NRA Complaint Takes Down 38,000 Websites (vice.com) 565
Sarah Jeong, reporting for Motherboard:38,000 websites hosted by the automated publishing service Surge went down today, after the National Rifle Association sent a legal notice over a parody website created by the Yes Men. A few days ago, the Yes Men released the parody video, "Share the Safety" -- announcing a supposed NRA program to deliver firearms into the hands of those too impoverished to afford guns. The opening frame of the video says "Paid for in part by the National Rifle Association of America with additional support from Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation." "Systemic poverty and dumb laws keep the urban poor unable to acquire life-saving firearms," says the video, which is available on YouTube. "That's why we at the NRA are teaming up with Smith & Wesson to share the safety.â The YouTube description includes a link to the "official" website, ShareTheSafety.org.
what a wonderful program (Score:5, Funny)
Where do I sign up?
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:4)
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:5, Insightful)
Google 'Gun Owners of America'. The NRA is soft, but you should still support them too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Armed Citizen Project is the real version...
https://facebook.com/TheArmedCitizenProject/
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:5, Informative)
Actually there is a legit version: https://facebook.com/TheArmedCitizenProject/
The difference is that the parody is full of unconscious racism.
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:5, Insightful)
the parody is full of unconscious racism
What make you think it was "unconscious"? They used race baiting as part of their attack on the NRA.
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect most other people see it as how racist they perceive the NRA members to be.. because you know.. that's how satire works..
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:4, Informative)
Look at a picture of the Board of Directors of the NRA. There are several non-white people on the Board. Roy Innis, the founder of the old-school civil rights organization CORE (Congress On Racial Equality") used to be on the NRA board; he may still be.
Compare with the pure lily whiteness of the entire Board of Directors of the Huffington Post.
Re: what a wonderful program (Score:4, Insightful)
People in the "hood" are more likely to be the victims of a crime. When politicians talk about restricting saturday night specials, they are talking about taking guns out of the hands of that single black mother who lives in the poorer area of town that keeps the gun as a self defence against being attacked and raped.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the Black Panthers?
You need to revise this distorted parody of NRA members you have in your head.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Cognitive dissonance. They don't want to believe they are racist, but they are. Because everyone is human. And practicing racism is a survival trait. There are parts of Detroit one does not go at night, and it is not because of the "White Super Predators". There are houses with bars everywhere in parts of NYC, and it is not because of "Women Super Predators".
Yes, racist and sexist, if you are not, good luck surviving.
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:4, Informative)
"If Trump is soooooo racist, why hasn't it been an issue for the decades he's built a global company?"
Well except for that time in 1973 when his real estate company was investigated by the justice dept for refusing to rent to blacks.
And that time in 1991 when he took out a full-page newspaper ad calling for the execution of some black teenagers accused of rape (who were later exonerated)
And that time in 1999 when a colleague quoted him as saying “laziness is a trait in blacks.”
Yes, apart from his decades-long history of being a racist & being called a racist... Trump has never been a racist or been called a racist.
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:4, Insightful)
..shitty job they've done and the horrible direction this country is headed.
Exactly what 'horrible direction' are you talking about that is not a continuation of trends started in the 80's under you know who? That's not saying much for Clinton or Obama - except that maybe they figured out how to get elected in the post-80's political climate and to make little changes around the edges to mitigate some of its worst effects. But to hate Obama or Hillary for the way things are now is to hate them because "Black" or "Vagina", because the direction of the country can be laid squarely at the feet of "The American Enterprise Institute" and other right-leaning think tanks that taught people to believe that if only we release the inherent goodness of rich folks, you'll get rich too.
Re: (Score:3)
Conservatives don't hate Obama because "Black" or Hillary because "Vagina". They hate them because of the shitty job they've done and the horrible direction this country is headed.
Bullshit. Conservatives hated Obama before he was even elected. You didn't see any liberals among the birther idiots, and that was a straight-up racist movement. And the conservatives have been hating on Hillary Clinton for over 20 years now - for no apparent reason, so one can only conclude that it is, in fact, because of "vagina".
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary started the birther thing, as a way to knock Obama out of the primary race.
And conservatives hated Hillary when she claimed a "vast right-wing conspiracy" was behind the rumors of her husband's infidelity. Not to mention other issues such as HillaryCare and White Water. None of those are related to her vagina.
Re: (Score:2)
AC tries to argue he knows so many typical Republicans. *cough*bullshit*cough* lol
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is total nonsense. The only people talking about racism and sexism are liberals and democrats trying to score SJW points with their idiot base.
Yep - the other side is too busy practicing it...
Re: (Score:3)
But that guy wasn't a TRUE Scotsman, I mean African American...
