think the Internet should not be subject to laws. Subject to the laws of the lands, adjusted to fit online. Plus some to fit online only like piracy. Like hitting processing companies and advertisers who support them.

Yes some people would be hit hard by such laws, some will have to be very careful who they do business with. Will it effect the over all revenue of the Internet. Yes it will increase. Maybe not in porn, but in other areas it will. People will not be able to pirate music, programs, films as easily and widespread as they do today. Big Tubes won't be allowed to have "User Uploads" so will have to have legal content. Which means buying it. Or less updates.

Will any of this mean less people spend money online? No way.

Will it mean more people will buy online? Yes, maybe not in porn that has cherished the free porn model.

Will it mean some will lose income or have to change the way they do business? Yes, welcome to the world of "Adapt or Die".

Of course no one gets the chance to pick and choose laws, that would be idiocy.

AllAboutCams · 11-23-2011, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Yes some of the replies are retarded. That was why I put it up, to attract and expose the retards. And criminals. Amazed at all those who think the Internet should not be subject to laws. Subject to the laws of the lands, adjusted to fit online. Plus some to fit online only like piracy. Like hitting processing companies and advertisers who support them.

Yes some people would be hit hard by such laws, some will have to be very careful who they do business with. Will it effect the over all revenue of the Internet. Yes it will increase. Maybe not in porn, but in other areas it will. People will not be able to pirate music, programs, films as easily and widespread as they do today. Big Tubes won't be allowed to have "User Uploads" so will have to have legal content. Which means buying it. Or less updates.

Will any of this mean less people spend money online? No way.

Will it mean more people will buy online? Yes, maybe not in porn that has cherished the free porn model.

Will it mean some will lose income or have to change the way they do business? Yes, welcome to the world of "Adapt or Die".

Of course no one gets the chance to pick and choose laws, that would be idiocy.

the only one retarded here is you with your shit out of date content

SmutHammer · 11-23-2011, 01:54 AM

if there is no law on the net, there shouldn't be anywhere else either, then if someone steals your content, you can just shoot the thieves and rid the world...

oh, and no, I didn't read all the posts in this thread....

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

if there is no law on the net, there shouldn't be anywhere else either, then if someone steals your content, you can just shoot the thieves and rid the world...

oh, and no, I didn't read all the posts in this thread....

Unless while they steal your content they shoot you as well.

Have you got anymore bright ideas?

Emil · 11-23-2011, 04:17 AM

The US laws should not apply to the whole fucking Internet.

porno jew · 11-23-2011, 04:24 AM

i wholly support the "ban old men from yelling at clouds on the internet" act as well.

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emil

The US laws should not apply to the whole fucking Internet.

Agreed

Just the sites that can be accessed from the US.

Or are you a Russian site that scams cards, pirates content, sells child porn, that a person in the US can access and pay to join should be allowed?

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

i wholly support the "ban old men from yelling at clouds on the internet" act as well.

I wholly support the "ban younger Jewish guys making stupid posts" act as well.

EukerVoorn · 11-23-2011, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Ask the majority of citizens in ANY country if they would like to live without YouTube and other social networks that endlessly violate copyright law. The answer is, "no".

Youtube does respect copyright law. One DMCA notice and the video is gone. That's what made them big.

EukerVoorn · 11-23-2011, 05:26 AM

I voted YES.

This comes from the blog of the "security officer" of LeaseWeb:

"If it is up to the Dutch Minister of Economics, Maxime Verhagen, net neutrality will be legally adopted in the Netherlands. This was stated in the Dutch Parliament during a debate yesterday regarding a new telecommunications law where the “net neutrality” amendment was embraced by most political parties. The amendment requires Internet providers and telecom operators ensure equal access for customers to all types of content, services, or applications and prohibits the blocking, delay or obstruction of specific services."

I totally disagree with that. I support law enforcement and full government control on the internet. Our societies are based on human rights and laws and the internet is and should be part of our societies. If you ask me if the internet should be subject to the law, my first concern would be CP, crushing videos, pedofiles scanning for minors, distributing hard drugs and fake viagra, gambling scams (all things that kill and ruine people) and only after that I would worry about copyrights and the interests of the porn business. I rather get out of business and live in a clean and safe society than having to live in an anarchistic mess and making millions a year.

IF the internet can be fully controlled is another question.

porno jew · 11-23-2011, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EukerVoorn

I voted YES.

