COICA Censorship Bill Shelved... For Now
from the but-like-a-zombie,-it'll-be-back dept
While there had been plans to move forward with a markup on the COICA censorship bill this week, it appears that those plans have been delayed, effectively shelving the bill for the time being. This should keep it off the agenda at least until after the elections, but you can expect it to come back before too long. From what's been discussed, it sounds as if those backing the bill really hoped to push it through before any opposition actually recognized what was in the bill and could mobilize protests -- but that didn't work. So, next time it comes around, those who feel pretty strongly that our gov't shouldn't be in the business of censoring websites without due process will be better prepared as well. It certainly doesn't mean that this fight is over. You can bet that supporters of the bill will put forth a much stronger media campaign as well. But, at least this dreadfully bad piece of legislation didn't just get rushed through.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Phew!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silver Lining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silver Lining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're amending it
The amended bill can be found here:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/COICA-ManagersAmendment.pdf
Article about it here:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9188780/Outcry_prompts_amendments_to_online_IP_protect ion_bill?taxonomyId=71
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're all a bunch of liars.
You just want to be able to continue your taking of music and movies for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100930/10105711238/study-shows-that-web-blocking-ignores-real-p roblems-doesn-t-solve-anything-is-used-as-a-political-tool.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dunno, has there been articles on TD about child pornography?
"You're all a bunch of liars."
Where?
"You just want to be able to continue your taking of music and movies for free."
Funny thing, I am downloading gigabytes of music every week. For free. Legally. Yes, I would like to continue, why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fixed that for you. And yes. Yes, we do.
Do you really think this is about JUST child porn, or JUST piracy? This is about the freedom of information, legit or not. This is about the freedom to speak our minds without fear of the government shutting a site down because it disagrees with what we're saying.
Censorship is never about taking down something illegal. It's about taking something legal and making it illegal on the basis of morals or "feelings". Taking down child porn isn't censorship, it's the removal of illegal and horrifying content. Stopping piracy (if you can) isn't censorship, it's the prevention of an illegal act.
Taking down a website without due process for either the site's owners, the service provider/hosting company, or those who created content on/for the site just because they're "subversive" or "not what we approve of" or "morally wrong" is censorship.
If COICA had gone through, and a website I own/run was censored/removed because I said "Fuck Barack Obama", would you really call that a victory for free speech? Or would you say it's a "necessary precaution" or some other such easily-seen-through smokescreen fearmongering bullshit?
This is about censorship. This is about free speech. This is about your inalienable right to speak your mind without the government coming in and saying you can't because they don't like what you're saying. Disguising the issue behind fearmongering tactics like "I bet you want child porn on the Net" is a smokescreen to get people to avoid the real issue and get riled up about a wholly different matter.
Don't pretend this isn't about free speech, and I won't treat you like you're a goddamned bookburner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
there's also the fact that a blacklist, public or secret, won't have much effect on file sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fuck you shithole. I pay $9 a month for netflix, which has streaming movies and DVD by mail. Perhaps you have heard of them. I watch all I want, LEGALLY, and I PAY for it because they BUILT A GOOD SYSTEM AT A FAIR PRICE. The problem with the bill isnt about that, its about being able to ACCUSE someone so their site or speech are removed off the net without any oversight, recourse, or due process. So you can shove your "you just want to pirate stuff" up your cornhole until you bleed. Jerkwad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmcupFx3FQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, Fat blue throwing star AC, any other theories on why I wouldn't like the US government (my government) to be able to indiscriminately censor the internet for media companies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Paul, I think the problem is that most of us receive free music through legal methods (the musician gives them out for free or the musician makes them available through services where we can pull them down for practically free.) So, yes, we love us the free music and we are freely admit it. However, it is legally free, so even though the Boy Scouts have a problem with this, most of the world doesn't because it is free and legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to be better prepared too
Second, we can prepare a media campaign as well, kept hidden but ready to be launched in an instant whenever needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need to be better prepared too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where in there is accountability?
We all know it is easy to accuse others and don't have to prove anything that is why people are pushing for it, what if the things was in reverse, people had to have strong proof that the site was infringing, would they want to do it then?
Somehow I doubt it.