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:5, Insightful)
Not good enough an excuse, Bubba. The spouse of this Clinton signed a bill that established mandatory minimum prison sentences for crimes commonly committed by black folk - but didn't sign any similar bill for crimes more commonly committed by white people. As a result of those racist attitudes, millions of predominantly black young men have spent years, even decades, in prison.
The Clintons are far more racist that Trump.
BTW - "illegal alien" isn't a race. Get a clue, alright?
Re: (Score:3)
Except he said Mexicans coming here, which would primarily be illegal immigrants. He didn't say Mexicans who stay in Mexico are rapists, criminals, and drug dealers.
Re:the white elephant in the room (Score:4)
Good, perhaps then farmers will pay people a living wage for the job and not be able to exploit workers due to their immigration status, and refuse to hire american citizens.
I am willing to pay more for agricultural products if it means a reduction in the use of slave labor from third world countries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Show similar example of Trump supporters doing violence... You have your 5 maybe 6 individuals who g
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:what a wonderful program (Score:5, Insightful)
They crossed the line from "parody" to "misrepresentation and fraud" when they did this:
"The opening frame of the video says "Paid for in part by the National Rifle Association of America with additional support from Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation." "
Parodies are a comedic exaggeration of *style*, and limited (though broad) leeway is allowed in matters of copyright. However, the use of trademarks in a way that could mislead is generally not protected.
Surge should fire their admin (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever killed 38,000 websites to get rid of the one the DMCA targeted is an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, all politics and humor and whatever aside, how did one notice bring down an entire hosting system ? And if they had 38,000 websites, surely they had received notices before, and why didn't it bring Surge down then ?
It seems there's more to the technical side of this story.
Re:Surge should fire their admin (Score:5, Informative)
That at least seems more plausible. I wonder if Surge will spread their services accross several hosting providers after this incident.
Don't use Digitalocean (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with the other posters that these videos are likely to cause confusion to the average viewer, and are probably in violation of trademark law. That said, the way to handle that is in the courts.
DCMA takedown requests only apply to copyright infringement, not trademark law. It is a violation of the law to use the DCMA this way, both according to the USPTOs guidelines [uspto.gov](See B.4), and existing case law [lexology.com].
From the article, it is unknown whether their lawyers sent a DCMA request or a some other sort of cease and desist letter. But either way, Digitalocean had no legal obligation to take down the content, or any legal liability if they didn't take it down. The fact that they shutdown an entire service over a toothless complaint about one page on that service is unacceptable, and people should seriously reconsider doing business with them in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
From the update which is now at the bottom of the article:
A bit much for parody? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am all for parody, but isn't claiming to be supported by the organization you are parodying a bit much?
Re:A bit much for parody? (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy shit, the video doesn't just claim to be supported by the organization; it contains zero hint that it's a parody, at all. It looks very authentic, and it's on Youtube with a very non-parody title [youtube.com]. Seeing this video, examining it frame-by-frame, and studying the quality and the transcript, I would say it's authentic.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a press conference too!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Ha. I assumed that https://sharethesafety.org/ [sharethesafety.org] was actually a real NRA site. It's not.
Re:A bit much for parody? (Score:5, Informative)
You have to realize what the Yes Men are. Their pranks are not just satire like you might find in the Onion. They are activists and they fully understand that they can get themselves arrested in some cases for the crap they pull. Their hoax about the Monsanto chemical disaster apology was definitely risky. They likely are fully aware of the fact that the NRA will take issue with this hoax. However, the Yes Men often rely on the fact that any litigation by the "victims" would result in even more attention to an uncomfortable topic, so they don't sue.
Re:A bit much for parody? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm guessing they WANTED the NRA to take exception in a loud public way... It's all about calling attention to themselves and their cause by being outrageous. It worked and now we have PR gold (for them)..
Re:A bit much for parody? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what these guys do. They sign up for conferences, make fake web sites and do interviews pretending to be these big companies. A lot of their satire that they sound believable and fool a lot of people into thinking they are the real deal, because although they take a completely insane position it's close enough to the real position to be believable.
This campaign is a great example. The NRA says that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. They promote gun ownership as a way to maintain safety. So it's only natural that those who are most likely to be the victims of gun crime should want to protect themselves, and guns being the best protection it's logical for charities to hand them out. It's like giving out free condoms and replacement needles.
Reality in America is a bit like a parody (Score:4, Interesting)
Holy shit, the video doesn't just claim to be supported by the organization; it contains zero hint that it's a parody, at all. It looks very authentic...
When you can't tell the difference between parody and reality, you have to ask yourself if maybe reality have gotten too crazy...
Re: (Score:2)
I am all for parody, but isn't claiming to be supported by the organization you are parodying a bit much?
