The House votes against Random Image Threads ($300,000 fine) and Ron Paul Dissents
[views:2398][posts:13]_____________________________________
[Dec 6,2007 9:15am - the_reverend ""]
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html
[Dec 6,2007 9:36am - Pires ""]
that is absolutely ridiculous...
[Dec 6,2007 9:52am - DestroyYouAlot ""]
fapfapfapfapfapfa- wait, what?
[Dec 6,2007 9:55am - DestroyYouAlot ""]
[img]
THUR'S DIRTY PIKTURS IN MA INTERTUBES, LOL
[Dec 8,2007 11:14pm - xanonymousx ""]
i don't get this?
does this mean i could get arrested for looking at these threads?
[Dec 18,2007 5:27pm - sxealex ""]
no
[Dec 18,2007 5:28pm - sxealex ""]
it means you could get arrested for msd posting child porno on your unlocked wifi.
[Dec 18,2007 7:19pm - pam ""]
big brother is watching.
[Dec 18,2007 8:54pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""]
sxealex said:it means you could get arrested for msd posting child porno on your unlocked wifi.
heyheyhey now... I don't repost that stuff. I just masturbate and delete.
[Dec 18,2007 11:54pm - FuckIsMySignature ""]
thats unpossible
[Dec 19,2007 5:29am - SacreligionNLI ""]
good thing i still use wires
[Dec 19,2007 7:33am - immortal13 ""]
God dammit.
[Dec 19,2007 8:25am - xmikex ""]
A coffee shop that offers WiFi would be responsible for the content that people view while leveraging their WiFi system? I mean, I get the idea, but by this logic you'd basically have to hold common carrier's and ISPs responsible for the same thing. And how much sense does it make to fine AT&T $300,000 because someone looked at CP over their phone lines?
Yet another tech law set in place by people who have zero grasp of technology.
[Dec 19,2007 8:26am - xmikex ""]
Also, I heard Senator Pedobear is in an uproar over this.