The censorship happens by inertia, most people want defend against it because they can't or don't feel the need to and that hurts democracy and freedom of speech putting a high bar to gain the right to say things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the lack of due process?
If you can't spell this out, then you don't have a leg to stand on.
No one is going to listen to abstract fear mongering when it comes time to vote on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
COICA will in no uncertain terms be used to stiffle not only free speech but competition and innovation.
All the law passed before this one have the same MO and you don't think it is proof enough?
Well then I'm sorry, and I want to see you prove that it will have due process, it won't get expanded beyond its original intent and that it will not harm free speech can you provide the proof for it?
Because I can point to others laws that had that effect like the DMCA can you point to one that didn't affect free speech or was not abused?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, let's stop feeding the troll. It's a shitty troll, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First of all, the bill is a classic case of "prior restraint." It seeks to block sites from being reachable by the public.
Second, even beyond the prior restraint issue, it uses a sledge hammer to block access to an entire site, rather than targeting specifically infringing material (and, most of the sites it's actually targeting don't actually host any infringing material themselves anyway). That's a key First Amendment problem.
I have a hard time believing the bill would pass a First Amendment challenge.
Where's the lack of due process?
(j)(1) and (j)(2) describe a list that the AG can put together *without* prior judicial review, and then gives ISPs and registrars immunity if they block access to those sites, despite the lack of judicial review.
It does allow for post hoc judicial review, but that's not how due process works. It's backwards.
That's the key concern, though thanks to people speaking out about it, it appears that part was changed slightly last night.
As for the list that does include judicial review, note that it is not a trial, but simply the AG going to a judge. That's not due process
If you can't spell this out, then you don't have a leg to stand on.
And now that we have spelled it out?
No one is going to listen to abstract fear mongering when it comes time to vote on this.
And that's why we provide specifics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Happy grunting!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
GO ON troll plenty to read there.
Techdirt is top hit BTW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was answered already, you just don't want to hear about it LoL
The law will take down the entire domain even if legitimate uses are found inside indiscriminately, which will be used to stifle free speech, the law doesn't mention the need to prove anything so any website can be deemed infringing and be taken down by this law how is that not a free speech issue can you tell us how it is not?
Youtube could be deemed a infringing site God knows many in the industry want to see Youtube go away, how taking away a popular platform helps combat piracy?
https://www.eff.org/pages/sites-coica-may-take-offline-and-why
How long until sites like the Pirate Party that is a legitimate political party start getting censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/Leahy_bill_memo.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lot's of accusations of censorship, but no details.
You can't answer legitimate questions. Just like I thought.
You're a bu*l sh*tter just like the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.eff.org/coica
Youtube could be shutdown, is that not a free speech issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Tube's primary MO isn't infringement.
Just more fear mongering.
You haven't even READ the bill, have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3804:
You COICAsucker who gets to decide what is the primary use of a website?
There is no guidance to what is and what is not, they let that to AG's who we all know like to go that extra mile to be wrong, now imagine if they got the power to define what is good and what is bad are you stupid or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It says very clearly that the definition will be left to the AG those same AG that threatened Craiglist for not doing something. Now you will let those same people decide what is and what is not primarily something?
Are you stupid?
Here read the f'ing law proposal.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3804:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AG
> left to the AG those same AG that threatened
> Craiglist for not doing something.
Actually, it's not the same person who threatened Craigslist. Craigslist was threatened by the attorneys-general of a handful of states. This bill would vest the power to decide if a website is infringing with the U.S. Attorney General at the federal level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AG
Is he immune to political pressure? Is he immune to lobbying? Is he immune to piss contests? Is he immune from the courts? Is he immune from the president? Is he immune from congress?
Besides he will take his cues from whom? I'm sure it is not the public, because if it was the RIAA and MPAA would be all over it condemning that piece of planed legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: AG
Well, he hasn't threatened Craigslist. That's a significant difference and pretty much directly on point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AG
Funny strip of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- The introduction of web censorship under whatever pretext will inevitably lead to more censorship. It has happened in other "western" countries that have tried it (Sweden, Finland, and Australia off the top of my head) and the same will happen in the US. It's human nature -- the block list *will* be abused for other purposes than copyright in the grand scheme of things. Like the wiretapping laws are abused, like the terrorism laws are abused, like the DMCA law is abused, and so on.