I agree. Parodies are all good fun, but once you claim to be the actual organization, it enters a different realm. The Masson v. New Yorker Magazine decision comes to mind as an example of this. You cannot falsely attribute a quote to another person or organization.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A bit much for parody? (Score:4, Interesting)
The asymmetric enforcement of second amendment rights is the core of NRA and its followers mission. White people with long guns, with fingers on the trigger can walk into departmental stores, or pick arguments with police officers, insult the police and terrorize play grounds with impunity. Stand your ground, Open Carry and such slogans are meant for them.
Unfortunately for them, black Americans are also citizens with full second amendment rights. They too have the rights, but if they exercise it, they will be shot by police without a second thought. "At that moment I feared my life, though none of the circumstances warranted it, but if I fear for my life I have the right to kill" is accepted as a valid defense for police officers. The same defense does not work when the victim of police shooting is white. A complex system of law enforcement, jury selection, etc are propping up this asymmetry. This ad brings out the hypocrisy of the NRA followers, and make them fear what would happen if the jury rigged system of rigged juries to deny black people their second amendment right collapses. That is why NRA is acting swiftly.
Re: (Score:2)
I think wealth ends being a much bigger factor than color of the skin here.
I doubt "white trash" do get it any easier than black people.
Re:A bit much for parody? (Score:4, Interesting)
You are, of course, completely wrong in every respect.
Gun control laws were put in place to take guns away from black people. Democrats didn't want the blacks to be able to defend themselves when they had lynching parties. Republicans disagreed. (https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html)
If you really believe that cops are "out to get" African American people (most cops were I am seem to be African American themselves?), black people having guns is even more important. Cops are a lot more respectful when the suspects and witnesses might be armed but are behaving themselves...
Re: A bit much for parody? (Score:5, Informative)
> it is promoting arming black people using some kind of charity.... it will strike fear in the heart of NRA supporters.
There actually is a US government-sponsored nonprofit offering free guns to qualified citizens. It is called the Civilian Marksmanship Program. (http://thecmp.org) It's 113 years old this year. They don't restrict their giveaways by race. As for the NRA, I've never heard anything but positive noises from them about the program. So much for the NRA only supporting armed white guys.
> The asymmetric enforcement of second amendment rights is the core of NRA and its followers mission.
Point me to the position paper on their web site saying that.
I've been to NRA meetings. Down here in the southwest, we don't get so many "black" people at them, but we do get plenty of brown people. (Hispanics and Native Americans.) The table at the last event I attended was 50/50 Hispanic and white. As far as I can tell, the only color the NRA cares about is green.
> with fingers on the trigger can walk into departmental stores
NRA is against that.
It's their second rule of gun safety: keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. You'll get kicked out of any well run event if you violate it. (http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx)
> pick arguments with police officers,
1st amendment.
> insult the police
I see that regularly here on Slashdot, often highly rated.
> terrorize play grounds with impunity.
That's called brandishing, and it's illegal in all 50 states.
Plus there's the 1000 foot rule around school playgrounds. It's a federal felony if you carry inside that border and don't qualify for one of the few exceptions. And if you do qualify, you're obeying the law.
> black Americans are also citizens with full second amendment rights.
Damn straight. There is no human right restricted to only some citizens.
> if they exercise it, they will be shot by police without a second thought
[citation needed]
Oh, I'm sure you can find cases of legally armed black people getting shot by the cops, but if you actually go looking, you'll find Americans of all brown shades (including that shade we call "white") getting shot by cops without proper justification.
> if I fear for my life I have the right to kill" is accepted as a valid defense for police officers.
Wrong. There are 4 or 5 tests a defendant must pass in order to avoid a charge of manslaughter or murder, depending on where you are in the US. An imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death is only one of them. Miss any of the 3 or 4 others and your case falls apart.
Andrew Branca (a constitutional law professor and 2nd Amendment expert) summarizes it nicely here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/t... [lawofselfdefense.com]
> This ad brings out the hypocrisy of the NRA followers
This NRA member wants Americans of all shades and creeds to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Better trim that broad brush down a bit.
> That is why NRA is acting swiftly.
The NRA is acting swiftly because this "ad" puts words in their mouth that you'll never read in their publications, nor hear in their leadership's speeches. It's basically a lie.
Possibly Brilliant (Score:2)
As parodies go, it's pretty clever. I'm wondering if Yes Men were clever enough to intentionally cause the NRA to issue a takedown and put the video in the public spotlight. Had this been a normal, "Saturday Night Live" type of parody, it's unlikely I would have seen it or that it would make any news at all.
But here we are. I've seen the video, and the satire illustrates some potential holes in the rhetoric of the NRA and pro-gun side of that particular issue.
