SOPA Creator In TV/Film/Music Industry's Pocket 345
First time accepted submitter en4bz writes "Representative Lamar Smith, the creator of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), has been consistently receiving donations averaging $50 000 from the TV/Film/Music industry for each of his re-election campaigns for the past ten years. Smith has received roughly half a million dollars from the TV/Film/Music lobby over the past ten years according to opensecrets.org. Check out the source link for a full breakdown of donors to Smith's campaigns."
Speaking of SOPA, new submitter DarkStar1O9 submits this "explanation in simple terms of why this dangerous new bill in congress could result in the extinction of sites that are based on user-generated content like YouTube, Reddit, and StumbleUpon." Update: 12/18 20:42 GMT by T : An anonymous reader writes "Eric S. Raymond weighs in on SOPA and the question of why so many people hate this bill and not the dozens of others just like it that get passed on a regular basis."
Ron Paul isn't running against Lamar Smith (Score:5, Informative)
As observed here [metafilter.com], we could realistically defeat Lamar Smith [wikipedia.org] in 2012 because his district [wikipedia.org] picks up much of Austin, including the University of Texas. Fill his local media with talk about Lamar Smith's attempt to destroy the internet.
Re:Broke (Score:4, Informative)
Less than 1% here in England drive an American car because, in the main, they're just too shite for words.
I have an iPhone, but it's made in China, as is my PC. My gogglebox comes from Korea, my motah from Germany, my desk from Sweden & my rug from Iran. Oh, I've just taken stock & the only American object I own is a bloody Weber barbeque.
Re:Serious question: ***Warning requires effort*** (Score:5, Informative)
List of SOPA cosponsors who have received donations from big media, compiled by the Sunlight Foundation: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/legacy-media-bankrolling-campaigns-of-SOPA-consponsors/ [sunlightfoundation.com]
Re:I think the point was (Score:5, Informative)
There is that thing called the US constitution. It says that the federal level of government can do only so much and there rest is none of its business. RP being strict constutionalist thinks that the constitution says what it says in plain English and the words written there have precedence over his personal beliefs.
If you want to have something else, you need to do it the right way and amend the constitution, not to reinvent the meaning of the words only because the ends would justify the means. Well intentioned creative interpretations start the slippery slope and sooner or later you go from the rule of law to the rule of men who don't care what the law actually says and what rights you supposedly have.
Re:Broke (Score:4, Informative)
It appears that in US politics, appearing intelligent is bad for one's career.
Well, of course! After all, getting educated is a sign of liberal indoctrination! [conservapedia.com]
Not only Lamar (Score:5, Informative)
Chris Dodd, Ex-Senator, Named MPAA Chairman [thewrap.com]
at $1.3 million/year.
Stretching the truth to pass SOPA:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/04100017081/chris-dodd-resorting-to-outright-lying-desperate-attempt-to-get-sopa-passed.shtml [techdirt.com]
More:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/24/christopher-dodd-as-mpaa-chairman-can-he-save-hollywood.html [thedailybeast.com]
Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4 (Score:5, Informative)
Separation of Church and state isn't spelled out in the constitution.
Separation of Church and State is a concept much older than the Constitution.
It gets credited to British philosopher John Locke, whose writings heavily influenced the men who framed and drafted the Constitution.
(The same people liberally borrowed from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, also influenced by Locke, when they drafted the Declaration of Independence)
Heck, the Declaration of Independence's famous phrase about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'
is a gently massaged version of Locke's idea that 'life, liberty, and property' are inalienable rights.
And ultimately, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed and upheld Jefferson's belief that:
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" = " a wall of separation between Church & State"
P.S. Jefferson said that 209 years ago, so you really can't get much more originalist than that.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Informative)
amend the constitution to have it your way, problem solved
We don't follow the Constitution we have now, so what difference does it make what it says?