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.
With a simple amendment to some future Congressional bill, the legal terminology of ‘infringement’ will be redefined to further remove Fair Use rights and make blogs and forums like FreeRepublic illegal under COICA due to the infringing nature of the copyrighted articles and excerpts of articles posted by end-users that are used to foster political discussion. Under this future redefinition of infringement, FR will be infringing upon copyrights several thousand times a day, and be classified as “dedicated to infringing activities”.
And the media industry in this country has been pushing for further redefinition of copyright infringement since the late 1990’s, and are spending over $50M a year for lobbyists in DC, London, Tokyo and Brussels.
Further, the 1995 Feinstein Amendment for bomb making instructions over the internet was put into law in 1998/9, http://cryptome.org/abi.htm
How can the penalties for distribution of copyright infringements be more severe than distribution of bomb making materials?
COICA is simply poison that will be used by ideologues and demagogues in the states’ Attorney Generals offices in the future to upend the 1st and 4th Amendments.
On an cultural viewpoint, why should the cultural history of the Western world be held captive for 75 years or longer in copyright and not be allowed to be expressed and shared by the peoples of the world specifically to protect corporations that aggregate copyrights at the harm to society as a whole? Holding our cultural history hostage is indefensible, buying out the political class in a democratic republic to do so makes it doubly egregious.
If copyright returned to 17 years, there would be much less than the $600B in mark to fantasy revenue losses seen by copyright holders in the world.
One last thing to read:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=h_brian_holland
Inherently Dangerous: The Potential
for an Internet-Specific Standard
Restricting Speech That Performs
a Teaching Function
By H. BRIAN HOLLAND*
Assistant Professor of Law, Barry University School of Law; J.D., summa cum laude,
American University Washington College of Law; LL.M., with honors, Columbia University.
Many thanks to my research assistants, Kevin Wimberly and Alexandra Steele and to my
colleagues at Barry University School of Law for their insightful comments. Finally, thanks
to Sarah, Will, and Ella for the most important things.
“They’re not protecting us. They’re protecting people whose copyrighted material is being shared on the web — journalists, publishers, music producers, etc. “
So should FreeRepublic be shut down?
Did I say that?
Did I even imply that?
“(The law professors’ letter says: “For the first time, the United States would be requiring Internet Service Providers to block speech because of its content.”)
Wrong. It is not merely "because of it's content", as if any can simply decide they don't like that content.
The legal issue is that a claim will have been submitted that, in a LEGAL sense it's NOT that sites content - they've just purloined it or are in the business of purloining content.
this week that the bill will create a 1950-style Hollywood blacklist with the government deciding which Web sites are legitimate or not. The federal government will be forced “into the swamp of trying to decide which websites should be blacklisted and which ones shouldn't,” Eckersley said. “And they're going to discover that the line between copyright infringement and free political speech can be awfully murky.”
More nonsense. The fearmongering ignores that the "accused" will (1)go into court and demand a stay - and likely get it; (2) after which there will be a trial or hearing, where (3) evidence will be submitted - pro and con; and (4) eventually a ruling. In other words everyone will have their day in court.
Unless those stealing others content know they will lose and just set-up a new "shop" of stolen goods under a new "domain name"; until the copyright holders get wind of them and restart the process. (OR not, if some serious fines are levied or if successful banishments lead to successful civil suits for damages).
Theft is theft. It has nothing to do with "free speech".
sfl
Its clear you're no Conservative."not allowed to be expressed and shared by the people of the world"
What cave do you live in. What part of "the cultural history of the Western world" are you unable to look into and become informed about in books and magazines and scholarly papers, in your public library or all kinds of bookstores, even "online" digital bookstores. What part are you restricted from finding out about? NONE.
And what in the hell did you, personally do, to create either "the cultural history of the Western world", or the documentation and exposition of that history, in any recorded form; in such a way that makes any of it YOUR property, or property that you have some socialist-style, it-all-belongs-to-all-of-us RIGHT to?????
YOU have a natural right to one thing - TO WHAT YOU PRODUCE.
You have NO NATURAL right to what someone else produces. Period.