Golf clap.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Automated publisher? (Score:3)
What's the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Aside from any hate for the NRA, I see no issue with this. Some people pulled a stunt giving off the false impression that they represented the NRA and Smith & Wesson.* The NRA requested a takedown, Surge complied with the takedown but screwed the pooch and brought down 38,000 sites instead of just the target.
The wording of the the article implies the NRA should be held responsible. It is the fault of Surge.
*Yeah I know it was supposed to be a "parody", but watch the video on YouTube. They never mention that they are not affiliated with the NRA or S&W. In fact, the little disclaimer on the bottom at the end of the video even makes the claim that they do represent the NRA.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from any hate for the NRA, I see no issue with this. Some people pulled a stunt giving off the false impression that they represented the NRA and Smith & Wesson.* The NRA requested a takedown, Surge complied with the takedown but screwed the pooch and brought down 38,000 sites instead of just the target.
They probably weren't confident enough in their litigation insurance so they panicked and shut everything down.
Streisand Effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps the authors over-did it intentionally to trigger the Streisand Effect.
NRA Takedown (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chicago (Score:5, Interesting)
Is the Chicago Federal DA even bothering to prosecute what would likely be many, many Federal firearms violations (felon with a gun, etc)?
Or is the Obama-Emmanuel-DOJ nexus so strong that they're not bothering with Federal firearms prosecutions because it would look bad for a hard-Democratic city that was the home of the first Black President to have a high rate of prosecution of Black felons? It disrupts the narrative.
'Gun control' is hitting your target (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, to all you SJWs and hysterical types who are now so triggered that you need to go take a Xanax so you can be calm enough to write your insults and death-threats against me: Don't even bother. I don't give a fuck what you think, because I think you and your gun-control rhetoric are utterly and completely wrong, and a snowball's chance in hell is still greater than you've got to try to even begin to change my mind. Oh, and by the way: I don't even own a single gun myself; but I support the Constitutional right every U.S. citizen has with regard to firearms, and if you don't then I think you're a bad citizen and should consider renouncing your citizenship and finding somewhere else to live.
Oh, and also: I'm not voting for either Trump or Clinton, because I don't trust either one of them or think either one of them is in any way shape or form suited to being POTUS, so don't bother hanging that 'Republican' bullshit on me, either; save your bandwidth for someone who gives a fuck what you think.
Re:'Gun control' is hitting your target (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a video clip you'll enjoy if you haven't already seen it.
https://youtu.be/Cw6jDrshgEw [youtu.be]
Interesting to note that in the US, 'gun crime' overall has dropped steadily over the last 2 decades, even as gun sales have increased...except in those areas with extremely restrictive gun laws that prevent most law abiding citizens from owning & carrying guns.
Strat
Re:'Gun control' is hitting your target (Score:5, Insightful)
If you knew one single true thing about NORC, you would feel stupid believing that they're working under a particular "confirmation bias" and "political agenda".
There are 4.5 million members of the NRA. It's still just a tiny fraction of total gun owners. Total membership of extremist group "Gun Owners of America" is 1.5 million. If you add the membership of the two organizations, they still only represent maybe 10 percent of the total number of gun owners. I'm betting even someone as statistically challenged as yourself can see that it is possible for there to be both a reduction in the number of households with guns AND a "large uptick" in new NRA members. Hell, they could have a "large uptick" in new members every year for the next 30 and still only represent a fraction of gun owners. For every gun owner in the US, there are between six and seven non-gun owners. Only about 30 percent of US households have a gun in them, which is the lowest it has ever been. Get that? The lowest it has ever been. So all those guns y'all are buying aren't going to make a difference to liberty or safety, because you can only shoot at most 2 of those 8 guns that you own at the same time.
Do you really believe that the location of a university impacts the political agenda of the research done there? Ever heard of Rice University? University of Texas? University of North Carolina? How about Tulane?
Come on man, don't get so desperate when the facts go against you. It's a bad look for a rough, tough patriot such as yourself to have to cower behind bogus right-wing talk radio tropes such as, "you can't believe that research because it was done in a liberal city!"
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Youtube "cares" about Fair Use? (Score:2)
The article seems to be claiming that Youtube cares about Fair Use and false content claims like this one.
Unless you are from a big media company, then its rubber stamp ban anything you like.
Saturday Night Live VS. the internet (Score:3, Insightful)
So, lemme get this straight.... If "Saturday Night Live" created the exact same video and broadcast it, we'd all laugh, and then go back to ignoring it.
But if some clowns post this video to the internet, it's a takedown via the DMCA -- and 38,000 sites also suffer due to someone's fat finger mistake.
So once again, citizens have no rights, but corporations do. Meanwhile, the GUN NUTS are screaming about their second amendment rights, but guess what, that's apparently the ONLY right you have, because that was the only one you cared about.
