They'll Be Back

I was so pleased to learn that, because of international protests (including the day-long blackouts of Wikipedia, Reddit, and a number of other sites), SOPA has been shelved “indefinitely.”

Here's a just fate for such an awful piece of legislation: Even the House Republicans who had initially supported this trashy law were forced to recant – although I'm sure their original motives for supporting a gut of the First Amendment were totally altruistic as well.

Well, today I saw a YouTube clip of Bill Maher talking about this on what I presume to be his show.

I don't think he has ever made himself look more stupid than with his support for SOPA.

He came across as shallow, of course, but his error here goes deeper: Maher had, by his own admonition, made very little effort to understand the bill and its incredible scope. He didn't know, for example – and he didn't seem to care when a panellist warned him -- that SOPA would have given complainants of any sort the unprecedented ability to have a site shut down merely by saying – not proving in court, mind you, but just by claiming -- that some kind of copyright infringement had taken place there.

These claims could be true, or false, or based on a misunderstanding of FAIR USE. No matter: They would all be treated the same. With SOPA, the burden of proving innocence would fall on site creators and users - some of whom might have to endure court costs merely to defend rights they should already have.

The practical results of SOPA would have been as follows:

**** The US Government, which should be upholding the Constitution, would instead create an office - a legal organ - that exists not to serve The People and protect their rights, but rather to cater to various recording industry pressure groups. In that office, all those who have been accused of copyright violation online would be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

**** The US Government could, under pretext of having its “copyright” violated, pull down sites like Wikileaks – you know, the one with footage of an Apache Helicopter crew firing on unarmed civilians, including a couple of kids.

**** It would piss off the international community even more. The US has squandered pretty much every ounce of sympathy or good will the world once had for it. If the government were to build an Iron Curtain around the internet, that would destroy the businesses of local content providers and ensure the rest of the world leaves America in the cold: The international net would simply route around the damage and stop using US servers or domain names or services.

**** SOPA would violate the First Amendment.

The United States already has copyright laws, as well as a legal process by which a wronged party can sue whomever misused his intellectual property.

At best, then, SOPA was superfluous. At worst – and let's be honest; SOPA was “at worst” pretty much from the outset – it would violate US and international law, as well as encroach upon the legal sovereignty of any nation that permits net business to be done through the United States.

But Maher, like the honey badger, simply didn't give a shit. The way he saw it, SOPA would have helped him, and so therefore it was a good thing.

He complained online piracy had robbed him of this alleged income his movie 'Religulous” would surely have made if only people hadn't had a chance to watch it free before buying.

(Thing is, if Maher had put the movie online and permitted people to watch it for free, he would have made back his cost and more from the ad money as well as from the 'honor tip jar' some filmmakers use.)

I know plenty of people who have watched torrents only to go buy the actual DVD after. Since this usually happens only with good movies, however, then I can understand what worried Maher.

And so despite all he had learned from his guests, Maher's final comment - the last turdlet of that segment, anyway – was this: “People just like to steal.”

(Sez me: Oh, pull your head out of your ass, you dinosaur.)

SO NOW WHAT?

That bill, or something else like it, will be back.

You now know you have the power, if you all act together with a common goal, to stop bad legislation – not only SOPA and its ilk, but future versions of the Patriot Act as well.

As you have all seen, freedom is not free. It requires that people - the people - be willing to fight. We must be willing to fight in court, in the boardroom, through elected representatives, in the streets, and anywhere else we're called to defend free speech, free assembly, free conscience, and a free press; for the right to an attorney, to a fair trial, to humane treatment in custody.

Just because Maher forgot bad legislation also applies to him doesn't mean the rest of us should.

If all you can do is write a letter, do it. If all you can do is donate to a cause you believe in, do it.

Just don't do nothing.

SOPA is a broad attack on all free speech

Today, I sent the following letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada.

Dear Mr. Harper:

As you are likely aware, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is working its way through the US House of Representatives.