- The suggested block list is at DNS level. The US has been *entrusted* with the DNS for the *entire world*, so tampering with it is clearly abusing that position to impose your political and economic beliefs/problems on everyone else. This makes you look like complete assholes (do you care at this point?), and means only one thing: the US will lose control of the DNS, or the rest of the world will set up its own DNS registry, thus fragmenting the DNS. Fragmented DNS means the same URL may resolve to a different IP address in different countries (that brings problems of its own, including a lot of very confused routers).
- Anyone can set up his own DNS server, so the censorship will be ineffective against anyone who takes ten seconds to change a couple of settings in her browser!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not what Viacom claimed for YouTube's first 3 years of existence.
"Fostering and countenancing this piracy were central to YouTube's economic business
model."
And:
"Defendants are liable under Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.,
545 U.S. 913 (2005), because they operated YouTube with the unlawful objective of profiting
from (to use their phrase) "truckloads" of infringing videos that flooded the site. YouTube's
founders single-mindedly focused on geometrically increasing the number of YouTube users to
maximize its commercial value."
If COICA had been in place 5 years ago, YouTube would probably not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the list of targets could conceivably include... sites that discuss and make the controversial political and intellectual case for piracy, like pirate-party.us, p2pnet, InfoAnarchy, Slyck and ZeroPaid".
Complete fabrication. Nothing but fear tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you ask the RIAA and the MPAA they all will say youtube is a haven for pirates and so the AG will act upon that?
Did the AG not go after Craiglists without any power to do so?
Imagine what those stupid people would do with real power granted to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure you would have a jolly old time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LoL
Ok I know I shouldn't feed the troll but I'm feeling generous today and wanted to have a laugh, and I'm sorry for keeping him around for no other reason but to get a laugh out of it.
I will stop now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This bill protects artists. And you don't want to lose your free music lunch.
It isn't censorship. And you're fear mongers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did.
This bill protects artists.
How? Seriously. What in this bill helps artists? How will it help them embrace new business models? How will it help them get people to spend money?
And you don't want to lose your free music lunch.
I don't use any file sharing programs. I don't download unauthorized music. I buy my music (CDs mostly, but sometimes Amazon, CDBaby or Bandcamp downloads). Why throw out false claims you can't back up?
It isn't censorship. And you're fear mongers.
I explained above why it absolutely is censorship. If you believe that there is infringing content, there are already laws in place to deal with that. But this is not about that. This is about blocking entire sites, without a trial. That's the very definition of censorship, not fear mongering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By blocking access to the websites on which they are promoted only because somebody somewhere deemed an unrelated parts of them as being helpful to infringing activities?
"And you don't want to lose your free music lunch."
Well, I don't want to loose mine. And mine is perfectly legal and free at the same time. All you have are baseless accusations and lack of understanding of the problem. It's people like you who are real fear mongers.
Child pornography is already mentioned in this thread in the most ridiculous way possible. Stealing cars, too. Now to terrorism! I am really surprised nobody's talking about terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See? I can play your silly game too.
This bill has as much to do with censorship as shoplifting does with free trade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A law that give the power to people who have a proven record of misguided actions like the AG's should be the first big red flag, not counting the input from an industry that is known worldwide for its lies and fake reports, that is another red flag and then comes the fact that those laws get expanded and keep going underground so people can't see what it is in them is another giant red flag.
So what we have here is basically a political motivated bill that will give power to known abusers of the law to abuse it against people they don't like, that is not fear mongering is just the reality of it and everybody knows it except apparently the shills from the industry.
Besides there is no indication that this extreme measure will help combat piracy at any level, you think people need the internet to do it? Flash news for ya, HDD docks cost $50 bucks and a terabyte HDD costs $100 bucks, that is a thousand DVD's right there, people can swap huge amounts of data today and the internet is not the best way to do it, I'm waiting for the law that will make it illegal to send HDD to people around the world, will the post office be forced to monitor what it is traveling on their routes? will this law help with IM(instant messengers) clients that have the ability to transfer files? Will this law prevent the network overlays that don't care about the underlying structure and implement their own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, this bill has nothing to do with stopping theft. You seem to be very confused about basic definitions.
Stopping someone from stealing a car is not censorship.
Prosecuting actual infringement is not censorship.
But forcing third parties to block entire websites, based on claims of a biased Justice Department that those sites *might* help *others* to infringe -- and doing so without a trial? That is censorship.
I'm sorry you don't seem to understand basic First Amendment concepts, but it would help if you want people to take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An In Rem lawsuit requires a trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dont worry be happy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you read the law COICAsucker? I bet not because it shows very clearly that the interpretation of what is "primary" will be left to people known to exaggerations, political pressure and self interests, how can that be good COICAsucker tell us please because I want to laugh at your feeble excuses LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For the purpose of "promoting the progress." If it does not do that, then it is not sanctioned by the Constitution.
And it's not a "basic human right," at all. In fact, the founders were pretty clear that it was a *limited time* gov't granted monopoly *privilege*. And only for the purpose of *expanding the public domain* and improving knowledge and learning. In fact, most entertainment content was not initially considered for copyright. It was added later.
A basic human right is not "for a limited time." A gov't granted monopoly is.
Separately, however, this particular bill has nothing to do with control over what you create. We already have copyright law that grants an exorbitant amount of control over what you create. This law, however, has nothing to do with providing more control. It merely seeks to allow the gov't to order third parties to censor websites without a trial. That provides you no greater control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/90904/us-chamber-of-commerce-censorin-foreign-p2p-sites -not-censorship/
Right now people are already talking about expanding the COICA, why else would they be talking about drug counterfeiting that is not even covered by copyrights.
This will be used to stop competition, this is not about piracy is about making legal things into something illegal to justify anti-competitive behavior with the added benefit of being useful to go after critics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens when you give power to the g-men.
They f'ing abuse that power, and they do it consistently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior restraint is not an issue with this law; there is no restriction of expression occuring.
Also, going before a judge is due process.
This is a commerce issue.
Carry on :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Going before a judge that have no obligations and apparently just need to sit there and do nothing since nothing is expected from him/her is due process?
Yah right.
About right you are right it is a commerce issue and should never be a political or judicial problem, the industry should find ways to coupe with their problems and resolve them by themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The potential to close legal platforms, because the illegal ones are unstoppable and that is the beauty of the internet, this law doesn't affect people on the other side of the line, only the ones trying to be honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What happened to informing the public and working to gain their trust?
Instead people think that forcing others to fallow them is the best solution, it is not, people lost already respect for the law in this instance and the little respect the government has is eroding fast and this legislation is just the tip of the iceberg.
Why not make a silly website that list all approved and safe websites out there?
Let people choose and if they choose wrong they should get bitten, not this "we will do it for you" crap. People would respect more something like that and doesn't involve giving proven irresponsible people more power to be more irresponsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are no penalties for being dishonest using them are there.
There is no balance on this proposal, there is no safety measures and it will be abused there is no question about it.
And COICAsuckers want to make believe that it is ok, they say "trust us" when every time people trusted them they were let down by those same people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shelved.
I guess this means Patrick Leahy (it sickens me to call him and his brood a senator) can "refine" the bill to take away more Constitution rights and propose an amendment to start the Constitution as "We The Corporations".
*uses Google maps to find a country worth living in
Anyone got tickets to the moon? I need a set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I learnt to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responding to the Troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to worry people...
Then, of course, it will be used to take down any site that speaks out against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nostalgia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone KNOWS how much music is illegally downloaded.
It has devastated the ability for artists to pursue creation to their fullest ability.
Yet you guys continue to try and spin things into something they're not.
I think everyone is starting to understand who the real greedy pigs are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone KNOWS this law doesn't target the actual people who are illegally offering music for download.
It is being passed due to pressure from major labels, who have devastated the ability for artists to pursue creation to their fullest ability.
Yet you guys continue to try and spin things into something they're not.
I think everyone is starting to understand who the real greedy pigs are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
btw, even with all the infringement activity, the artists who will actually be protected by this bill have a far greater income than the majority of middle class people in America.
