Not necessarily true. In many states small claims court doesn't allow attorneys (or at least it's not unusual to not have one). Fight it. That kind of mentality is why they try this sort of thing. If everyone they did this to took them to small claims court they'd think twice.

Got a "buddy" in the process of suing AT&T like this right now. They've already offered to settle for about 50% of what he was asking for. He's holding out.

So, at the speeds Verizon provides me, 569 gig in a few days is a physical impossibility. Definitely agree with other posters - sue them for the max amount allowable in small claims court. Bet they settle without you ever actually talking to a lawyer.

Right, and the result of this is repression of creativity. If you can't borrow on another's idea, expand on it, take it in a new direction (to use a common example, I'm thinking about Shakespeare set in different eras, highlighting themes more relevant to the current age than to the author's, etc) without being heavily penalized, then no one will try - at least not in the open.

It's easy to immediately assign the worst possible motives to the perpetrators. Those motives may or may not exist - maybe we can't know the insides of their heads. But the effects of these kinds of laws are the same; regardless of whether those who write these laws actually intend to repress free speech/expression and destroy freedom, that will be the result.

$12.50/hr works out to about $2K/month. A quick Zillow search of apartments in the SF area turns up nothing (not one) under $1K/month. The cheapest thing I could find (in 5 minutes, I grant you, but still) was $1300 - for a 140 square feet studio apartment (that's 14ft by 10ft - smaller than the single room I'm sitting in right now). Maybe she's an idiot for living in SF. But regardless, if that's what housing costs in SF, $2K/month ain't gonna cut it.

*This.* Call it paranoia if you want, but I think that's exactly where this is headed - the death of free speech/expression (and not just on the internet - anywhere; these rules don't just apply to the web). Of course not every case will (or can) be tried, but you don't want to be used as the deterrent example, and neither do I. So, shut up civilian, and let the government/mass media tell you what to think. Then don't you dare criticize it, or the penalties will be more than you care to deal with.

The FCC does not follow up or otherwise pay any attention to that list, as far as I can tell. I've been on that list for many years and spent several months logging every single single telemarketing call - absolutely no reduction whatsoever. I don't think they care and/or they have "better" things to do.

I think we're saying the same thing, essentially. Whether the finances are a means of control, or the control is a means of gaining more finances, in the end the result is the same - a ruling elite with everything, and a peasant class to serve them.

I don't think pornography is taboo in western society. The idea that western society considers it shameful is a straw man created by western media. It's only used for shaming if a person "needs" to be shamed for other reasons (ironically, extreme religious beliefs are often used in the same way) - i.e., Charlie over there won't carry the party line, so we need some dirt on him to make him go away. Did you know he watches porn?? GASP

On the contrary - the average person doesn't really care what you watch online in private, as they likely watch plenty of the same stuff themselves (or both). I don't have statistics in front of me and I'm too lazy to go looking for them at the moment, but I believe it's estimated that something like 60% of 12 year olds in the US are already hooked. It's safe to say most people watch porn or have at some point - if that's true, then any "taboo" is artificial.

My point is that shutting down porn sites (following the rules or otherwise) isn't the goal. In fact, if I'm right about it being more about revenue than anything else, shutting down these sites runs contrary to the actual goal - because a shut down site can't pay a fine. Crusades like this never produce real results - there may be an "example" or two made in the beginning, but that's just more about continuing the program and keeping a few thousand overpaid bureaucrats in a job - i.e., making sure the funding keeps on coming. Fines and tax revenue make sure that gravy train never stops - so in the end, it's just tool for channeling all real money to the ruling class. Jerk off to your silly porn all you want, peasant.

If the government really cared about shutting down porn sites, they'd just shut them down, and no, it wouldn't be impossible. If GHCQ and the NSA can record and archive every single voice call in the developed world, and build a search engine for finding single phrases in those calls at will, then they know damn well what you're watching online and whether or not it's "legit" or not. Similarly, making porn impossible (or so difficult as to be utterly impractical for all but the most die-hard) to obtain would be relatively trivial.

One word: ineffective.

Good point, though probably both are true.

The government knows damn well that ideas like this are unenforceable. It's not about banning porn anymore than it's about protecting children (as if the government gives a shit about your kids safety). It's about revenue. You can't keep kids from seeing porn - but you can fine the hell out of anyone you catch not following the law. The harder it is to follow the law, the better! If nobody can actually be compliant, then everyone pays a fine.

Oh brother. Somebody needs to set this jackass up in a blind test (with 2 cheap cables and nothing else, of course) and ask him which is the $10K cable. Film the results and post them for a laugh.

Holy shit, that's the best description of the United States I've ever read.