against african-americans i think and i told hindsight that one search engine is taking the stance of the concept piracy websites want to know if it's really an issue that make it tech giants or the addressing or should they leave the dirty work for the government to have a debate on the issue after the break. we live in the hard part of the lead and. be the one that will lead. we have the good news for them safe get ready because your freedom.

hey guys welcome to felons tell me a lot of shows we've heard our guests talk to say on the topic now i want to hear our audience just go on to you seem to video responses are to twitter for part of the question that we post on you tube every monday and on thursday the show long response is going to leave your boy. so. sick. sick sick sick sick sick sick sick. sick . you know sometimes you see the story and the scene so you think you understand it and then you did something else here's some other part of it and realize that

everything you. are. all right it's time for it's nice tool time award and tonight it actually goes to a previous winner oklahoma state representative sally kern has a history of making offensive comments he's a die hard republican who doesn't like gays or is law and apparently she has a very low opinion of african-americans and working women her comments all started after lawmakers in oklahoma approved a ballot measure that would ban state agencies from using an affirmative action and hiring policies and sally kern believes that minorities are less than white people simply because they don't work as hard and they have less initiative she said quote

we have a high percentage of blacks in prison and that's tragic but are they in prison just because they're black or because they don't want to study is hard in school i've taught school and i saw a lot of people of color who didn't study hard because they said the government would take care of them. oh sally yes there are a higher percentage of blacks in prison and that's due to a number of factors including the fact that our justice system does target them we've covered it on this program before the injustice in mandatory sentencing guidelines they do unfairly target african-americans that creates second class citizens who are disenfranchised who then can't get jobs you could also throw in some poverty levels the huge number of single family homes and then it all starts to make sense but i'm pretty sure that sally has never looked into any of those issues it would just tear her tiny little worldview into pieces now after it insults african-americans she decided to turn on working women and she told the

told the world that women don't earn as much money as men because they quote tend to spend more time at home with their families and yes married women do spend more time at home because they are usually running a household but that's not a reason to pay them less most women still work forty hour weeks and then come home and then work for their family even single women with no families the old same jobs as men make less money in that and that's called discrimination it's still very real and it's still very alive in the workplace but sally for completely ignoring all those factors and setting the women's movement back a few decades but just to really make sure you guys get how hateful and how horrible this woman is let's play a clip for you what she had to say about gays living in the roster. ok you know. only gray shall show. you are. showing. a.

good question. is there anybody that this woman is not going to insult with her vile rhetoric nothing like a ridiculous quote from an elected official to let everybody know once again the racism is alive and well in the united states as if. yesterday's burger b.s. wasn't proof enough and the scariest part of all that is that this woman was actually elected to office which means that unfortunately probably isn't the only one who feels this way that's why tonight's big award i mean one time award goes to republican oklahoma state representative sally current. now this january google instant began censoring certain words or google began censoring certain words from google instant meaning that certain things don't automatically show up when you type in a few letters on the blacklist or certain bad words as well as bit torrent something of a company quote associates with digital piracy and that was google's decision as

a private company and they've also just repeated that move in russia where book publishers asked them to block certain sites and the u.s. government is currently working on legislation that would mandate it so that really the best way to combat online piracy of music books movies you name it through government regulation or should it be left up to the company or the scots the whitney as much praise or senior vice president of government relations and industry relations of the recording industry association of america and aaron swartz founder and executive director of demand progress or general i want to thank you both for joining me tonight let's start with let's back try herb backtrack a little bit to january when google decided to start censoring certain words on google instead do you think that that is censorship for the company to be doing that in the first place you know i don't think if you censor illegal products or if you censor images of child pornography or you censor things that are

constitutionally illegal that's not censorship what it is is protecting not benefiting from criminal activity preventing others from using your service to benefit from criminal activity and not facilitating that particular type of crime in your business reasons to do it you want integrity you want legitimacy and there are good legal reasons to do it you don't want to be prosecuted yourself and you don't want to be in the middle of facilitating a crime that's occurring on the internet. all right how about you do you think that is there that shows that the company has integrity and that it's making a good move no i think it's a big mistake i'm google's purton it clearly is censorship it's one thing to say that certain types of speech should be illegal and shouldn't be protected it's another to say that without any trial without any sort of oversight we just go ahead take these things out without a hearing or any sort of response are a unilateral decision from google or based on some complaints from some private companies. well that's why i wonder is should google be doing it because a private company complained and should google be doing it because the government

