Since midnight, Wikipedia has closed down for twenty four hours, and countless additional well-liked internet sites have gone dark right together with them. They’re standing up collectively in demonstration regarding a pair of contentious pieces of legislation which jeopardize Internet security and safety and also challenge the freedom of speech all in order to crack down on online “piracy” — the unlawful circulation associated with copyrighted information.

Hollywood, the music community, and also the US Chamber of Commerce have joined together with respect to these recommended regulations on the understanding that they’re going to safeguard important copyrighted property. Although the aim might be laudable, the ends do not warrant the methods. Stop Online Piracy Act as well as the Protect IP Act possess far-reaching outcomes with regard to the Internet’s foundation, personal liberties, and innovation within the digital era.

Inside of the laws and regulations, after a order from the court, third-party organizations as well as internet sites will be compelled to crack down on rogue websites — as well as ones which unintentionally host or connect to content which could infringe copyrights or trademarks, if they know about the violation or not. Internet service providers shall be forced to block out Internet addresses associated with problematic websites — a step in which Internet technical engineers advise might jeopardize Internet security. Search engines like Google could well be banned from incorporating pirate websites from search results, a requisite which moves well past existing laws and could, in reality, breach the First Amendment.

It is actually considerations such as these which have triggered a firestorm within the internet community, compelling Wikipedia to state that the legislation “would be devastating to the free and open web” and driving Google to push in opposition to the laws over their highly trafficked search engine. At the same time, PC Magazine states that co-founders associated with leading technology companies such as Twitter, Google, Yahoo, along with eBay published an open letter opposing these laws, reasoning they would certainly undercut the “regulatory climate that promotes entrepreneurship, innovation, the creation of content and free expression online.”

This is the reason why: Underneath the legislation, internet sites such as Facebook, along with its hundreds of millions of end users, or perhaps YouTube, in which forty-eight hours of online video is uploaded every minute, would be responsible with regard to all content material published upon their particular websites. As a consequence, internet sites would be discouraged from participating in speech or perhaps from offering a community forum in which other people may undertake the equivalent. This, in turn, will certainly constrain creativity – the lifeblood of the economic system. One particular analysis revealed that among two hundred venture capitalists as well as angel investors, virtually all would cease financing digital mass media intermediaries in the event that these kinds of laws are passed.

Setting aside the burden the laws and regulations would likely inflict upon your freedom of speech as well as innovation, they do not make reasonable sense. Attempting to obstruct content material on the Internet is actually equivalent to obstructing the Mississippi River using a two-by-four. The idea cannot be accomplished. Nations such as Iran regularly censor content material, nevertheless information continues to pass through – quite often having the assistance from the United States. This particular endeavor in order to crack down on pirated content is undoubtedly a useless effort by industrial sectors that tend to be struggling at the hands of a technology which has overtaken it, a lot like when Hollywood had been up agitated over VCRs during the 80s as well as when the music industry had a fit concerning MP3 players throughout the latter 90s.

The Internet is definitely the most significant vehicle regarding absolutely free speech as well as innovation ever recognized to mankind. Undoubtedly its potential may be utilized for good as well as bad, yet censoring content material, endangering the security and safety associated with the Internet, in addition to stifling advancement is not necessarily the solution with regard to safeguarding intellectual property rights.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

*****************

With all the garbage on TV, and I don’t really watch TV I rent DVDs, what is going on in the advertising world? One recent show I’ve been renting is “Friday Night Lights” and it’s low-cut cleavage on steroids. From the high school girls to the teachers in school it’s a T & A show. This may be very mild to other stuff on the airwaves so I ask you to watch the video below and tell me if this advertisement for the new Fiat 500 Arbarth is too sexy for American eyes.

Seduction

My feeling is it is sexy, it’s eye catching, it holds your attention, it advertises the car well and it get’s its message out. Fiat, and Europe in general, is known for running ads that are much more sexually suggestive than ads that run in the US.

