The Internet is Protected from SOPA and PIPA

 Kaitlyn DeShon

 "Congress Indefinitely Postpones 'SOPA, PIPA'"

North County Times

Friday, January 20, 2012  

Jim Abrams Associated Press


http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/nation-congress-indefinitely-postpones-sopa-pipa/article_656197c4-5e54-5140-b7a6-4c965f0264c0.html

     This article talks about how Congress was debating on whether or not to pass the Protect Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA, and the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. Congress was responding to the Internet petitions that happened on large sites, like Google and Wikipedia. When these sites heard about the online piracy preventing acts, they protested by shutting down their sites for a day, or in Google's case, organizing a petition drive that attracted over 7 million people. These acts changed the minds of several important Senators and Representatives that had originally been co-sponsoring the bills. The petitions and protests of the millions of angry citizens caused Congress to indefinitely postpone what to do with SOPA and PIPA. Several representatives have suggested other methods of dealing with online piracy, which costs the country millions of dollars a year.
     This event connects to what we are learning in class because SOPA and PIPA, which are government acts  enacted in order to prevent further online piracy, which is illegal and costs the country millions of dollars a year. This event parallels the Tea Act, the Townshend Acts, the Quartering Act, Stamp Act, and Proclamation of 1763. In these historical events, the British government put into force the acts in order to gain money that was lost. The colonists protested all these acts because they thought of these as unfair and went against their rights, as did the modern people against PIPA and SOPA. This is shown when in the article, it says, "...a loose affiliation of hackers known as 'Anonymous' shut down Justice Department websites for several hours and hacked the site of the Motion Picture Association of America after federal officials issued an indictment against Megaupload.com, one of the world's biggest file-sharing sites." (Abrams NCTimes). This shows that after a major act, the people got angry, and even got very, very dirty. They hacked into government websites and shut them down just to prove the point that they were angry. This relates to the events that led up to the Revolutionary War because the Patriots, who were very angry at the British government, decided to get dirty and violent with their protests, injuring British soldiers and tax collectors. In other words, people as closely connected to the British government as they could get in the colonies.
     This connects to my life because I have had to deal with SOPA and PIPA myself. I use the Internet every day, and I was there when Wikipedia shut down their site in protest. It affected me, as well as nearly everyone at school and in my life. I have seen it on television, over the Internet, as well as simply face-to-face complaining about how "horrible" SOPA and PIPA is. Overall, this connects to my life because it directly affected it.
     I believe that this will show Congress and the government just how powerful the Internet is, and how powerful the people can become when Congress decides to change it. This can effect our future because our nation's government is all about not one aspect of life being monopolized, or becoming too powerful. There are three branches of government because of this. In the economy, the government will step in in order to make sure no company becomes a monopoly, or even close to it. This could be the same mindset for the Internet. If they realize that the Internet has become too powerful, then they could pass more bills trying to control it. Therefore, this can effect our future very much.

Church Man is Asked to Beat a Child

Kaitlyn DeShon

12/12/11

North County Times

"Officials: Calif. parents asked man to beat child"

http://www.nctimes.com/ap/national/officials-calif-parents-asked-man-to-beat-child/article_a42083d4-e41b-5970-9f26-0fcefd9e0158.html

Religion

The parents of a 15 year old boy suspected him of smoking. Upon finding a lighter in his possession, the distressed parents called Paul Kim, an apparently reliable church man. They dropped their son off at his house. Kim beat the child with a metal pole, causing intense bruising on his legs. An adult at the child's school noticed these marks and called the police. Kim was arrested for this crime, and suspected of doing similar things to children for parents around the neighborhood.

This connects to what we are studying in class because it states that this man is apparently known for being reliable and a consistent church-goer. This has to do with religion. Also, it represents society and culture because it shows how some people in our society punish their children. Another connection is that the thirteen colonies were very religious and had strict rules about their churches. They even had strict laws on what to do on Sundays, which is considered the Lord's Day. Obviously, these rules have been lost over the years in most societies, including this one where this church man beat people.

This connects to my life as a citizen because all parents must punish their children at one point or another, yet beating is severe, not to mention illegal. I have been punished for things I have done as a child. Also, many teenagers have been influenced by adult temptations such as alcohol or smoking. In this instance, it was smoking. However, this son is not the only one who has been influenced by this.

I believe that this man obviously should not have beat this child, instead the parents should have confronted their son about the lighter found in his possession. This man is putting a bad name on religion and church, because people cannot help but stereotype other groups of people. If they had only confronted him and perhaps gotten help for him, they would have, of course, avoided the arrest of this man and avoided the harm of their own child. These people are simply sick to do this to their own child and should have charges pressed against them also. As you can see, I think that this man should be arrested as well as the parents of the beaten child. They should also have gotten help for their son.