complain to them and now the government if they have it's way they want to they want to regulate that's going to mandate a company to do it well there really is a process that's that's put in place that's under the digital millennium copyright act and there are several safeguards and procedures to make sure that google gets the protections that it needs and when it receives a complaint from a copyright owner there's valid proof that shows that it really is illegal and the concord owners in big trouble if they do something and ask them to take something down it turns out not to be illegal so there are lots of safeguards in place they follow the law for all of the reasons that you mentioned earlier and they really don't do a pal now they don't just unilaterally decide we're not going to let people access this type of material they go through a pretty thorough process beforehand to make sure that they're not cutting people off to legitimate problem how about when the department of homeland security or ice accidentally sees or shut down eighty thousand one site and then put a label on them saying that they engaged in child pornography i think that was

a pretty big mess up that clearly the safeguards whatever was in place there didn't work eighty thousand websites including people's personal businesses that have to have child pornographer as their label yet they did make a mistake they were it was i think that proves that perhaps there are the proper safeguards in place for the law requires that they investigate in a certain manner and in enforcing the law when they should have targeted the subdomain that had the images of child pornography on it instead they they went up one level and instead of getting the stuff i mean they got to me now they corrected it very quickly everything was back up in two days and forced it isn't perfect but you also don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater mistakes are going to be made in force and they're wrong and you can be rectified very quickly but to say that we should let people sell material illegally and we should let people through images of child pornography and make a business out of it where us consumers are accessing it people are making money off of it because they're going to be some mistakes in unfortunate that are missed . makes you know that you don't really balance out areas where this is

a constant conflation between the people who are actually committing the crimes and people like google who are simply telling people about websites that are on the internet you know the r.w. wants to sue people who are committing crimes have a fair trial go through all the processes and all the laws about that and have them decide whether they're guilty or innocent that's one thing but to say that even before only those cows and people should not even be able to talk about it should be it will link to those web sites that are already on the internet that's a totally different story and that's where it starts trampling on our first amendment rights i mean should i be able to say that you can get copyrighted material i'm paid for it of course i think that's protected speech now if you are a double a wants to go and shut down the website that's fine but they shouldn't stop everyone else from trying to talk about it but it's a very good point about distinguishing between the illegal material itself and other parts of the site that may hold discussion groups about the material one really is free speech the other is just selling counterfeit or illegal products and showing illegal images and the two have to be separate in the legislation that's pending right now so i think our process of court process work exactly what you're

talking about would happen a federal judge would look at the evidence and look at the material and they would say in our view this either is illegal or it isn't illegal and they would have all the tools of civil procedure to help them to make that know that it would be a non adversarial court process the other side wouldn't get a chance to respond and instead it would be the government telling to the judge with all the arguments that the government usually this which are we seeing they're constantly mistaken but with air riddled with errors because they don't really understand what they're doing and the other side doesn't get a chance to respond until one day they wake up and their website is missing. that's a complaint about the standard of probable cause in the constitution itself that's a much bigger argument if you believe that probable cause for criminal activity should be enough to temporarily stop damage while the court continues on a process with an adversarial. process on the other side showing up which is exactly what happens that that's the way that it works if you disagree with it for that purpose i'm sorry quickly on. each which has a higher standard going to the first and then let's go let's internationalize this

right because of course part of the problem is that not all of these websites are based in the us some of them are based internationally the u.s. is now trying to block websites that are based within the u.s. if you look at russia you have the case where it was in google but it was the russian search engine that said none of these laws apply to us so how does all that factor in most of the sites aren't based in the u.s. in the way that you would do it in the physical world is if somebody went outside the u.s. and they were stealing american products and trying to export them back into the country you would go get an exclusion order and you would see these people should not be allowed to extol one american property and sell it back in the u.s. and so this is an inversion of an exclusion order saying it doesn't affect the rest of the world it only affects america but inside america we're not going to allow people to sell stolen american people you're not going to solve the problem of copyright infringement other people are still going to be able to go out there and download and stream music books movies whatever it's just as american as they can

do it what do you say erratically i mean it's ridiculous what mitchell wants to do is really architect the internet to prevent a couple people from using copyrighted material and the fact is we should keep the problem in perspective his industry is five hundred one percent of us g.d.p. apple could buy it with cash that they just have why around google founders could try it with their spare money they have the idea that we should we architect the whole internet should stop these engines are going to ration that made america so great just so that he can prop up his failing business model seems ridiculous this was exactly i got to wrap it up john unfortunately out of time but it's a debate i think it's going to keep going we'll see if congress actually gets anywhere to leave us legislation thank you both for joining us tonight thanks. all right it's time for a show and tell on tonight's program so let's take a look at what you guys answered last time we asked you what you thought about the i.m.f. report that china was going to overtake the u.s.