The politicians and corporations have you so FOCUSED on your gun rights, they have secretly deprived you of all other rights, and guess what? YOU FELL FOR IT.
I hope you've got your gun, because you're going to need it real soon.... This country has been usurped by the wealthy and greedy and your gun, which was supposed to protect you from tyrants, well, that pop gun won't do squat against drones and tanks and RPGs. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
So, lemme get this straight.... If "Saturday Night Live" created the exact same video and broadcast it, we'd all laugh, and then go back to ignoring it.
Excepting the part about it being paid for by the NRA, yes, you're probably right. Why? Because the video would appear on SNL, it would have SNL actors, and have NBC/SNL copyright notices on it. The origin would be clear.
it's a takedown via the DMCA -- and 38,000 sites also suffer due to someone's fat finger mistake.
1. It wasn't DMCA, it was trademark. 2. It wasn't a 'fat finger', it was a quick and probably improper decision by an upstream network provider. But a deliberate decision nonetheless.
So once again, citizens have no rights,
You still have the right to hyperbole. You still don't have the right to claim that a video you produce is p
Re:Saturday Night Live VS. the internet (Score:5, Interesting)
There are about 3M active personal across all branches of the military.
Not all 3M are combat roles. Tooth to tail ratios will come into play.
There are probably around 160M people fighting age (Ages 18 – 65).
There about 12M veterans
The continental US is much larger than Iraq and Afghanistan. This makes logistical support much harder
Defending is a lot harder than attacking.
The unknown of outside powers
Based on the above I believe that the citizens would win. 3M is not a lot of troops to hold a country as large as the US. And holding cities and key infrastructure takes a massive amount of troops, will, and logistical support. Iraq and Afghanistan have clearly shown that a technological inferior enemy can still “win” (think of overall money/lives lost/state of the countries now/etc) and the populations and size of the countries are much smaller.
Then you have tooth to tail rations to think about. If you don’t know what this is it means for a Combat Role (X) there needs to be (Y) amount of support staff for that combat role to be used/be effective. The current ratio for infantry is 1:7. Meaning you need 7 support people for that 1 infantry person to be effective. For fighter plans the ratios are much higher (I have seen figures 1:50. Maintenance, arms, flight planning, etc,).
So let’s say a f-15 pilot (or drone pilot) is ordered to bomb fellow citizens. If the pilot says yes and the support says yes the mission can happen. If the pilot says no and the support says yes the mission can’t happen (who is going to fly the plane the guy who refuels the aircraft?). If the pilot yes and the support says no the mission can’t happen (i.e. that one pilot is not getting the plane all ready to go). If the pilot says yes and not all 50 say yes then the mission can happen but at reduced efficiency.
Also if the military is used on the civilians the question becomes what percentage of the military will obey the order? 100% would not support the order, nor would 100% jump to the other side. So somewhere in between which means the military would be operating at a reduced efficiency. Plus defending something is a lot harder than attacking it. The defenders have to be alert 100% of the time while those attacking only have to be alert when they attack. If the US military is trying to defend a lot of critical infrastructure at once (electric, water, cities, food, ammunition, fuel, etc). The amount of combat troops they will have to launch attacks will be greatly reduced.
Sure you could maybe do conscription but history/data has shown that conscripted troops are less effective and could cause larger parts of the population to turn against you.
Also high tech weaponry (like drones, tanks, HIMARs, etc.) require huge logistical support. Disrupting that support (given size of country, number of civilians, etc) would probably not be as difficult as people think it is. Then you have to think about ROE. A lot would also depend of the ROE used and how evil the government is. Don’t care about your cities/population then artillery/bombing runs/etc. can start to mess up cities at the cost of the people hating you more. Decide the ROE is to spare cities and people then your artillery/bombers/etc are pretty useless.
I think the key comes down to which sides the citizens decide to support. The veterans will be able to provide military experience and tactics for those who oppose the military. The military itself will fracture. And who knows what the outside powers will do? Of course they will get involved but in what fashion (selling arms, sending over troops, taking land, etc).
Re:Great work from the Yes Men (Score:5, Insightful)
Dunno. The way the summary is written, it sounds a lot like impersonation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a simple case of trademark violation. `Yes Men' used NRA and S&W trademarks illegally and the trademark holders did what they're expected and required to do to protect their trademarks. Libtards are self inflicting the necessary cognitive dissonance to make this somehow the NRA's fault, just as they've been trained to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Libtards are self inflicting
Pretty sure there were no Libertarians involved in this
I can't tell if that was an overly subtle attempt a parody, but don't confuse Liberals (a.k.a. Democrats or Libtards) with Libertarians. Completely different philosophies.
Re:Great work from the Yes Men (Score:4, Insightful)
l am not sure if it would be considered libel or slander. Videos are usually have "spoken" words but a video maybe considered as sort of a "written" record by the law.