They may chose to share it with you. There is NO natural demand that they must share it with you. And, if they do share it they have a right to place terms on how they will share it. Just because they are part of "our culture" and you are part of "our culture" does not make their property your property (unless you're a Marxist).
Humanity is not, culturally, your socialist collective behive.
By what backdoor you dimwits came into a Conservative activist community is unimaginable.
“If you look at that list, the repubs on there want to hang on to their seats by any means possible and that includes going against the constitution.”
Copyright and Patent law IS part, from the beginning, of the Constitution.
“Americans are awakening and that is due, in large part, to the ‘free exchange’ of ideas and information on the internet”
Which will not be changed by this law, if you actually understood it.
The law is not about denial of free speech, not about blogging on and excerpting things you or other have read, not about anything in the manner of how outfits like the FreeRepublic operate.
The “every thing in society is the property of every one in society” crowd (a VERY Marxist idea), and their fear mongering has some very uneducated “Conservatives” seeing conspiracies of censorship where none exist.
“Communication is vital to a free people and that’s the problem.”
Which says NOTHING meaningful or relevant ABOUT THIS BILL.
“OUT with you Cornyn!! Out with all these elitists who wish to rule over us.”
I can tell you have never worked and earned a living by way of your property - the product of your work - being secured by a copyright or patent. Everyone who does must to you be an “elitist”.
I am sure that everyone who does work in a way that their property - the product of their work - is secured by a patent or copyright (scientists, engineers, writers, musicians, actors, publishers, film makers, researchers, inventors); most who struggle for years to be successful, don’t think of themselves as “elitists”. Apparently, you do.
And you would appear to be an idiot.
the Rinocratic Oligarchy...pulling together ...for one another....
Further, DO NOT ARGUE with me regarding more government, more legislation. I do not have to understand every nuance of a bill to fully understand that it is another way to further expand government and steal liberty. If you can’t see that, then you are a blind individual and have no concept of what liberty is. Further it shows you have read NONE of the dialogue on this page, simply jumping at me because well it seems my post might have been the first you read.
You prove your case and show why you are behind more government, why it’s a good idea because clearly you are in the minority on this website. Perhaps you should go to a more friendly site that endorses more government.
There are laws on the books already. If they need to be tweaked then so be it but a new bill further expanding the reach of government is not something that should be supported.
“It’s a case of interests who don’t want to adjust to the reality of the internet”
You have it backwards.
Its a case of people creating a myth, that the Internet is “something else” and the laws of ownership of things somehow can’t be applied to it. They can, and to do so, without any new “intrusion” on our “rights”, they must be modified to account for the theft that new technology makes possible.
It is the Internet that must adapt to the reality of very basic laws of western society regarding property - the ownership of the product of your work.
The idea that technology makes theft easier cannot be an endorsement, or an argument, by any sense of natural rights, that it MUST therefor be condoned.
The idea (the myth) that the Internet and Internet businesses MUST be BEYOND THE LAW, has no basis in any form of Conservatism that I know.
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.
You read too much into my remark, but “ruling” over us is their intent instead of doing the will of the people. I’m speaking about the people who have elected them into their exalted positions, not MY will but our collective will, who they used to call their constituents.
Cornyn? No thanks, OUT with you Cornyn. I was fooled once by him (and sent precious money to his campaign) but not again
That's why I said 'most'. Tom Coburn is one of the names I don't recognize.
Both republicans and democrats are threatened by a free people. We may have already lost the country, the last elections not-withstanding.
Neither Coburn nor Sessions is a “RINO” so I would like to their their explanations for their votes.
John started out OK, but the DC water has rotted his brain. Sure hope we have a good Primary runner against him, maybe Michael Williams.
That's not what I'm saying. As a writer, I appreciate the concept of nitellectual property.
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.
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.
It was not until the freighters learned how to adjust their business model -- and work with the railroads -- that they survived.
The entertainment producers and distributors need to learn how to capitalize on the internet, not how to censor it.
Many totally new businesses have been built around the internet. Why can't the moguls adjust?
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.