economy in just five years so we're going to go to our g. producer patrice innocently for what your answers were. i don't know if you can tell or not but i'm from new jersey surrounding the area that i grew up in or a lot of manufacturing businesses people either own number or work in they ran service businesses from the income that these factories brought in by making something in america so over the years these factories and other businesses across america shut down and those people lost the jobs they were counting on and those free trade bills that the government said would help american workers only seem to help wall street and now it all seems to be catching up to us so when the i.m.f. said get ready because china is about to surpass the u.s. as the world's largest economy we wanted to know if you thought america could deal with being called number two tiger well tweeted the u.s. is definitely not ready our fragile egos will shatter and many will be lost in

uncertain about their place in the world. told us on facebook america will never admit to being number two and maybe even number three if india keeps coming on strong well let's not rush it cheryl then there's tommy who told us even if the us is surpassed in anything americans will still think they are number one then everything i'm not sure that's the case anymore and lastly take leonardo told us we'll never be number two that's just another lie well jake i hate to tell you but it's true it does look like china is going to take the number one slot in the global economy so we better get used to. hearing it number to what may just be the best we can do for now if you have a comment we want it right here. thanks to trees and here's our next topic for you at home we just finished telling you how google is stepping in when it comes to internet privacy by removing sites from search results but is that really an issue that a major search engine should be getting involved in let us know what you think should

search engines be censoring pirate sites from their own results you can respond to us on facebook twitter and you tube or who knows your response just might make it on air and we're taking a break but coming up the u.s. military is eager to prove that they're not torturing bradley manning blood around this t.r. stunned by the military when the start and it royal wedding overlook it see the networks are trying to force us to care about william and kate walked down the aisle i think rather get a comedian's take on the whole issue so how some pilots want that blogger and the against their of any concept after the break. let's not forget that we've been apart like. i said. you know well. we haven't got the show to keep him safe get ready because.

they shot her in her broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture. new website which twenty four seven live streaming news times what to do about the ongoing financial hari unlimited high quality videos for download.

and stories you may never find remove. the. post on aren't. you guys welcome to show or tell the obama show we've heard our guests have to say on the topic now we want to hear you just got you tube to video respond or to twitter for part of the questions that we post on you tube every monday and on thursday the show long response is let your voice be heard. i'd like to take a little moment to discuss an issue that i think you all know i'm very passionate about and i've spoken about at length on this program and that would be an ethical treatment of p.f.c. bradley manning the after several months of keeping the army private and frankly disgusting conditions at quantico the government has decided to move manning to

a new facility and fort leavenworth kansas and a doing so the military has also decided to present the case of manning to the public and a completely revamped manner after denying access to his wallet quantico to a u.n. official and representative dennis considered each amongst others the army is now opening their arms inviting the media outlets to take a look but sure of his new home fort leavenworth all in efforts to prove that manning really is being treated well and yes here i will have more access through a communal area i have access to the library i'll get to dine with other inmates but let's not allow all of that the destruction. from what's already been done to him manning is currently being held on almost two dozen charges including aiding the enemy which could be punishable with a life sentence or possibly even the penalty let's also not forget that he was held in solitary confinement but our sister it make it all without ever being convicted of any crime and yet the president also let us know last week that he already

thinks manning is guilty anyway so i think that means we can consider fair trial. so i would question to ask the military the obama administration do you really think that moving a manning to a different personality is going to make people forget how you treated in the quantico after making him suffer through twenty three hours a day solitary confinement being forced to strip naked do you think that transferring him to a new facility is just going to make it all go away if you look at those who have followed this case from the very beginning they're not the type to conveniently forget including myself media tour or not we will continue to highlight this case to expose the obama administration for who they really are and ministration whose promise to bring transparency in the rule of law and instead has gone after whistleblowers as place grabbing manning into conditions equal to torture without giving him a trial home by the way everybody knows that a media tour is a load of crap they parade

