[Blindtlk] FW: [censored]

[Mike Freeman]

Steve:

Verily, thou speakest truth.

And before there was that email cost warning post, there was the "modem tax"
post that came by at least once per year that purported to say there was a
bill in Congress to charge persons for modem use. In fact, that post did
give a bill number but it wasn't a U.S. bill number -- it was from the
Canadian parliament which never considered the bill after its initial
introduction. But the post came around again and again, each time with the
bill number as it originally appeared in the Canadian parliament.

As H.L. Mencken once said: "nobody ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American public.".

Mike Freeman


-----Original Message-----
From: blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 1:15 PM
To: Blind Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] FW: [censored]

Chris,

There are a couple of problems with all this that I see.  First, if our
national office says that we 
will be introducing a bill and they tell us what it is about, we know that
this information is accurate 
because it is coming from people within our organization we know and is
directed at our members.  If we 
get an e-mail and we don't know anything about the person who actually
started it, we can't assume that 
the issue is valid nor can we trust any links that are forwarded in that
note.  In this case, I checked 
the web site Eric gave and there was no bill number there.  That is rather
sloppy because it turns out 
there really is a bill and a bill number, but both his and your notes did
not provide us with any 
independent way to verify the legitimacy of what was being said.  You may be
too new to remember this, 
but for perhaps a decade, an urgent e-mail came around once a year telling
us to call congress because 
the post office was about to start charging for e-mail.  Whether anybody
ever talked about doing that or 
not wasn't really relevant.  The fact was that there was no bill, but it was
urgent that we do something 
for years.  In my opinion, if those who want people to do something are
serious, and I mean the people 
who wrote the original e-mails and not you or Eric, they should have
included a bill number.

Second, while this is a legitimate bill and while it could impact all of us
in some way, it really does 
not impact us particularly because we are blind.  Lots of things impact us
as human beings, but we 
really can't afford to have everything come across our lists that impact us
as human beings.  We need to 
limit these lists to those topics that are specific to blindness or we will
be overloaded to say the 
least.  It is especially true this year because of the elections.  Since who
is president impacts us, 
one could, on that basis, forward campaign materials for all candidates to
this list.  We might here, at 
some point, about positions candidates take on specific issues that have to
do with blindness, but we 
need to look at normal channels to get general campaign information.  

I hope this makes some sort of sense.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:36:23 -0600, Chris Nusbaum wrote:

>Eric,

>This is the same bill the guy who wrote the email I forwarded was 
>talking about.  I happen to know the name of the bill: the Stop 
>Internet Piracy Act (SOPA.) I'm not sure of a bill number, but at 
>least you can Google the name of the bill and find it.  So how 
>can you say that what you sent about the same bill
>effects all blind people, but what I sent doesn't? Also, both 
>emails provided a Web site on which you can sign a petition; one 
>to Congress itself to vote against the bill and one to Electronic 
>Arts (EA) to tell their officials to make a company-wide stance 
>against the bill.  So, I saw both emails as a short ad; a teaser 
>of sorts.  It's an advertising ploy; describe the bill's intent 
>in a way that gets the audience fired up, then give a Web site 
>hoping that people will start to feel passionate about supporting 
>or opposing this bill and will go to the site and sign the 
>petition.  Also, the email I sent may not be as professionally 
>written as, say, the official complaints or petitions written by 
>the NFB's governmental affairs team, but it is a citizen writing 
>to other citizens asking them to sign a petition and help him 
>spread the word about something he is passionate about, which he 
>has the right to do, and so do I to distribute it, and so do all 
>of us! So, although the email itself might not have a bill number 
>or any "official" information, you might find that information on 
>the Web site itself, as that Web site has the actual petition.

>If the petition wasn't legitimate, then why would the email have 
>a Web site of an organization who is circulating a petition, and 
>gives you a place to sign the petition? And, what makes your 
>petition any more legitimate than mine? By the way, I read your 
>ad in the Ziegler; wow! What an appeal to the ladies, LOL!