This comes from the blog of the "security officer" of LeaseWeb:

"If it is up to the Dutch Minister of Economics, Maxime Verhagen, net neutrality will be legally adopted in the Netherlands. This was stated in the Dutch Parliament during a debate yesterday regarding a new telecommunications law where the “net neutrality” amendment was embraced by most political parties. The amendment requires Internet providers and telecom operators ensure equal access for customers to all types of content, services, or applications and prohibits the blocking, delay or obstruction of specific services."

I totally disagree with that. I support law enforcement and full government control on the internet. Our societies are based on human rights and laws and the internet is and should be part of our societies. If you ask me if the internet should be subject to the law, my first concern would be CP, crushing videos, pedofiles scanning for minors, distributing hard drugs and fake viagra, gambling scams (all things that kill and ruine people) and only after that I would worry about copyrights and the interests of the porn business. I rather get out of business and live in a clean and safe society than having to live in an anarchistic mess and making millions a year.

IF the internet can be fully controlled is another question.

i agree. the pubic should be protected from serial-killer looking cat loving producers of shit and piss porn on the internet.

u-Bob · 11-23-2011, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EukerVoorn

I support law enforcement and full government control on the internet.

Law (the enforcement of rights) and government control are 2 totally different things.

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EukerVoorn

IF the internet can be fully controlled is another question.

Laws don't stop crime. I'm sure you know about policemen, courts, prisons, etc. These are there for those who break the law. Remove the laws and there's no need for any of them and the biggest armed mob rule.

Fools who think they can protect themselves are just selfish delusional idiots. Because the evidence is clear, without laws the tyrants take over. Then impose new laws that unless you go along with the tyrants you suffer. This is what would happen with an unregulated Internet exempt of all laws.

"Net Neutrality" whose to enforce it without laws? Without laws, the IPs get together and decide Net Neutrality isn't good for them and decide they own the Internet, priced and run to suit them.

Yes u-Bob without laws, you will suffer and whose to make and enforce the laws? Certainly not the individual, companies, a committee of people who think like you or a committee of people who think your rights don't matter and their bottom line matters?

Is a Democratically elected Government the best to make and enforce laws? Until I see a better model, I vote yes.

And so far no one ever has come up with a system that works better.

porno jew · 11-23-2011, 06:00 AM

laws are just how tyrants keep their population enslaved.

EukerVoorn · 11-23-2011, 06:43 AM

Paul... you write that laws don't stop crime, but you're in favor of laws? I don't get it... I agree with you that without laws, the biggest armed mob rules. That's exactly what happens in places like Johannesburg, Mexico, Somalia, Afghanistan. And I'm happy that I'm not living in one of those places. It's also what happens on the web, the biggest armed mob rules, with in this case money being the arms.

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EukerVoorn

Paul... you write that laws don't stop crime, but you're in favor of laws? I don't get it... I agree with you that without laws, the biggest armed mob rules. That's exactly what happens in places like Johannesburg, Mexico, Somalia, Afghanistan. And I'm happy that I'm not living in one of those places. It's also what happens on the web, the biggest armed mob rules, with in this case money being the arms.

No laws work 100%, that's why we need police to catch the law breakers and bring them to justice. They reduce crime, by making it a crime. Take that away and you have anarchy.

You have places like Afghanistan, Somalia, where the local war lord makes the laws.

Yes you still have laws.

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

laws are just how tyrants keep their population enslaved.

Agreed. The problem is doing away with laws, lets more tyrants impose their laws.

porno jew · 11-23-2011, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Agreed. The problem is doing away with laws, lets more tyrants impose their laws.

wut ..................................

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

wut ..................................

OK let me explain it to those with less comprehension.

Without laws, the worse ALWAYS rise to the top to take power. The weak do not inherit the world, this is a lie put out by the strong to keep the weak in their place.

So an Internet not governed by laws means all the scum are free of any penalties, yes I know they get away with a lot now which is why more and better laws are needed. It means ISPs can do what they like. "Net Neutrality" relies on their goodwill to provide it, if they think there's more profit in going another route. They go that way.

I can log into Brazzers, Met-Art, RK's sites, BangBros's sites. Download the whole site, put up a Tube or paysite and do what I like with it. Sell memberships at $5 a lifetime. And cancel them the week after. No CBs because. "I broke no laws".

