Meet the Strange Bedfellows Who Could Stop SOPA 231
jfruhlinger writes "In a political environment that's become very strongly defined by partisan lines, the SOPA debate has offered an unexpected ray of hope: the two main Congressional opponents of the bill are Ron Wyden, an Oregon Senator deemed a 'hardcore liberal' and Darrell Issa, a California Representative who is one of the Obama Administration's fiercest critics. (There are both Ds and Rs in favor of the bill, too.)" (Read more below.)
In the technical rather than political world, opposition seems easier to find: Trailrunner7 writes "A group of engineers, networking specialists, security experts and other specialists deeply involved with the Internet's development and growth have sent a letter to lawmakers criticizing the highly controversial SOPA and PIPA bills and imploring them not to pass the legislation, which they say would stifle innovation and 'threaten engineers who build Internet systems or offer services that are not readily and automatically compliant with censorship actions by the U.S. government.' The letter is signed by a long list of Internet pioneers and other respected figures, including Steve Bellovin, Paul Vixie, Vint Cerf, Jon Callas, Tony Li, Robert W. Taylor, Esther Dyson and Fred Baker, among many others. Both SOPA and PIPA have been criticized heavily by technologists, privacy advocates and security experts who say that not only would the proposed bills make it difficult for companies to create innovative new technologies, but they also would likely not even accomplish the goals their authors' had in mind, namely preventing copyright infringement and content piracy." And (hat tip to Rob Malda), here's the letter itself (PDF).
Meet SOPA author Lamar Smith, Hollywood's favorite (Score:5, Interesting)
There are both Ds and Rs in favor of the bill, too.
Meet SOPA author Lamar Smith, Hollywood's favorite Republican [cnet.com].
He may be a Tea Partier from rural Texas with an "A+" rating from the National Rifle Association," but the TV, movie, and music industries are the top donors to Smith's 2012 campaign committee, according to data complied by the Center for Responsive Politics [opensecrets.org].
The Tea Party are marks. His donors are his real constituency.
Re:Meet SOPA author Lamar Smith, Hollywood's favor (Score:5, Interesting)
The Tea Party are marks. His donors are his real constituency.
Because the Tea Party has staked out such a strong opinion on copyright? I'll bet if you explained this bill to random people on the street, 5% would be in favor, 5% would be opposed, and the rest would stare at you blankly. Copyright affects programmers directly since we are content creators, but most people are as interested in copyright law as they are in foreign-fish importation law.
When voters don't care about a subject, it leaves the congress-people free to do whatever they want. So they do.
Re:They're NOT opposed to SOPA (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the mindset that has caused the US to move steadily to the right for the past 30 years. The lesser evil is still evil.
The Right? Damn, man. I've been alive and aware those 30 years and you're so wrong. It's been moving steadily toward totalitarianism, which is neither Right (limited government) nor Left (social welfare). Left and Right in America aren't opposites of one another, they just happen to use the same resources (like a family does). Social welfare *in moderation* is what makes a great country. They're two players on the same team. If you bring in totalitarianism, that's unlimited government (anti-right), and temporarily, the Left is unrestrained, and everyone thinks it's great to get all this free stuff (because people will always be greedy)... until the totalitarian decides that enough bread and circuses have been given out, and then it's time for Social Inequity, Totalitarian's partner in the league of super-villainy, to enter into the picture and slay the Left (because people will always be greedy). Limited Government died a while back, and Social Inequity is rising. The Left needs to help the Tea Party bring back Limited Government before society has no one that fares well, save nobility.
Re:They're NOT opposed to SOPA (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the mindset that has caused the US to move steadily to the right for the past 30 years. The lesser evil is still evil.
Well...I suppose it is better than moving steadily to the WRONG for the past 30 years :D
I kid, I kid! In all seriousness, I really wish our political system was a little less one-dimensional. We look at everything in terms of "left" and "right", never even considering that there might, perhaps, be an "up", a "down", a "forward" and a "backward" as well. For all I can tell, the two major political parties are just two sides of the same coin; they are more interested in wresting power from the other party than in actually fixing any of the problems this nation faces. That's the real problem, IMHO.
Bait and switch. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait. So the main opponents to such a bill are Ron Paul and Pelosi, but IT World would rather poo-poo Ron Paul because they (like so many other liberals I could mention) would rather cut their nose to spite their face, and support a watered down version of the bill coming from more mainstream politicians? And Pelosi isn't worth mentioning at all?
Yeah, fuck you IT World.