Although this bill is designed to stop piracy, its practical effect would be to chill all free speech – and in particular that which relies on Fair Dealing, such as satire – on any part of the internet in any way connected to the United States. This includes traffic passing through US servers from other countries, as well as Canadian users with domain names sold by US companies. (For more information on how this bill would affect Canadians, please look at the following website: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/)

While I do agree with the need for copyright protection, I do not agree with much of anything that appears in SOPA, least of all its implicit attack on Canadian sovereignty by making those of us who provide web content subject to US copyright law despite our being citizens of another nation and our hosting content on Canadian or international servers.

SOPA also permits complainants to have an incredible amount of power, such that a site can be blocked or removed without notice to the content provider, and without any neutral third-party oversight that might be provided in a court of law.

This is not fear-mongering: It's fact.

SOPA is nothing less than a broad attack on the Freedom of Speech, and this attack extends to every country that allows users to access the global internet and upload content there.

If for no other reason than to protect our national sovereignty, it is imperative that the Government of Canada take a strong and unwavering stand against SOPA.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

A. Martin

Billboard destruction the act of petulant children

It has been about a month since the controversial, “Mary Is in the Pink,” billboard was ripped down by a group of angry protesters. This vandalism, led by a man named Arthur Skinner, was the result of religiously-fueled outrage at what some see as the sacrilegious portrayal of a revered figure:

"Even people who aren't Catholics know instinctively you don't attack the Blessed Virgin who gave us the savour of the world," said Skinner. (Quote courtesy TV NZ)

Skinner argued Mary wouldn't have needed a pregnancy test – that she knew she was pregnant and was absolutely ecstatic about it.

While Skinner and his mob were wrong for damaging the billboard, their error here goes deeper: They assume Mary would have had an entirely inhuman reaction to the prospect of unwed motherhood in a situation where she could have been killed for it – especially given that she was betrothed at the time.

It doesn't matter that she consented; it's likely Mary would still be at least a little bit shocked to find that, yes indeed, she was a pregnant virgin.

The Bible records Joseph's initial reaction to the pregnancy: “Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.” – Matthew 1:19

This was the situation Mary faced, however briefly: A broken betrothal and being driven back to her parents in shame, assuming they would have her.

(Here, in modernity, she might seek the help of a crisis pregnancy center – you know, where women tend to be shamed and treated like crap and subjected to hours of belligerent sermonizing before they can earn enough credits to get second-hand stuff at the 'baby shop.')

And within that nexus, where Mary may have sat alone by her lamp as Joseph lay dreaming elsewhere, she likely wondered at her fate: The prophets had suffered in serving God, and so might she.

The billboard raised all those questions and more, challenging modern folks to consider their own attitude towards pregnant girls, regardless of circumstance.

But Skinner, being afraid of questions or subtlety – they anger him – decided he had a right to destroy the billboard merely because he didn’t like it.

Megan Phelps Roper stays while others walk away

Here's an interesting tidbit from the Kansas City Star:

Megan’s importance to the movement stems also from the fact that for the past decade, the church’s future has been walking away at an alarming rate.

Since 2004, 20 members have left the Westboro Baptist Church, three-fourths of them in their teens or 20s. The defections have left a sizable dent in the group’s third generation, which, for a church that has relied almost exclusively upon family to populate its congregation, is not an insignificant development. There are those on both sides of the family who would like to guide Megan’s future.

Story HERE.

No, I don't “grieve for the mother”

In 2005, an Alberta woman killed her newborn son.

Katrina Effert, who was 19 at the time, strangled her child with a pair of thong underwear, waited a few hours, threw his corpse over a fence into the neighbor’s yard, lied to police (blaming the child's father), and then eventually confessed.

Two separate juries found Effert guilty of second-degree murder. The first had sentenced her to life in prison. That didn't matter, however, because Effert eventually managed to draw a sympathetic judge who overturned the previous convictions and replaced them with a conviction for infanticide. Queen's Bench Justice Joanne Veit compared the action of strangling an infant to abortion, arguing that because Canadians allow for the former then they surely must be sympathetic to a young mother who commits infanticide while under stress.