“Networks in the U.S. have much stricter standards, which makes the ads we see in the U.S. routinely less interesting than what you see in Europe and South America,” says AOL Autos Editor-in-Chief David Kiley, who is a former editor and columnist at ad industry magazine Adweek. “The other issue you have in the U.S. is that religious-based ‘family’ organizations will start issuing press releases and organizing boycotts if they think an ad is corrupting on some level, or has too much sexual innuendo.”

Fiat CEO Olivier Francois, who also oversees marketing of Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep in the US, said the US agency who created the ad, Dallas-based Richards Group, “intended it to be viral, but I am considering running it as an ad too, but I’m not sure. It may be too much.”

C’mon, this site is Conservative and that has a moral part to it but this commercial is NOT TOO SEXY or provocative for television in the US. TV shows have gone to far on what they offer in my opinion, both network television and cable. They push the envelop in many cases particularly with sex and violence. The Fiat ad in no way crosses some moral line. Have you seen models at the auto shows lately? Aren’t those for families?

What do you think?

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

“If I’ve lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America,” said President Lyndon B. Johnson at the time of the Communist Tet Offensive in Vietnam in 1968. Walter Cronkite was then the CBS News anchor man, often described as ‘the most trusted man in America.”

Now if you’ve lost the Left-Wing anchor Chris Mathews you’ve lost the Democrat base. In an explosive interview on MSNBC, Matthews has harsh criticism for Barack Obama and his team of advisers.

Then you have Pat Caddell who served as a pollster for Jimmy Carter and Douglas Schoen, who served as a pollster for Bill Clinton, writing in the Wall Street Journal how it’s time for Barack Obama to move over and make room because it’s The Hillary Moment.

They point out that Obama can’t win by running a constructive campaign, and he won’t be able to govern if he does win a second term and his current negative campaigning which is destructive is doing harm to the Democrat Party.

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Now get your barf bag as the two pollsters demonstrate they are completely in the tank for Hillary.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.

These two “strategists” actually think Obama is willing to go but they fail to even think that quite possibly “The One” is pleased with his performance thus far and wishes only to finish the job and close the door on a free United States.

I, as well as many others, are guilty of calling Obama incompetent and there is certainly a good case for that. But looking at his whole background should we be surprised at the result he has been achieving?

Transformational, fundamental change was the promise. He embraces thugs like ACORN, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, The New Black Panthers and now Occupy Wall Street ilk coast-to-coast. Obama chose and fully backs his terrorists best friend Eric Holder.

Obama nominated and was successful at placing two left-wing radicals on the Supreme Court. For Obama he is succeeding, just not fast enough.

Blame Bush for everything and now historical negative campaigning. Who besides Caddell and Schoen are surprised?

Recently Bill Clinton was touting why there should be a third-term for President of the United States. Was he sending a message to the DNC? Don’t think for one minute there isn’t behind the scene movement to oust Obama but they probably would have to do this by January 2012.

Some polling from early fall and left-wing news outlets – CNN and Time – have shown Clinton favored over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 17 points (55%-38%), and Texas Gov. Rick Perry by 26 points (58%-32%). Of course the GOP landscape has changed but this was at a time when Rick Perry had a commanding leading in polls. Democrats and independents would certainly gravitate to Clinton as they believe she can win the White House. I believe independents view her as moderate, therefore, they would choose her over any GOP offering.

Here is a very scary thing. Bill Clinton is still hugely popular. If Hilary Clinton ran for the White House you can be certain hubby would be pulling out all stops to get her elected. The fact is, she would win.

Democrats are terrified of losing the White House, the Senate and more seats in the House. They believe Hillary Clinton could neutralize the disparity and work with the Republicans. Unfortunately, that is true, the feckless leadership of the GOP would certainly cross the aisle and do what they do best – go along to get along.

Hillary Clinton is no moderate but she would play the game much like her husband did when forced to move center to get reelected. Would that mean eight years of Hillary Clinton in the White House?

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: