Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Prohibition of our freedon to speak out about our faith could be next.

Vic C.

Member
I am sure most of you have seen this and other blackouts on the Web today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup?zip=07735
Call your elected officials.

Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.
Why?

SOPA and PIPA would put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. SOPA and PIPA would build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.

In a world in which politicians regulate the Internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia — and sites like it — cannot survive.

Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is worse than the disease. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they would fatally damage the free and open Internet.

Make the greatest impact by calling your Congressional Representative today. Hundreds of thousands of people are reaching out — email forms for your Representative may be broken.

Please speak out against this and please tell them you support Net Neutrality.

:nod

Your First Amendment rights are in jeopardy.
 
I don't think such a thing is likely from this arena, particularly given the recent unanimous Supreme Court decision on Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC. While that case dealt specifically with a religious organizations employment choices, maintaining there is a “ministerial exception†to anti-discrimination laws and barring suits against churches for firing an employee classified as a minister, most commentators believe the case has some far reaching ramifications regarding religious liberty. For the first time, the court held that a religious exception to federal employment laws exists.

Chief Justice, John Roberts, wrote in the Courts ruling, “The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.â€

Frankly, I more concerned about the various suites that have been brought against religious organizations that have refused to service same-sex couples, like the Methodist camp in New Jersey that has been sued because it refused to allow a lesbian couple to "get married" on their property. The judge in that case, just a few days ago, ruled that "religious liberty did not exempt the seaside retreat, which is associated with the United Methodist Church, from renting its facilities out for purposes that violate its moral beliefs."

This one is a case that could possibly be impacted by a broad interpretation of the recent Supreme Court decision, when it is appealed.
 
'WE THE PEOPLE" now reads 'WE THE GOVERNMENT"

Conspiracy theory.........or prophecy being fulfilled.

"LET FREEDOM RING"..........oops, forgot they took the bell too!!!

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
 
I am sure most of you have seen this and other blackouts on the Web today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup?zip=07735


Please speak out against this and please tell them you support Net Neutrality.

:nod

Your First Amendment rights are in jeopardy.


I don't know why but this gives me a headache. Probably because that a government that cant even balance a budget is going to worry about "copyright infringemnet" when there are thousands of people of working age that cant find a job, our teachers are no longer free to actually teach thier subject instead they are forced to "teach the test" refering the standardized tests, Major employers are laying off people in record numbers, So yea lets worry about copyright infringment.:wall:wall:wall:wall:wall:wall
 
Simply take the link I posted and replace my zip code with yours. :yes

I don't know why but this gives me a headache. Probably because that a government that cant even balance a budget is going to worry about "copyright infringemnet" when there are thousands of people of working age that cant find a job, our teachers are no longer free to actually teach thier subject instead they are forced to "teach the test" refering the standardized tests, Major employers are laying off people in record numbers, So yea lets worry about copyright infringment
It's simply sad the way they pick and choose their battles. All too often they allow big business and special interest groups legislate us from their back accounts.

This is all about getting votes and padding their pockets and bogging us down with needless laws.

There are other ways of dealing with copyrights and intellectual property without hurting small business and other not for profit sites and companies.

I'm already seeing audio disabled on Youtube.
NOTICE

This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by all copyright holders. The audio has been disabled...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4pYyv2ueRM

I remember back in the 80's when they tried to pass a law forcing audio and video tape manufactures to lay a hefty tax on such items. The courts struck it down. But that was back when Regan was president.
 
In regards to music, I can sorta see a valid point regarding music, in that there may be instances where people put music to things that isnt either a. what they believe or b. something that they do not wish to be assoicated with. In that case I can see the artist(and only the artist) requesting the removal of the music from viedos on youtube.
 
Back
Top