It is a published, copyrightable form, therefore it meets the definition of libel.
I wonder how loud the complaints would be were someone to produce a Hillary ad containing a Hillary impersonator who says libelous things, and then has "her" saying "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this ad" at the end.
Re: (Score:3)
So there's the problem.
Parody is Fine (Score:5, Insightful)
By blatantly stating that the NRA is sponsoring it and supports it, is not fine
There are rules. They exist for a reason.
Try doing a parody site on abortion and state plainly that the Democratic National Committee is paying for it and that Planned Parenthood is also sponsoring it.
I expect you will see the same thing.
But I don't expect that you will understand because you don't like the NRA
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Parody is Fine (Score:5, Informative)
The problem here is folks generally misunderstand what the 1st amendment actually says and what it means (actually they generally don't understand ANY of the bill of rights correctly.)
Freedom of speech means you are free to say what you want but it does not mean freedom from consequences when you speak. Sure, say what you want to your boss, it's LEGAL (as in NOT criminal), but don't try and make a 1st amendment case when your boss takes exception and fires you.
So, in this case, the government cannot and will not bring criminal charges, but those who hold the trade marks are apparently ready to make a civil case out of this (which, because they hold the trademark/copyrights is within their rights.) 1st amendment says the government cannot make laws limiting your ability to express your views by making specific kinds of speech illegal (i.e. criminal) (and yes I know there are some limits here). The 1st amendment however does not exempt the speaker from the consequences of their speech. So if you liable or defame someone, the government won't stop you but you can be subject to civil law, where the person wronged can seek civil action to deal with your speech.
Re: (Score:3)
The 1st amendment however does not exempt the speaker from the consequences of their speech.
It does exempt the speaker from some potential consequences of their speech, namely legal ones—with exceptions, some of which (e.g. defamation, copyright) may well be in violation of the amendment. The freedom of speech is fundamentally about prohibiting laws which would allow speech to be countered with disproportionate force, e.g. fines, imprisonment, capital punishment, etc.
As you correctly point out, however, it does not shield anyone from social consequences. People have the right to choose not t
Yep - impersonation (Score:2, Insightful)
You can find the parody video here [youtube.com].
The video uses the NRA logo and [what appears to be] the Smith and Wesson logo, and there's absolutely no clue that it's a parody. It seems completely legit, as if those two organizations made a serious promo video.
I'm a big fan of fair use in all it's varied forms, but I think this is a really good case of "impersonation", and is easily viewed as slanderous or libellous.
On a related note, before everyone posts the cherry-picked, not-the-whole-story statistics, does anyone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is a reason the CDC isn't allowed to fund studies. Because when they did, they funded studies that would have made Goebbels blush.
Google 'CDC funds bad gun studies' for a bunch of links that will take you into the discussion.
Re:Yep - impersonation (Score:4, Interesting)
The CDC leaders are on the record with quotes like "We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.". These weren't studies, these were cherry-picked propaganda. They had decided on the conclusion, and the only challenge was building the case. They then went on to fund ludicrous studies that confused cause with effect (critics point out that the same methods would show that hospitals cause death, and therefore it is safer to never go to a hospital), cherry picked samples, etc. Basically what any good advocate would do while attempting to affect social change and giving not one fucking hoot for reality. Additionally and more importantly why the fuck should the *center for disease control* be funding gun studies? Shouldn't congress make them spend their money on fucking fighting disease, instead of our constitution?
2nd Amendment Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
So do you also agree with the Founders that standing armies are inherent threats to liberty? How are you on the Swiss military/militia? How would you feel about disbanding the Army and Navy?
The second Amendment was intended to protect the ability of the People to defend their nation. It can certainly be argued that it also includes a guarantee of personal safety, but if you're going to argue Constitutional integrity, then you should be prepared to reconcile the vast difference between our current society and that document intended. Personally, I see a trained, professional cadre of soldiers as being an absolute necessity, and consequently would look favorably on either some variant of the Swiss system, or a far greater restriction on gun ownership. Either way, I'm fine with taking an empirical approach to the situation, and since this seems to be a national issue the CDC seems well situated to conduct such studies. If you would like to take issue with empirical findings, do your own study. If your position is that this is a moral or rational issue not subject to empirical findings, then again, you are forced to reconcile past intentions with present conditions.
This isn't a huge issue with me. I'm from Alaska and know my way around a hunting rifle, and don't see any reason for those to be particularly restricted. While the military has at times been employed against the People, generally it hasn't been the huge issue that our Founders thought, at least in terms of domestic freedom, and most of the incidents of military violence against citizens have involved the National Guard, which at least approximates a militia. With the current conflict of personal safety versus national safety versus the strict adherence to the Constitution and the Founder's intentions, I think the most likely scenario is that the Constitutional right to bear arms will be further eroded and restricted, or preferably but less likely it will be amended to make explicit that we have turned aside from the path of the citizen soldier.