This will censor illegal things as it should, but also things it shouldn't, and that will be infringing on the constitution.
we can be more like socialist societies though - execute 10 men just to get 1 criminal.... hmmmmmm 9/10 were innocent though. eh.... i guess it's worth it, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK viewpoint
Hmm, unlike our much-loved UK Digital Economy Bill!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Home
So when are we ganna start our next revolution? Cause you can sign me up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am posting this here because it affects ALL USA users and it needs to be where they can see it. Site admins may want to consider making this a sticky on top of ALL forums.
The buzz I have been hearing are that this bill is very likely to pass. Obama supports it.
For those not aware here's a summary courtesy of demandprogress.org:
What exactly does it do?
The bill creates a blacklists of Internet domain names which the Attorney General can add to with a court order. Internet service providers, financial transaction providers, and online ad vendors (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the list.
(The bill used to also have a second list that the AG could add to without a court order, but public pressure has gotten it removed.)
What kind of domains can go on the list?
The list is for domains "dedicated to infringing activity," which is defined very broadly — any site where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" would be blocked.
What's so bad about that?
Well, it means sites like YouTube could get censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom argue that copyrighted material is central to activity of YouTube. But under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost their case in court. If this bill passes, Viacom doesn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal -- as long as they can persuade a court that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, that's enough to get the whole site censored.
-->
Isn't the word censored a little overheated?
Not at all. In the US, the way things work is that if you're using the Internet to do something illegal, you're brought to court and the courts can shut you down. This bill would bypass that whole system by forcing Internet service providers to block access to sites that are otherwise up. People in other countries could still get to them, but Internet users in the US would be blocked. This kind of Internet censorship is exactly the sort of thing the US government has been criticizing China and Iran for -- just the other day, Obama told the UN that "We will support a free and open Internet." Now it turns out we're going to start censoring the Internet ourselves.
But it's just limited to copyright!
How long do you think that will last? Once the Attorney General has a system set up for censoring the Internet, everyone who has a problem with a website will want to get in on it. How long before it's expanded to block Wikileaks, pornography, gambling, anarchists, supposed terrorists, and anybody else the Attorney General doesn't like that day? If people are doing something illegal, the government should take them to court and shut them down -- not try to bypass due process by blocking their domain name.
Won't Internet users just work around the blacklist?
Yes -- at the cost of a major blow to the United States. Currently the United States is the global hub of Internet traffic, but if this law passes Internet traffic will be reconfigured to route around it. Companies will move their US servers and domain names overseas, Internet users will route their traffic through other countries (just like Chinese citizens have to do now!), and software will have to be reconfigured to no longer trust answers from American servers.
What can I do to stop this?
The first step is signing our petition then we'll give you the tools to share it with your friends and call your senator.
The petition in question can be found here:
http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/
This bill sounds absolutely horrible and, if passed, will potentially (and very likely) ruin the internet. If the US passes this, I'm sure countries like the UK, Sweden, France and the Netherlands will be very eager to follow.
Also, let us not overlook that Facebook and every other site that contains any infringement on copyright is subjected to this. So, if you see a pic or video that is copyrighted and place it on your site, you could face penalties from your IPS.
Once again egocentric idiots on capitol hill trying to gain even more power over businesses to force their hand and rein supreme over freedom of speech, censorship and due process.
This is almost as bad as Bush Jr. allowing a terrorist attack on our country having foreknowledge that the attacks would take place, then, implementing new laws that walk all over our civil liberties like the Patriot Act. There's NOTHING patriotic about it, yet it is now a law that any governmental enforcement agency can without a warrant can tap your phone and do illegal search and seizures!!
If WE don't raise our voices and try to make efforts to quash these tyrants from stripping our civil rights yet again, then we have no excuse when these laws are put in place, meaning, do something other than just reading these posts.
Sign the petition, email your senator and demand that this bill never see the light of day again as it's imperative for all Americans to safeguard our constitution and civil liberties allowing no power hungry congressman to slip this kind of harmful bill and legal threat to OUR RIGHTS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://nodepositbonuscasino.mobi/no-deposit-casino-mobil/2179/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]