Prince William VS Government

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #1

North County Times

"Prince William's posting to Falklands defended"

http://www.nctimes.com/ap/entertainment/prince-william-s-posting-to-falklands-defended/article_6681a97d-3be5-5a25-907a-fda70a196e35.html

Prince William of Britain wants to fight in military, but government won't let him

Prince William was deployed for the Falkland Islands despite attempts by the British government. Britain owns most of the land, but Argentina has claimed the Falkland Islands. He was sent to a British outpost on the islands. Argentina claimed this was a "provocative act" and that the British meant to have another war to overtake their islands. The British insisted it was not, and do not approve of Prince William serving in the military, however, Prince William as well as his brother, Prince Harry, have served in Britain's armed forces for quite some time and do not plan to stop now.

This connects to what we are studying in class because Britain/England, where Prince William is from, explored the Americas and colonized there. They were part of the Colombian exchange and claimed land in the Americas such as Virginia. Also, the simple fact that an American newspaper is making news about something going on in Britain shows that the Colombian exchange never ceases. We still exchange ideas, goods, new ways of life, government ideas, and so forth.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I have also been forced not to do something, as I am sure we all have at one point, because of the "dangers" and "possible fatalities" and so forth from our parents. Here Prince William is the child and the British government is the parent. Also, false accusations have been made. Argentina accused Prince William and Britain of trying to overtake their islands because of a simple deployment. This has happened so many times in my family household.

I believe that Prince William and Prince Harry should be allowed to be in the military if they wish, but be suspended from serving should a war or battle arise. Therefore, they could guard and protect their country, but they could not be injured badly. For example, Prince William should have been allowed to be deployed to that island, but if the tension were to rise too much and break out into violence, he would be removed from the area immediately, because any enemies would go straight for royalty. He would be much too vulnerable. Therefore, you can see that I believe the best thing for Prince Harry and Prince William would be that they are allowed to serve in the military, but with extra safety restrictions.

Can You Really Trust the Police?

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #5

North County Times

"School police union slammed for edgy t-shirts"

http://www.nctimes.com/ap/national/school-police-union-slammed-for-edgy-t-shirts/article_5037be18-1a79-5698-a717-a117497479c3.html

Police in Northern California Wear Inappropriate Shirts

In Northern California, a small police department was seen wearing offensive T-shirts. They had a picture of a child behind bars while bearing the phrase, "You raise 'em, we cage 'em". Many complaints were made by people who saw the shirts. The department did not have a good reputation as it was, and these shirts did not improve it. The police chief bears the blame as well as the entire department. They were asked not to wear them and to apologize.

This connects to what we are learning in class because the First Amendment states the freedom of speech. This would pertain to the police being allowed to wear the offending shirts because they are given the right to have freedom of expression. Also, the Tenth Amendment states rights retained by the states, such as the right to be responsible for their police departments.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I have seen some extremely offending shirts worn by some extremely scary people, but never by officials of the law. Also, I have been pretty surprised at the things the police or firemen have done when you thought they were such good citizens. Another connection I can make is that I once met a police officer who was very proud of his rank as police officer and would never do anything such as wear a t-shirt that would offend children, of which I was one and was good friends with this officer.

I believe that these police should have known better and they should have not worn the t-shirts in the first place. When the article said, "Town leaders said the fundraising shirts are highly offensive and fuel mistrust of the Twin Rivers Police Department in North Highlands", it only makes me think more that these shirts should not have been worn in the first place and this police department is not careful or lawful enough for a police department.

They Take Your Lunch but Not Your Phone

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #4

North County Times

"Police: Men took Pa. teens sandwich at gunpoint"

http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/police-men-took-pa-teens-sandwich-at-gunpoint/article_6555955f-3a9e-5218-ab07-a6a12572a21b.html

Two Men Stole a Sandwich from a Teen at Gunpoint

Two men apparently approached a teenager and pointed a gun at his head before rifling through his pockets and, upon finding a meatball sandwich, took it and ran away to their car without stealing anything else from the teen. Although the teen did have a phone in his pockets, they apparently only had interest for the meatball sandwich. Talk about "Give me your lunch money" here it was "Give me your lunch." The teen called police and gave them a description of the car they drove away in. The police thereafter soon found the car and arrested the two men for robbery. They are being held under a $150,000 bail.

This connects to what we are learning in class because we learned in the Bill of Rights that people accused of a crime are to be held with a bail before the trial, and that no person can be given excessive bail. We also learned in the Bill of Rights Amendment Six that police cannot arrest someone without reasonable motives.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I am, in fact, a teenager. Also, although I do not like meatball sandwiches, what was contained in that teen's pockets are very similar to what I carry around with me. Another connecting is that this could have easily happened to me and this is similar to what happens in cheesy television shows that I am sometimes forced to watch.