Of course opening a Tube site would be the easiest thing to do.

Or copy all the programs from Microsoft, get a programmer to hack them and take out password protection and give them away. Or anything else I want to do.

Because. "I broke no laws".

What stops me?

Yes you got it. Laws.

I like to think my own personal morality stops me, but if it stops me, we know many here it won't stop. Yes laws are all we have to maintain some sort of order and we know the laws we have today are inadequate. Therefore need strengthening or creating.

SmutHammer · 11-23-2011, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Unless while they steal your content they shoot you as well.

Have you got anymore bright ideas?

Just making the point on how ridiculous it would be to have no law on the internet, Laws are needed.

SmutHammer · 11-23-2011, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emil

The US laws should not apply to the whole fucking Internet.

Hmmm, I was thinking the internet came from the usa, is that not true? either way, the usa should be able to govern the internet here, If someone doesn't want to play by the rules, then they are blocked from anything us. traffic, processing etc.

SmutHammer · 11-23-2011, 11:18 AM

Why does everyone act like if you can't stop something 100% there is no point? Things are so bad right now, my girlfriend who can barley use a computer knows how to download all the mp3's she wants, my son "10 years old" knows sites to go to where he can stream any movie he wants, including ones still in the movie theater, with more strict laws in place it won't be easy for any average person to steal anything they like...

and I unlike alot of people, I do not let my son use those websites! as far as music, I listen to Pandora, if there is an artist I like, I'll buy the album, a movie I want to see, I'll go to the theater, rent or buy it.

Solace · 11-23-2011, 11:34 AM

I'm of the opinion
Justice = Just Us
Illegal = Ill Equal
So No, Fuck No.

2intense · 11-23-2011, 11:41 AM

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

People act as if "laws" or making something illegal acts as some type of deterrant....newsflash it doesnt and it doesnt prevent whatever you're trying to stop from happening

Must visit you for my holiday. Living in the real world, it would be great to come and see you living in a fantasy land.

It stops most. Otherwise anarchy would rule and they would really know how to stop you. Dead.

Paul Markham · 11-23-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

Just making the point on how ridiculous it would be to have no law on the internet, Laws are needed.

OK. You never know here with all the keyboard warriors.

Laws won't stop crime, they limit it.

_Richard_ · 11-23-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt

Sure. Somalia, Ivory Coast, Sri Lanka, or take your pick. There's lots.

I think you're giving humanity too much credit. Don't kid yourself, if there were no laws being enforced in North America or Europe, we'd degenerate into the exact same society those poor bastards are forced to live in.

I do agree that the government seems to have overdosed on steroids over the past couple decades, but nonetheless, we do need laws and they do need to be enforced regardless if those actions are done offline or online.

not entirely fair.. any person able to pull those countries together mysteriously is killed

edit god dammit

View Poll Results: Should the Internet be subject to the law?
Yes	33	51.56%
No, there is no 3rd option.	31	48.44%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

12-22-2010, 09:41 PM	#56
Sabby Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 2,888	we always need to set boundaries. and there will always be those who push them. not because the act they request actually turns them on... its because its "forbidden". You can "roleplay" for these fuckers or pass them along... but whats next??? The less you offer... the more they want. Sabby __________________ Fuck off Last edited by Sabby; 12-22-2010 at 09:44 PM..

12-22-2010, 09:50 PM	#57
Sabby Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 2,888	Its not a long shot to say there will be a universal internet law in our future. (hopefully Im dead by then) Sabby __________________ Fuck off Last edited by Sabby; 12-22-2010 at 09:51 PM..

12-23-2010, 07:04 AM	#64
michael.kickass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 11,039	I think not. __________________ NICERATIOS - $30 PPS - 50% Rev Share - 5% WM Referral - High Converting Sites! Any questions about your NICERATIOS account? Vanessa will take care of you: [email protected] Looking to expand your business in general, maybe sell your sites? Contact me: [email protected]

11-22-2011, 07:12 PM	#68
MishaOLS Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Prague and Delhi Posts: 91	There should definitely be no violence exposed on net...in and out of adult....but if controlling would help...i don't know. And of course, nobody should steal my videos...if controlling would help ... I don't know ...As some say, maybe governed controls would steal more __________________ Check Out our Interactive Sex Diary - Real Personal and Intimate Yan and Misha are a couple of students, who travel the world, shoot sexy videos and juicy photos, seek how to change the world to be a better place and run their intimate sex blog about it. Their OpenLoveSite is perhaps the hottest site on the internet, entirely about one couple being in love. We use Sliiing as the best known backend!