a bunch of pre-selected reporters through specific parts of the facility they say things like see this place is really nice bradley like to just fine wake up and smell the coffee and anything this is just a lateral move of the oh so complex case around the army private people won't stop for may until they get some real answers ones that can't be provided by the white washed media tour. now our next guest haven't been on our program in a really long time and we've missed her dearly so considering that there is a huge waiting going on that's dominating the news cycle as well as lindsay lohan going to jail you know the really important stuff in this world that matters oh i think her return couldn't be more adequately timed joining me from our studio in new york is one blogger and comedian sarah vetting process sarah's so nice to have you back on the program we've missed you and thank you i've missed you should have been traveling a lot and i just i'm really excited to talk about the most important marriage of

two rich white people for well everything you tell me could you give me one reason aside for you know perhaps maybe that princess fantasy that we all have those little girls and wanting to see the big dress just give me one reason aside from that why i should care. all because everyone who saw him to be a part of this wedding is basically a poster child for skin cancer it's the palest wedding i think that's ever taken place you've got at least one person in that marriage who is woefully inbred documentaries such seems like a real nice kid but lord love a marine that jean-paul is just a messy messy cesspool of kate middleton catherine middleton i think probably will be bringing some fresh genes into the mix so that's very important because eventually the windsors just aren't going to have the correct number of toes

anymore so i guess from a some evolutionary darwinian perspective maybe you should be intrigued by this that is probably the most interesting being that i've heard about the wedding you know for weeks after baby i love that cake you know since you started talking about the genes the i do want to show you a clip just so we can really get a chance to look at what will the dad looked like back in the eighty's and i think we all know what he looks like now so let's play it for you. what do you say about his moves. i'm sorry i thought this was the alona show not the turn sarah on show. sex machine.

that was from the eighty's too but you know i think to bring up a good point too with the whole kate middleton being thrown in the makes at least this time around we are living in twenty eleven she doesn't have to be a virgin when she gets married to the prince anymore we know that her and wills have been boning for years i think that luckily that we can take a little you know breath of fresh air here that the royals are moving on into the twenty first century but let me just ask you because the media if you've been watching has devoted so much attention to this right networks have sent entire teams over and i said these morning joe has been there all week they're there doing news stories or doing their entire program from there every single morning but if you look at a recent poll from the new york times and c.b.s. only six percent of americans say they actually have been following this aren't we in a recession aren't all the cable networks strapped for cash right now after covering the arab spring and the japan earthquake and nuclear disaster and tsunami but either way. yes but that all pales in comparison to getting to see

a skinny pretty white girl in a white dress. sorry also did you know that there are no wars going on to cover so they just have to it's like there are all these people just sitting around going to foreign correspondent what am i going to cover what is my assigning editor going to send me to do because there's no important wars happening that really ought to be covered oh i'll go to a wedding so that's good that's great that's making our populace smarter maybe they're trying to reignite the revolutionary war you know talk a little a little crap on the brits while they're there you know i just want to segue through one more story lindsay lohan we all know she's a train wreck we all enjoy watching it she have to do community service as well as go to jail for hundred twenty days and listen to what she wants to do she says she can teach acting classes to the homeless. people who really need it.

is she going to teach them to act like they have homes because that would be fine. i just can't get over i mean if you're homeless you probably need i don't know a bad pillow you cry you need a blanket you need some shoes you need some food and you know lindsey lowe hand is just going to grace you with her wonderful talent and teacher acting classes can somebody can somebody please explain the hollywood mentality to me of why they think that that's ok. yes i think that what these people need to do rather than have all those things that you said is just sit in a circle and do improv games and talk about their feelings and then pretend they do they can pretend to be happy and pretend to be said that that would probably be fun for everybody she is also on your show please now. i will be making sure the producers send out a request tonight and maybe you know if you maybe she can teach me how to act like

a stole a nerd you know didn't feel a necklace and. just happen to have an extra diamonds laying around there i want to thank you very much for joining us tonight thank you. are now before we go tonight it's time for our tweeted today sarah palin it got a little big get katie couric planned exit from the c.b.s. evening news today pale and said that couric now wants to engage in more quote one three dimensional storytelling verses i guess just the street on into the teleprompters screen storytelling whatever that means that was quote but tonight we think that katie couric should tweet well at least i can really get it right and i show thanks for tuning in and make sure that you come back tomorrow it's friday so we'll have another dose of happy hour for you in the meantime don't forget to become a fan of the ilona show on facebook and follow us on twitter and you missed anything nice or any other nights you can always catch all the you tube flash the loner show . as well as the show in its entirety coming up next is adam vs the man.

wealthy british style. market finally. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's concert for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on r g. h i'm out of here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture.

he. seemed. to. downplay the official ante up location on the phone called touch from the auction sounds too. much all she lost.