Re:close, but no cigar (Score:4, Interesting)
The only practical solution to this is to legislate that all elections are State-funded, and any outside money found in any campaign is the end of that campaign
That's also open to abuse, because how do you determine who qualifies for state funding? If the barrier to entry is too high, then you risk keeping the same oligarchy you have (or swapping it for a new one). If it's too low, then people can easily use it to funnel money to their own pockets (e.g. set up a leaflet printing company, nominate 10 candidates that all use you to print their own content-free leaflets, profit). Or they can simply flood the system with generic like-the-opposition candidates. For example, in the UK a few elections ago we had a Literal Democrat candidate, who got enough votes to get their deposit back because people confused him with the Liberal Democrats and split the Liberal Democrat vote just enough to cause them to lose the election to the Conservatives (who weren't running against a Conservatory Party candidate in that election). If you have a constituency that is 60% liberal and 40% conservative and the barrier to entry is sufficiently low, the best strategy for the conservatives is to back half a dozen liberal candidates...
Re:They're NOT opposed to SOPA (Score:4, Interesting)
As a US voter, I voted in the 2008 election for a mainstream candidate, McCain precisely because he was the lesser of two evils (a view unfortunately confirmed by subsequent history).?
And if we were in a war with Iran right now, you would be to blame.
Personally, I'd rather third parties like the Libertarians or Greens get enough influence to matter at the national level
Then vote for them.
So in other words, the choice has been "framed".
Agreed. Break the frame.
I'm not going to cast a vote for a non-Republican unless the Republican candidate is similarly harmful
Democrat and Republican policies are both so incredibly harmful that the differences are really insignificant. The only issue that matters is breaking the hegemony. Period.
Re:They're NOT opposed to SOPA (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't think of a better illustration than the SOPA, ACTA, DMCA et cetera garbage that has been getting pushed through lately with bipartisan support and almost zero outcry or media coverage.
I can. The War on Drugs. This policy has been a complete and utter failure for at least 40 years. No independent group of experts has ever recommended this policy. There is not, nor has there ever been an honest, well meaning argument in favor of the War on Drugs. 40 years later we can see the carnage this policy has wraught, and we cannot even get our politicians to discuss the possibility of change.
If you want to see how totalitarian America really is, look no further than the War on Drugs.
Corporatist (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong. The US is not becoming statist, it's becoming (is?) corporatist. You got modded up by all the Libertarians, who love this line of argument but it doesn't make sense.
The traditional left, especially the progressive wing of the Democratic party, espouse civil libertarianism, regulation of corporations, and control of industries where they feel competition does not work (i.e. medicine).
The traditional right, espouses fewer regulations on corporations so as not to become a dictator ship that picks winners unfairly and fiscal responsibility of the government as a whole, and striking a balance between federal and state powers. In the past, they have not liked spending, but when spending was called for, they called for a sensible balanced budget at all times.
The current Democratic part still espouses civil Libertarianism as a whole, but doesn't push it too hard because it stirs certain idiot groups to froth at the mouth and rather than go after them, they quiet down, and because Americans as a whole aren't very socially progressive (one of the last developed nations to free black slaves and give women the right to vote, and we'll probably be one of the last to allow some kind of marriage reform). Corporations actually fund these idiot groups and claim it's grassroots behind cleverly used laws designed to shield nonprofit corporations. The no longer push hard, as a group, for corporate regulations, because the only people able to put together enough money to help them run for office are the corporations, so they don't chime up too much about regulations. So thanks to clever corporate greed, the Democrats as a group are simply pussies.
The current Republican party still espouses fewer regulations, but to the detriment of the people as if to have no regulations and an anarchy state. This is thanks to corporations donating to them and giving them speeches that simply state that we have too many regulations and taxes when corporations are already free to run rampant and we are going broke. They get donations from those same corporations that fund the idiot groups, and are basically paid to say the same things these idiot groups say about social causes. They no longer push fiscal responsibility because they don't care if we have the money, they just keep chanting "lower taxes" instead of "fair taxes" or "just enough taxes." The taxes are lowest on the upper class and keep going lower, under the guise that if the rich get more money, they'll hire more people, which hasn't shown any truth in in decades. It's called trickle down economics, and it doesn't work. But they don't have time to talk about any other fiscal matters because they are too busy pushing the idiot group agenda. And they push it so hard then end up being supreme dicks about any issue they are on. And they look like dicks when open their mouths about some social issue that people just want to stop talking about. So thanks to clever greed, Republicans as a group are really big dicks
So yes, our government is run by a bunch of pussies and dicks fucking around and not getting anything done, being directed by corporations to not get anything done unless it makes more money for them. And we all watch it expecting something new to happen when it's the same boring stupid shit over and over. Welcome to porn Washington, DC style. Statist my ass, the state is dead!