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother,” said Veit, “but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

I'm a Canadian, and I don't grieve for the mother.

I understand post-partum stress can do strange things to a human mind. I can even see how that might translate into murder for someone who is especially young and psychologically unbalanced. Such cases usually lead to infant death through abandonment (such as in a trash bag either outside or hidden somewhere in the mother's house).

Effert's case is different, however, because a) she presumably could have gotten a first-trimester abortion but chose not to, b) she killed the child in an especially vicious and heartless manner, c) she disposed of the body by throwing it over a fence, demonstrating a callousness that must be intentional, and d) she tried to pin the murder on someone else, showing a consciousness of guilt.

She should be serving a long prison term, but for some reason that makes no sense to me, Effert will walk with a suspended sentence despite having been found guilty by two different juries.

Thanks a lot, “Justice” Veit, both for putting words in my mouth (I grieve? I think not) and for allowing a cold-blooded killer to go free without having done much time at all.

I do hope Effert recognizes this reprieve for the gift it is and decides to do good with the rest of her life. It's certainly possible that she might change for the better, thus at least partially mitigating the injustice of her freedom.

The Pearls and yet another dead child

Michael and Debi Pearl will have a lot to answer for on Judgment Day. Another child has died at the hands of neglectful parents who found succor for their cruelty in the Pearls' teachings.

Glenn Beck < WBC

Okay, so you all know WBC pickets a few hundred feet away from select funerals. Most of you hate them for that.

I bet some of you like Glenn Beck, though, even despite his having pissed on the warm bodies of Brevik's 87 victims when Beck compared the kids' summer camp Breivik shot up to an arm of the Hitler Youth. And not only that, but Beck then insisted upon posting and reposting and reposting Breivik's racist manifesto on Youtube even despite that site's taking it down over and over again. (So much for respecting the free market, eh? Hypocrite.)

And then, because all that bullshit wasn't enough, Beck's followers - his stupid idiot, brain-dead followers - then began to comment as well.

Until you start caling out Beck and his idiot listeners, I don't want to hear jack shit from any of you about funeral protests. Any letter I get past this point, I'm going to answer it first with a question: Did you condemn Glenn Beck for crapping on the dead? If not, shut up.

Well-known atheist debater Thunderf00t vs. Margie Phelps

Margie Phelps, who played an intergal part in arguing for WBC before SCOTUS, here presents her case for picketing to Thunderf00t.

And this is how it's done

Comedian Lisa Lampanelli donates 20k to health initiative as part of a counter-protest against Westboro Baptist Church.

Concerning a recent attack on WBC member

This information is preliminary, but it's the latest I can find regarding a recent assault against a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Several members of Westboro Baptist Church went to Brandon, Mississippi to protest at a military funeral, but they didn't actually make it to the picket site.

One of the WBC members was accosted and attacked at a gas station, and may have ended up in hospital as a result. There were several “witnesses,” apparently, but they all came down with a mysterious case of temporary blindness and thus couldn't provide a useful description of the assailant to police.

Meanwhile, back at the hotel where church members were staying, several trucks boxed in whatever vehicles they could find with Kansas plates and then the drivers disappeared until after the funeral.

It is my hope the police will eventually find out who assaulted the WBC member, perhaps after one of the witnesses regains his or her wits, so that a dangerous person – a person unstable enough to meet words with fists – can be taken off the streets.

That's the crux of this matter: An “unknown” assailant committed a criminal act against an unpopular man because the latter made a comment that angered the former. That's not amusing. That's not justice. The man who committed the assault is dangerous – a criminal.

Find and arrest him.

UPDATE: Turns out the entire series of incidents may have been cut from whole cloth, thankfully. Too bad the pair of asinine responses I got weren't.