Posted on 11/20/2010 10:46:57 AM PST by Libloather
The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
from the free-speech-isn't-free dept
This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill -- despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:
Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
Dianne Feinstein -- California
Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
Jon Kyl -- Arizona
Chuck Schumer -- New York
Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
Dick Durbin -- Illinois
John Cornyn -- Texas
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
Al Franken -- Minnesota
Chris Coons -- Delaware
This should be a list of shame. You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like (in this case, content some of its largest campaign contributors do not like). We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so. First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America.
I was just getting ready to say that. I'd like to hear his argument in favor of it.
We need to remember to bring up this list during the primaries for Tea Party candidates to use. Ole Hatch and Graham are going to be sorry he did this. Is it “moderate” to vote to end free speech on the internet? Lindsay claims to be a moderate.
John Cornyn.
Kick the RINO out next time, Texas.
I would never trust the government with the power to shut down selected web sites. Obama would abuse that power in a New York minute. It would take a lot of time money to beat them back if they politically targeted you and our government agents has themselves to be unworthy to trust with such power now. Also the FCC could use this as an excuse to regulate the internet in other ways.
Most of those you would expect this from, but Sen. Sessions of Alabama? Doesn’t compute.
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service...
9/20/2010—Introduced.
Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General (AG) to commence an action for injunctive relief against a domain name used by an Internet site that is “dedicated to infringing activities,” even where such a domain name is not located in the United States. Defines an Internet site that “dedicated to infringing activities” as a site that is: (1) subject to civil forfeiture; (2) designed primarily to offer goods or services in violation of federal copyright law; or (3) selling counterfeit goods. Requires the AG to maintain a public listing of domain names that the Department of Justice (DOJ) determines are dedicated to infringing activities but for which the AG has not filed an action. Allows parties to petition the AG to remove such a domain name from the list and obtain judicial review of the final determination in a civil action.
Thank you for showing this.
Ain't getting rid of Jeff Sessions. He was probable the best pub in the government on stopping illegals the past 5 years.
Dementia?
You beat me to it. Sessions' name on that list, and Coburn's, stick out like sore thumbs.
It doesn't make any sense at all.
“However, the producers and distributors of entertainment (music and movies are basically what we’re talking about here) are unwilling to adjust their business model to the new delivery system — and instead want protection from it.”
You’re wrong. They have been working on new business models with people like Apple and Netflicks. Those are business models that DO provide digital access, do not steal to do it, and provide some renumeration to the copyright holders.
Outfits like Apple and Netflicks have business models that will not be affected by the legislation that is intended to go after pirates. The Internet will continue to evolve, as will the laws to protect copyright holders.
“It’s no different than the overland freighters in the 1870’s. They had held a monopoly on distributing products (not of their own making) from and to the west. Then came the railroad — a more efficient form of distribution. The freighters sought protection from the government.”
The issue is not about “business models”. Not all business models are equal, by intent or by law.
A man who steals consumer electronics, warehouses them in his garage and sells the stuff through word-of-mouth networks could be said, in your language, to simply, with his “business model” be “working against the monopoly” of the consumer electronics stores.
I use this “stolen goods” warehouse analogy because it is infinitely closer to the issue than was the case with the “overland freighters in 1870”. It is not mere “efficiency” that makes your analogy wrong, it ignores that laws and long held understanding of property rights are being broken. The railroads - at least in general - did not defy existing laws and understanding about the property rights of either their clients, customers of the “overland haulers”.
Copyright pirates intentionally defy those laws on the delusional logic that since technology makes their theft possible and “more efficient” that makes it morally correct. Better “business model”? Absolutely, if you can get away with it.
“No, you’re way off, WTH are you talking about? I’m not talking one bit about those who you described, take a breath. The sort of elitist I refer to is what we have seen exposed during this last election.”
But you are. You claim - very falsely I believe - that Cornyn and others MOTIVE is to “protect” “the elites”; yet I believe the intent of the proposal IS to protect against those that think outright copyright piracy (piracy that wants to operate differently than all kinds of long standing rulings, precedents and agreements about “fair use”).
Who is protected by the long-standing ideas about copyrights and fair use - writers, musicians, artists, publishers, etc.
Looks like a unanimous vote by the judiciary committee.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm
that is all of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.