>Chris

>"The real problem of blindness is not the loss of eyesight.  The 
>real problem is the misunderstanding and lack of education that 
>exists.  If a blind person has the proper training and 
>opportunity, blindness can be reduced to a mere physical 
>nuisance."
>-- Kenneth Jernigan

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eric Calhoun" <eric at pmpmail.com
>To: blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>Date sent: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:01:52 -0600
>Subject: [Blindtlk] FW: [censored]

>See this, Chris?  This one affects all blind people.  It talks 
>about the
>bill, its intent, and why people should sign the petition.

>Eric


>Original Message:
>From: "Jess Kutch, Change.org" <mail at change.org
>To: eric at pmpmail.com
>Subject: [censored]
>Date:
>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:58:45 -0800

>Congress has a plan to change the Internet forever.  A bill 
>they're
>debating right now would give the government power to shut down 
>whole
>websites, and even let corporations say which websites should be 
>shut down.

>That means a huge corporation could have any website even 
>suspected of
>violating a copyright shut down -- no questions asked.  The 
>government could
>then completely block all access to sites as big as Facebook or 
>YouTube if
>one person posts one thing on those websites that corporations 
>don't want
>online.

>Most major entertainment companies have come out in support of 
>the bill,
>but despite swirling rumors, the huge video-gaming company 
>Electronic Arts
>(EA) has yet to take an official stance.  However, EA is part of 
>the
>Entertainment Software Association, one of the big corporate 
>lobbyists for
>the bill to censor the Internet -- meaning that if EA came out 
>against the
>bill, that would be a serious blow to the people trying to get it 
>passed.

>Shashank Kasturirangan is a student at NYU who's a huge fan of 
>gaming --
>including EA's games -- but he can't believe that EA would want 
>to mess
>with the Internet.  Shashank started a petition on Change.org 
>calling on
>Electronic Arts to stop lobbying for Congress's plan to censor 
>the Internet
>and come out against the bill.  Click here to add your name to 
>his petition.

>http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-electronic-arts-to-oppose-in
>ternet-cens
>orship?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&alert_id=dZDVYxQm
>LI_oLKqgeiB
>KM&me=aa

>The Internet censorship bill is particularly dangerous, according 
>to
>advocates, because it would enable the government to set up the 
>same type
>of tools to block online content that are used in repressive 
>regimes around
>the world, like China, Iran, and Syria.  For the first time, 
>corporations
>and the government would be able to say what's acceptable to put 
>on the
>Internet.

>While some companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter have come 
>out
>against the bill, big movie studios, record companies, and their 
>corporate
>lobbyists like the Entertainment Software Association are pushing 
>Congress
>hard to pass Internet censorship.

>Electronic Arts has millions of customers around the world 
>playing video
>games like Madden 2012, The Sims, and Scrabble, and they care 
>deeply about
>what the public thinks about their company.  If enough people 
>call on EA to
>oppose the plan to censor the Internet, they will be forced to 
>come out
>against the bill.  And if EA backs off, other companies that 
>haven't yet
>taken a position will certainly think twice before supporting 
>Congress's
>plan to censor the Internet.

>Sign Shashank's petition to Electronic Arts to stop lobbying for 
>Internet
>censorship and oppose the bill in Congress.  Click here to sign.

>http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-electronic-arts-to-oppose-in
>ternet-cens
>orship?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&alert_id=dZDVYxQm
>LI_oLKqgeiB
>KM&me=aa

>Thanks for being a change-maker,

>- Jess and the Change.org team


>You are receiving this action alert as a Change.org member.  We 
>send no
>more than
>one action alert per week.  To stop receiving these important 
>alerts on
>behalf of our
>organization sponsors, you can unsubscribe by copying the url 
>below and
>pasting it into
>your browser:

>http://www.change.org/account_settings/action_alerts_opt_out?emai
>l_id=XFMUGF
>LPVCIXLVXHGOMQ&utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&alert_id=
>dZDVYxQmLI_
>oLKqgeiBKM&me=aa







_______________________________________________
blindtlk mailing list
blindtlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com