Theory on The Real reasons behind SOPA/PIPA.. Ron Paul?, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 22-1-2012 @ 02:08 AM by Evil_Santa

I just dawned on me that this entire push for SOPA/PIPA could be simply to provide further silencing of Ron Paul. If these bills were to pass then all the news clips we're sharing on Paul being silenced, cut off, etc would all be illegal to upload to Youtube, as well as illegal to link to from other sites due to copyright infringement.

With the Republican caucuses being pushed up the GOP is forcing it's voters to vote and choose a candidate quicker than in history, in fact I just read an article that the primaries have been moved up to March from their traditional month of May.

With most of Ron Paul's base coming from the under 35 crowd, aka the internet savvy, SOPA/PIPA could have easily been utilized to squash this voice and would have been a gigantic hurdle for grassroots websites to get their message out. I still don't believe that SOPA/PIPA are dead and think the current megaupload fiasco is a pretty big distraction to keep the attention/focus of the younger crowd while the verbiage for these laws are pushed through the system through a different means.

reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 02:15 AM by Bilder

Thats entirely possible however i think it has more to do with the fact that the internet is busting more and more of these maggots that call themselves politicians so its more of a self preservation thing i think

reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 02:16 AM by phatpackage

reply to post by Evil_Santa

Possibly but not likely. The people concerned who are pushing these bills are only thinking about what they perceive as lost money. All about the greed and protecting assets. Their belief is you use their material in any capacity even "fair use" you owe them money.

edit on 22-1-2012 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 02:29 AM by Evil_Santa

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Evil_Santa

Possibly but not likely. The people concerned who are pushing these bills are only thinking about what they perceive as lost money. All about the greed and protecting assets. Their belief is you use their material in any capacity even "fair use" you owe them money.
edit on 22-1-2012 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)

By passing these acts the "fair use" of news clips is essentially squashed. I don't recall the source but Murdoch's been pushing for years to have all of his stations be available by subscription only online. So yes, there is the financial aspect of these bills, but there's also the information control aspect too -- which i believe is the major reason these bills were tried to be shoved down the throats of American's so rapidly -- to protect the political status quo.

Even just after posting this thread a new ATS thread has spawned regarding the new "OPEN" act that gives government the ability to kill paypal/visa accounts of sites that are involved in copyright infringement...

Does this mean donations to grassroots campaigns could be cut-off if the website links to a copyrighted news broadcast?

Makes ya wonder why a new bill's been drafted less than 24 hours after the other two bill were pronounced dead.

Edit: ah that thread was started before this one -- regarding the OPEN act.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 22-1-2012 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-1-2012 @ 11:41 AM by lonegurkha

reply to post by Bilder

I think your thought may not be far off the mark.

I'd be willing to believe in self preservationas opposed to controlling Ron Paul.

They already have him fairly well controlled.

Pages: ^^TOP^^