My opinion is that these people were amateurs who were extremely frightened and did not want to chance getting caught so they took what they found immediately and ran. I believe this because of when the article says, "The men allegedly took his sandwich before fleeing in a car." The use of the word "fleeing" and the quick escape suggests that the two men were new at being criminals and were extremely nervous of being caught. I believe they just wanted to feel the "exhilaration" or whatever feeling you could possibly get from committing a crime and not actually steal anything of substantial value.

The Strangest Thing You've Ever Gotten While Trick-or-Treating: and the Scariest

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #3

North County Times

"Ohio pastor apologizes for Halloween pamphlets"

http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_fa97c2da-c027-5a9b-b08e-ec79d158d233.html

Ohio pastor scars children with religious pamphlet

At several houses in Ohio, trick-or-treaters were given not candy, but a religious pamphlet about fearing God. This comic-style pamphlet was given to all children that stopped by Reverend Kenny Cousar's house, and all children who stopped by anyone's house who went to the Northview Baptist Church. In this comic, three children die and one child hangs himself. When parents found out about what had been given to their children, they were horrified, and complained to the authorities. The pastor had to apologize and still encouraged them that his church was, in fact, very good and usually handed out religion related pamphlets for Halloween, which usually got very good responses.

This connects to what we are studying in class because it involves the Bill of Right's First Amendment: Freedom of religion as well as expression. This pastor as well as many others had the freedom to express whatever they wanted through what they handed out. It was perfectly within their rights to give these stories, no matter how gruesome, to the children. However, the children and the parents have freedom of religion, and some parents might say that giving the children a pamphlet that scares them into becoming Baptist would compromise their freedom of religion. Both of these rights are stated in the First Amendment.

This connects to my life as a citizen because I trick-or-treat every Halloween and Halloween is definitely involved in my life, as well as religion. Just like my church is free to advertise Christianity, this church is free to advertise Baptism. Also, I have been given pamphlets about religion before (maybe not trick-or-treating) and some of them have been very, very forceful.

I believe that this pastor should have looked at the pamphlet before handing them out to every child that stood on his porch step. You can tell that he did not, in fact, even look at the pamphlet when he said his "church was careless". This displays that he did not even read the pamphlet himself because he blames it on the church and not on himself. Therefore, he believed he had no part in it, but simply distributed them. If he did have the knowledge of what was contained in the pamphlets he was handing out, then he would probably have taken some of the blame or felt responsible for it. Now, as you can see, I do in fact believe that he should have known what he was handing out to the children.

Fake Maple Syrup Upsets Vermont

Kaitlyn DeShon

Article #2

North County Times

"Bill: Felony to sell fake maple syrup as real deal"

http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_5326a122-af4b-5134-acfe-9fc69e21b637.html

Phony Maple Syrup is Now Outlawed in Vermont

A Vermont couple thought they found a good deal on organic, completely real Vermont maple syrup from the Internet. They ordered the syrup and, upon being told that the seller was a trucker from Rhode Island who was passing through Vermont, the couple arranged with him to meet in a town called Brattleboro to get the syrup. After receiving it, being from Vermont, the couple soon realized that the "maple syrup" was nothing more than cane sugar. In order to protect Vermont's name in maple syrup, which earns the state about $30 million a year at about $50 a gallon, a bill was passed by the state's two senators to outlaw the sale of phony maple syrup.

This connects to what we are learning in class because the Constitution states that the Legislative Branch is in charge of passing new bills. Also, the Constitution states that each state will have a certain number of senators based on the population. Vermont has two. It also connects to the Bill of Rights through the Tenth Amendment. The right retained by the state is that Vermont may pass laws involving their exports and imports (Maple Syrup).

This connects to my life because maple syrup is involved in almost everyone's life, including mine. If I were to replace my maple syrup with just plain sugar, not only would it taste completely different and most likely bad, it would make me extremely fat if I were to just eat plain sugar. Also, it is false advertising and that is, in fact, illegal.

I am under the impression that false advertising is already illegal. Therefore I believe that a new bill did not need to be passed in order to solve the problem. If a new bill were not to be passed, then the man that sold the couple fake maple syrup would have been put in jail and would not have gotten away because "the bill was not passed until after he performed the deed." However, apparently the law of false advertising either did not apply to Vermont or was not brought up until the new bill had been passed. Therefore, you can see that I do not believe that a new bill had to be made in order to outlaw the sale of false maple syrup because false advertising is already outlawed.