Thanks, also seems that someone broke my interwebz.
I hate phonefagging.
In the bread 201 some anon mentioned " I wonder if they can just add an addendum to the 1st amendment granting the same rights unto the interwebs. "
>Individual users of the Internet (real persons)
>Business users of the Internet (companies)
>Providers of Internet connectivity
>Providers of Internet content
>Protectors of rights of the above (government)
I don't know if you want to make a separation for government usage trough internet?
And I have to say that the whole "extend the 1st amendment to the internet" sounds like a very clean way to do this, but we have to watch out that someone doesn't water down the freedoms like the fcc has on tv/radio broadcasts (you can't say 7 words on there etc. etc.)
The only thing I would worry about is them thwarting that with intellectual property theft cases like (((Hollywood))) goes after people sharing music/movies etc.
And don't get me started on the JewTube musicmafia.
I'm with you 100%, but I also can't help but notice that these more recent laws (or lack thereof) seem to be written with a specific goal in mind.
Like with the electronic voter fraud one anon mentioned: Go look into the laws and regulations of slotmachines and then take a look at voting machines (and weep).
At this moment I would like to see the 1st amendment to be extended to the internet with perhaps specific provisions like [Safe harbour, your house is your kingdom and you need a search warrant to enter lawfully after a judge issues one] into [Safe harbour, your house is your kingdom and you need a search warrant to enter lawfully on someones PC/Phone/Tablet/TV~Electronic device or something after a judge issues one]
Extending the 1st amendment to recent development seems like a good thing but you might just want to keep it broad so you don't paint yourself into a corner. I think lawanons will know more how to word something
I have to get ready for work, but I have faith in you and the rest to get this thing done. Like >>166043 said: "We are made for this project. We can move mountains with our combined efforts"
Also what I meant with the "keep it broad" was wording like "spying" and "censorship" cover your bases, you don't need to go explicit in how it's done (now, but who knows in the future what they come up with) just make sure it's prevented unless some criteria are met in rare circumstances (eg. Criminal activity warranted by a Judge with oversight by the people for the people on a later point?)
>If you look at the current bill of rights and cross them, it works
I think this is the way to go yes
Would also like to remind people that the majority of current tech giants like g00lag, fb, tw@tter et. al. try to circumvent US free speech laws by adhering to the less strict EU privacy policies, and that presenting a large TOS (legalese wall of text you have to click here to agree or being unable to continue does not constitute "free choice" whatsoever. They should be held accountable when they provide a service to the people and adhere to current local laws and regulations.
I would like to believe that if you can get this to work in the USA only, eventually the world will demand the same.