We as a nation need to have a talk about these issues. We have a lot of dead citizens, a huge standing army, and we are not being true to our founding principles in any sense. Something needs to give. Taking the empirical approach may in fact not be the correct path to a solution, but we do have a problem and we do need to solve it somehow.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is an editorial, signed with "Chris Cox is the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action."
The editorial has no citations for its anonymously-attributed quotes.
Re:Yep - impersonation (Score:5, Informative)
That's not a citation that's "the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action" making the same claim without providing a citation.
One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC’s effort was quoted, stating “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign “to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”
Is unsourced and unnamed making it rather difficult to confirm.
Some digging (which shouldn't be necessary since providing a citation is trivial) turns up http://dailycaller.com/2013/10... [dailycaller.com] which in turn makes the claim:
Patrick O’Carroll, a CDC official involved in the “research,” wrote in the February 3, 1989, Journal of the American Medical Association: “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.”
However the Feb 3 1989 issue of JAMA does not have an article in it authored by Patrick O'Carroll.
Yet more digging (which again should be unnecessary) shows that issue does have an article: Marsha F. Goldsmith, "Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation," Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=376136) - note citations are really easy to do. That article apparently quotes O'Carroll, however that itself it uncited so we have hearsay.
And then we do actually have something in writing from O'Carroll in JAMA, in July 1989. A letter to the editor claiming that he was misrepresented in the article above and didn't say any such thing: Patrick O'Carroll, "CDC's Approach to Firearm Injuries," Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 262 no. 3, July 21, 1989, pp.348-349.
So do you have an actual citation? Note they are easy to give, see the two I gave above.
Re: (Score:3)
CDC does track overall death statistics but studies like that are outside of their scope since they study disease. They have gun related deaths broke down with suicide accounting for close to 50% of gun related deaths. You would be better off worrying about influenza since unless you are suicidal it is more likely to kill you.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Money Shots (Score:3, Informative)
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases acc
Re: (Score:3)
Wait a second,10k/year is large number, but 116k/year (low end of the range) isn't?
Your problem is, you're not intellectually honest with yourself.
Re: Yep - impersonation (Score:5, Informative)
That paper isn't a research paper but a document describing the questions that need answered in future research studies.
It's a blueprint for how to proceed, not a research paper in it's own right.
The research agenda proposed in this report is intended as an initial—not a conclusive or all-encompassing—set of questions critical to developing the most effective policies to reduce the occurrence and impact of firearm-related violence in the United States. No single agency or research strategy can provide all the answers. This report focuses on the public health aspects of firearm violence; the committee expects that this research agenda will be integrated with research conducted from criminal justice and other perspectives to provide a much fuller knowledge base to underpin our nation’s approach to dealing with this very important set of societal issues.
So Guns and Ammo Magazine read an outline for a proposed line of questioning, and drew conclusions the outline itself doesn't even draw...because it doesn't even try.
Rather what it does is to point to other research efforts and their contradictory findings as a starting point for developing the questions that should be asked. And of the "research" quotes that G&A provides are cherry picked quotes from other studies referenced by the authors of the blueprint to illustrate previous, current, and ongoing research to illustrate which questions need asked.
Again: this is not a research paper.
This group performed no research (yet, or as of the publishing of this paper).
Ergo, this is not the result of the CDC research.
It's simply the first step, figuring out what questions to ask, in doing that research.
Nice try genius.
Re: (Score:3)
You're best to take John Oliver as just as biased and worth of the, "take with a pinch of salt" approach as you would Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. I can't get to the site of this guy's video but if you go to about 5:25 he makes note of some CDC statistics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Again, can't get to his website that's listed in the description (which should have citations) so I'm not sure which CDC research he's referencing. Agree/disagree with the video as a whole, that's not my point in linking i
Re:Yep - impersonation (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes there are some very good studies but not in America so pretty much any american says they are worthless "because no country is like here"
There is (unfortunately) some truth to this. Bowling for Columbine was a horrible mess, but Moore DID touch on the fact that America is different than other similar nations--then he went off the rails and in the end blamed the whole thing on an old white guy with Alzheimer's disease.
The Swiss have a (real) assault rifle in every closet, but they're not murdering each other. Canada has a large number of firearms (nothing like ths US, but they're quite widespread) and they don't have our issues. Israeli citizens are well armed and their violence is largely related to the Palestinian conflict. Americans, though, we LOVE killing each other. In absence of guns, we'd just use knives, baseball bats, or bare hands and boot heels.