11-22-2011, 07:29 PM	#69
Jakez Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: oddfuturewolfgangkillthemall!!!!!!! Posts: 5,656	Of course there should be laws, but you're saying we can't pick and choose which laws? Does that even make sense? Fucking retarded thread. __________________ [email protected] - jakezdumb - 573689400 Killuminati

11-22-2011, 08:08 PM	#70
AllAboutCams Femcams.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: bjcam.com Posts: 12,223	who cares about 2257 its a joke anyway __________________ Binance - Blockchain and Crypto Asset Exchange Chaturbate make money in cams

11-23-2011, 12:29 AM	#72
2intense Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Google Posts: 12,463	__________________ Most Affordable Firewall & Malware Protection for Linux Servers

11-23-2011, 01:54 AM	#76
SmutHammer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,258	if there is no law on the net, there shouldn't be anywhere else either, then if someone steals your content, you can just shoot the thieves and rid the world... oh, and no, I didn't read all the posts in this thread.... Last edited by SmutHammer; 11-23-2011 at 01:58 AM..

11-23-2011, 04:17 AM	#78
Emil Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 5,650	The US laws should not apply to the whole fucking Internet. __________________ Free 🅑🅘🅣🅒🅞🅘🅝🅢 Every Hour (Yes, really. Free ₿itCoins.) (Signup with ONLY your Email and Password. You can also refer people and get even more.)

11-23-2011, 04:24 AM	#79
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	i wholly support the "ban old men from yelling at clouds on the internet" act as well.

11-23-2011, 05:26 AM	#83
EukerVoorn So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Les Alpes, France Posts: 1,423	I voted YES. This comes from the blog of the "security officer" of LeaseWeb: "If it is up to the Dutch Minister of Economics, Maxime Verhagen, net neutrality will be legally adopted in the Netherlands. This was stated in the Dutch Parliament during a debate yesterday regarding a new telecommunications law where the “net neutrality” amendment was embraced by most political parties. The amendment requires Internet providers and telecom operators ensure equal access for customers to all types of content, services, or applications and prohibits the blocking, delay or obstruction of specific services." I totally disagree with that. I support law enforcement and full government control on the internet. Our societies are based on human rights and laws and the internet is and should be part of our societies. If you ask me if the internet should be subject to the law, my first concern would be CP, crushing videos, pedofiles scanning for minors, distributing hard drugs and fake viagra, gambling scams (all things that kill and ruine people) and only after that I would worry about copyrights and the interests of the porn business. I rather get out of business and live in a clean and safe society than having to live in an anarchistic mess and making millions a year. IF the internet can be fully controlled is another question.

11-23-2011, 06:00 AM	#87
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	laws are just how tyrants keep their population enslaved.

11-23-2011, 06:43 AM	#88
EukerVoorn So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Les Alpes, France Posts: 1,423	Paul... you write that laws don't stop crime, but you're in favor of laws? I don't get it... I agree with you that without laws, the biggest armed mob rules. That's exactly what happens in places like Johannesburg, Mexico, Somalia, Afghanistan. And I'm happy that I'm not living in one of those places. It's also what happens on the web, the biggest armed mob rules, with in this case money being the arms.

11-23-2011, 11:18 AM	#95
SmutHammer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,258	Why does everyone act like if you can't stop something 100% there is no point? Things are so bad right now, my girlfriend who can barley use a computer knows how to download all the mp3's she wants, my son "10 years old" knows sites to go to where he can stream any movie he wants, including ones still in the movie theater, with more strict laws in place it won't be easy for any average person to steal anything they like... and I unlike alot of people, I do not let my son use those websites! as far as music, I listen to Pandora, if there is an artist I like, I'll buy the album, a movie I want to see, I'll go to the theater, rent or buy it.

11-23-2011, 11:34 AM	#96
Solace So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 995	I'm of the opinion Justice = Just Us Illegal = Ill Equal So No, Fuck No.

11-23-2011, 11:41 AM	#97
2intense Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Google Posts: 12,463	__________________ Most Affordable Firewall & Malware Protection for Linux Servers