This thread is discussing Online Censorship and the legalities underneath.
17 U.S.C. 202:
202 . Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
"Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object."
The Agreement talked about in 202 is what’s known as a Lawful Contract and Slave Contracts are NOT LEGAL, so ANY Contract that DEMANDS that you MUST give-up OWNERSHIP of your COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FOR FREE, just because you embedded it in SOMEONE’s Digital Domain, and they REFUSE to provide you PROPER PAYMENT FOR YOUR COPYRIGHTED WORKS, that’s KNOWN AS A SLAVE CONTRACT and Slave Contracts are ILLEGAL AS FUCK!!! So the End User Agreement cannot DIVEST YOU OF OWNERSHIP OF YOUR COPYRIGHTED WORKS for the mere BENEFIT of ALLOWING YOU TO EMBED/INSERT YOUR COPYRIGHTED PUBLIC WORDS in a PUBLIC FORUM in direct argument against other Public Speech PUBLICLY SPOKEN in that same Forum.
How most forum owners are doing it is NOT how it works! The U.S. Supreme Court has ALWAYS said that the “CONTROLLER” of a PUBLIC FORUM can either OPEN it to ALL or CLOSE it to ALL; and once OPENED, there cannot be STIPULATIONS placed on the People’s PUBLIC SPEECH nor CONTENT and you cannot claim ownership of our Copyrighted Works for the benefit of SPEAKING OUT AGAINST OTHER PUBLIC SPEECH. That’s ILLEGAL AS FUCK, thus a CRIME and a Misdemeanor Criminal Crime at that.
No forum owner or moderator owns your Copyrighted works to use them however they please, to include deleting your copyrighted works. Hustler -vs- Falwell from 1988 is CONTROLLING:
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. "[T]he freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty - and thus a good unto itself - but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole." Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 503 -504 (1984). We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974). As Justice Holmes wrote, "when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . ." Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (dissenting opinion).
The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large." Associated Press v. Walker, decided with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 164 (1967) (Warren, C. J., concurring in result). Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly in Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673 -674 (1944), when he said that "[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures." Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks," New York Times, supra, at 270. "[T]he candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry `Foul!' when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts to demonstrate the contrary." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 274 (1971).
Of course, this does not mean that any speech about a public figure is immune from sanction in the form of damages. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), we have consistently ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood, but only if the statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Id., at 279-280. False statements of fact are particularly valueless; they interfere with the truth-seeking function of the marketplace of ideas, and they cause damage to an individual's reputation that cannot easily be repaired by counterspeech, however persuasive or effective. See Gertz, 418 U.S., at 340 , 344, n. 9. But even though falsehoods have little value in and of themselves, they are "nevertheless inevitable in free debate," id., at 340, and a rule that would impose strict liability on a publisher for false factual assertions would have an undoubted "chilling" effect on speech relating to public figures that does have constitutional value. "Freedoms of expression require "`breathing space.'" Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 772 (1986) (quoting New York Times, supra, at 272). This breathing space is provided by a constitutional rule that allows public figures to recover for libel or defamation only when they can prove both that the statement was false and that the statement was made with the requisite level of culpability."
The high court used the words "free trade of ideas" more than once in the Hustler decision and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the government agency that's in charge of ensuring Free Trade in the United States is not hampered by ANYTHING except federal law and no forum owner has the Power to author federal law so all they can do is to abide by the laws and they cannot make laws. Plus, no forum owner has the necessary Judicial Power to render a Judicial Decision concerning the lawfulness of any post, so the only thing anyone can do is to report an unlawful post to the PROPER authorities, no forum owner or their moderators have the POWER to ENFORCE LAW, only the government has that Power.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/10zbqxu.jpg
This forum calls itself the "League of Reason" and I hope it is, otherwise, I just got banned.
"There is no don't, there's only do; so if you can't don't, then don't can't." - Old Toad Proverb
Ribbit
17 U.S.C. 202:
202 . Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
"Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object."
The Agreement talked about in 202 is what’s known as a Lawful Contract and Slave Contracts are NOT LEGAL, so ANY Contract that DEMANDS that you MUST give-up OWNERSHIP of your COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FOR FREE, just because you embedded it in SOMEONE’s Digital Domain, and they REFUSE to provide you PROPER PAYMENT FOR YOUR COPYRIGHTED WORKS, that’s KNOWN AS A SLAVE CONTRACT and Slave Contracts are ILLEGAL AS FUCK!!! So the End User Agreement cannot DIVEST YOU OF OWNERSHIP OF YOUR COPYRIGHTED WORKS for the mere BENEFIT of ALLOWING YOU TO EMBED/INSERT YOUR COPYRIGHTED PUBLIC WORDS in a PUBLIC FORUM in direct argument against other Public Speech PUBLICLY SPOKEN in that same Forum.
How most forum owners are doing it is NOT how it works! The U.S. Supreme Court has ALWAYS said that the “CONTROLLER” of a PUBLIC FORUM can either OPEN it to ALL or CLOSE it to ALL; and once OPENED, there cannot be STIPULATIONS placed on the People’s PUBLIC SPEECH nor CONTENT and you cannot claim ownership of our Copyrighted Works for the benefit of SPEAKING OUT AGAINST OTHER PUBLIC SPEECH. That’s ILLEGAL AS FUCK, thus a CRIME and a Misdemeanor Criminal Crime at that.
No forum owner or moderator owns your Copyrighted works to use them however they please, to include deleting your copyrighted works. Hustler -vs- Falwell from 1988 is CONTROLLING:
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. "[T]he freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty - and thus a good unto itself - but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole." Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 503 -504 (1984). We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974). As Justice Holmes wrote, "when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . ." Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (dissenting opinion).
The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large." Associated Press v. Walker, decided with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 164 (1967) (Warren, C. J., concurring in result). Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly in Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673 -674 (1944), when he said that "[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures." Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks," New York Times, supra, at 270. "[T]he candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry `Foul!' when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts to demonstrate the contrary." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 274 (1971).
Of course, this does not mean that any speech about a public figure is immune from sanction in the form of damages. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), we have consistently ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood, but only if the statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Id., at 279-280. False statements of fact are particularly valueless; they interfere with the truth-seeking function of the marketplace of ideas, and they cause damage to an individual's reputation that cannot easily be repaired by counterspeech, however persuasive or effective. See Gertz, 418 U.S., at 340 , 344, n. 9. But even though falsehoods have little value in and of themselves, they are "nevertheless inevitable in free debate," id., at 340, and a rule that would impose strict liability on a publisher for false factual assertions would have an undoubted "chilling" effect on speech relating to public figures that does have constitutional value. "Freedoms of expression require "`breathing space.'" Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 772 (1986) (quoting New York Times, supra, at 272). This breathing space is provided by a constitutional rule that allows public figures to recover for libel or defamation only when they can prove both that the statement was false and that the statement was made with the requisite level of culpability."
The high court used the words "free trade of ideas" more than once in the Hustler decision and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the government agency that's in charge of ensuring Free Trade in the United States is not hampered by ANYTHING except federal law and no forum owner has the Power to author federal law so all they can do is to abide by the laws and they cannot make laws. Plus, no forum owner has the necessary Judicial Power to render a Judicial Decision concerning the lawfulness of any post, so the only thing anyone can do is to report an unlawful post to the PROPER authorities, no forum owner or their moderators have the POWER to ENFORCE LAW, only the government has that Power.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/10zbqxu.jpg
This forum calls itself the "League of Reason" and I hope it is, otherwise, I just got banned.
"There is no don't, there's only do; so if you can't don't, then don't can't." - Old Toad Proverb
Ribbit