Re: (Score:3)
Their "well regulated militia" consists of basically "every male in the country. not unfit for service."
Re: (Score:2)
Good source check out More guns less Crime by John Lott Jr. He's been tracking this since the 80's and as we have seen gun ownership jump (especially over the last
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yep - impersonation (Score:4, Insightful)
Paid for in part by National Rifle Association of America with additional support form Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation. All Rights Reserved C. 2016 Share The Safety
Seems pretty clear that this is not a parity but more of an attempt to damage both brands.
Re:Great work from the Yes Men (Score:4, Interesting)
To be clear, the NRA didn't take down 38,000 websites. Incompetent hosting company took down 38,000 websites.
But like good liberals, you blame something else, instead of the actual culprit.
Re: (Score:2)
They really should lay off considering how unintentionally funny this "parody" is.
This issue is more about poverty and crime than it is about a particular scary bit of technology. They have accidentally stumbled closer to the truth of the matter here than they usually ever manage.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, after all, the NRA and Ronald Reagan were all for the Black Panthers carrying around [scary-looking-guns] to defend their neighborhoods. /s
"Defending their neighborhoods"?
You mean from those dangerous "cracker babies"?
https://youtu.be/2Y3Cd9gnvlw [youtu.be]
https://youtu.be/-S2MIqgI-ic [youtu.be]
So much hate.
So much cognitive dissonance on the Left.
Strat
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
PARODY videos are protected by current copyright laws. I am not sure how they won this case, other than by legal bullying and intimidation. The NRA has need pockets, filled with gold, from the morons of the heartland.
Watch the video. The disclaimers at the bottom expressly state that they do indeed represent the NRA, which is false. The one at the beginning even says "Paid for in part by the NRA". That is not parody.
Re: (Score:2)
When I saw the "Paid for in part by the NRA", I wondered if somehow NRA funds were used in the video.
With how extreme the NRA and the people involved with it are, I wonder if somebody got a grant from the NRA for the video by somebody who wasn't bright enough to recognize that it was a parody. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, positions taken by the NRA are really not out of line with the one in this video - find the right manager within the NRA, with the right line of bullshit to go with this and I'm s
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I always wondered how something can be a "right" yet you have to pay a non-governmental body to exercise it. If gun ownership is indeed the absolute constitutional right that the NRA says it is, they should definitely be pushing for legislation to have every American issued a firearm.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you also given a government issued a printing press? Beer? Your chosen 'holy book'?
You're confused about what 'rights' are. Likely because of all the non-rights that get thrown around as rights these days.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I always wondered how something can be a "right" yet you have to pay a non-governmental body to exercise it. If gun ownership is indeed the absolute constitutional right that the NRA says it is, they should definitely be pushing for legislation to have every American issued a firearm.
You don't have to pay a third party anything. It is perfectly legal for you to manufacture a firearm yourself. In fact there are plenty of kits out there allowing you to do just that, everything from muzzle loading black powder rifles where you have to finish the wood and assemble the parts to AR-15 receiver blanks that you have to mill down yourself. If you want you can even make the firearm from scratch if you have access to the machinery and raw goods (or a mill, shovel, and barrel blank if you want t
Re:Nicely done video (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, people are starting to question the position of the NRA that *anybody* regardless of who they are should be able to procure guns
Not their actual position, although waving blanket, false statements like that around is what passes for political discourse these days. Actual fact: the current background check system was actually strongly supported by the gun lobby: people who are convicted felons or legally declared mentally incompetent don't have second amendment rights. Or many other constitutional rights, say for example, voting. The current argument (causing the House to behave like the dysfunctional third world legislative clique it apparently actually is) is over the "sounds good!" legislation of "people on the terror watch list shouldn't be allowed to buy firearms". Hmm. So, a law in which denies something listed on the bill of rights to people on a secret government list, who can get on that list simply by someone voicing suspicion, with no procedure for getting off the list (or even knowing if/why they're on it)? Pick anything else that's a legal right (voting? free speech? Self-incrimination? Illegal search and seizure?) and swap that in for "gun ownership" in this scenario and watch everyone across the political spectrum freak out. We tried something like this in the 50's with McCarthy when the enemies were Commies instead of Radicals, and are universally ashamed of that fact in hindsight. Of course the NRA should be objecting to this. I'm shocked that the ACLU, for example, isn't too.
Re:Nicely done video (Score:4, Informative)
The ACLU is against using the watch lists for background checks. See https://www.aclu.org/blog/wash... [aclu.org] for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they can, with a pointed stick if that's all they can afford.
We don't issue them printing presses either.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, just let food stamp EBT cards be used for arms and ammo purchases and not just soda and frozen pizza and we are golden eh? While we are at it, might as well let them buy beer, wine and candy...