Chase the morning, yield for nothing.

obsessivepuzzles:

waffleguppies:

rosy-divide-by-zero:

Hey

Je vais faire une parenthèse, ACTA n’est pas encore passé. L’espoir fait vivre, les fanfictions ne seront peut-être pas, dans le futur, une raison de se faire condamner.

Je me suis mise en tête récemment de… Enfin, vous voyez, j’ai eu un coup de tête, et j’ai dis “Je vais traduire Blue…

Signal boost for a scary-awesome idea?

Wish I hadn’t failed French, but for all you French majors out there!

(Source: rosy-under-your-bed)

ademska:

“As we noted in our post about people just discovering ACTA this week, some had put together an odd White House petition, asking the White House to “end ACTA.” The oddity was over the fact that the President just signed ACTA a few months ago. What struck us as a more interesting question was the serious constitutional questions of whether or not Obama is even allowed to sign ACTA.

In case you haven’t been following this or don’t spend your life dealing in Constitutional minutiae, the debate is over the nature of the agreement. A treaty between the US and other nations requires Senate approval. However, there’s a “simpler” form of an international agreement, known as an “executive agreement,” which allows the President to sign the agreement without getting approval. In theory, this also limits the ability of the agreement to bind Congress. In practice… however, international agreements are international agreements. Some legal scholars have suggested that the only real difference between a treaty and an executive agreement is the fact that… the president calls any treaty an “executive agreement” if he’s unsure if the Senate would approve it. Another words, the difference is basically in how the President presents it.

That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement? The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.

It looks like folks have figured this out, and there’s now a new White House petition, demanding that ACTA be brought to the Senate before it can be ratified/signed by the US. This petition should be a lot more interesting than the other one if it gets enough signatures (so encourage people to sign, please!).”

(via techdirt.com)

Reblog this, because it’s MUCH more important and potentially effective than petitions asking President Obama to reverse his position.

Right now, Republicans are more anti-SOPA/PIPA (and by extension ACTA) than Democrats. If we question Obama’s authority to override Congress, they’re going to latch on and help us get this out of his hands, and at the very least they’ll bring it to public attention.

Believe it or not, Republicans are our biggest ally in the internet war right now, and this is the kind of politics fight they love most.

Actually last ACTA post for tonight.

czarofdeath:

Post by gamzeemakara

Please help. We won’t be able to send you BBC and European TV and stuff if this passes. As my friend said, this is dangerous and scary.