Skip to comments.Rick Santorum Answers Question On SOPA: ‘There Are Limits To Freedom On The Internet’
Posted on 01/09/2012 10:12:29 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
In the midst of all this talk of jobs and wars and families, one of the issues the Republican presidential candidates have not addressed that much is the internet. Specifically, their positions on regulating the internet. Over the weekend, Rick Santorum was asked by a New Hampshire resident during a campaign stop if he supported or opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which would give the government more authority to regulate the internet and crack down harder on piracy.
Considering how much the Republican party of late has been concerned with government overreach, Santorum has been a surprisingly strong defender of big government conservatism in this race. And his opinion on online piracy remains consistent with these principles. Santorum explained that from his perspective, not every right or freedom is unlimited, and there need to be regulations in place to limit the extent of a certain right.
There is, and can be, a limitation on that. You know, freedom of speech. The things you cant say. You cant cry fire in a crowded theater. And there are limitations to all freedoms. Theyre not absolute rights. They are rights that have responsibilities that come with them, and if you abuse those rights then you have a consequence of you using that right.
Santorum identified piracy as an abuse of ones rights. While acknowledging that the internet can be a powerful force for good, he argued that making it a regulation-free zone would be the wrong approach. He did not specifically say that he endorsed SOPA, given that he admitted he is not very aware of the bills provisions. But he did give an incredibly forceful argument for cracking down on piracy and the unrestrained right to do whatever you want on the internet.
(Not intended as an attack on Santorum but as a request to his supporters to take action.)
Can you explain the “direct threat to Free Republic?” Is Free Republic a site engaged in piracy located on foreign shores?
More like the Stop Online Privacy Act.
Santorum supporter who agrees.
Thank you for the polite admonition.
I guess I don’t understand what is wrong with what he said. Of course there have to be limits: committing crimes over the Internet, sending threats, etc.
I don’t think Santorum wants to limit free speech, rather he’s probably taking the above into account.
Having said the above, there might be language buried in the proposals that might be troubling...don’t know.
This same guy supported Arlen Specter. Oh and he voted for the TARP, No Child Left Behind, The Prescription Drug Benefit, bailing out G.M., etc.... just in case anyone thinks he is conservative. Observe him by what he does and not what he says.
Speaking of piracy:
Americans would like to know when the US government and our bought and paid for politicians are going to start cracking down on the real piracy of average Americans by the illegal immigrants. They and those who hire them are guilty of or assisting in the theft of intellectual property of Americans by stealing their identity.
These politicians need to understand that Piracy is about more than stealing Hollywood (that IMO is mostly trash).
Santorum’s just mad because his name has been google-bombed for years.
In any event, I don’t think anyone should be surprised that he’d support measures like SOPA, given that he is on record stating that “America is all about imposing our values on each other.” He’s also very gung-ho against “radical individualism” and his misconstrued ideas of what Libertarianism means.
Please review the comments on the following thread for a detailed explanation of the danger of SOPA/PIPA:
One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldnt get involved in the bedroom, we shouldnt get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that Im aware of, where weve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.Of course the guy who said this favors SOPA.
Yeah, that's exactly what this country needs, more big government!
You can find out what is wrong with the bill with a simple search. Santorum is a big government “conservative”, like the Bushes. I’ll vote for him if I have to because of he position on life, but if it weren’t for that he would just be another Romney.
You are most welcome. Please be sure Santorum understands the implications of SOPA/PIPA.
The youtube video at about 2:00 - you will hear that he says he does not know enough about this particular bill to have an opinion one way or another.
The bill text makes a number of references to existing regulations. As I read it, it just got too stinkin’ involved to see exactly what this bill does or doesn’t do.
In such cases, if I was a Congressman, I wouldn’t vote on it; if it ain’t crystal clear, forget it, IMHO. Legislation that reads like obfuscation invariably has things in it that people would never vote for if they understood everything about the bill.
In this video Rick was simply reminding the guy who asked the question that free speech is a guaranteed right, but that right does not trump personal civil or criminal liability for things one says.
Wow. Thanks for playing, president of Iowa, we have some lovely parting gifts...
Stepping up to that line. Not cool and an absolute deal breaker for me if he is going to support SOPA or any other dreck legislation like it.
I don’t care for his story about absolutes either. On that point he is absolutely wrong and there are laws currently on the books to deal with IP issues.
Okay my bad on that.... You are correct sir!
However, the rest of the list I noticed you did not say anything. So that alone is enough for me to never support this guy
I see a lot of hyperbole in the thread, but no real answers. Is this a “pandora’s box” argument? Or something else.
I am not saying that SOPA is a good thing, but can you point to a specific section of the law that would authorize the government to mandate that Free Republic be blocked?
Santorum is a non-starter. He is for the huge intrusive nanny state.
I oppose giving the government or global corporations the right regulate and to decide what internet sites we should have the right to see, or not see. This is a slippery slope away from freedom.
If companies wish to keep their copyrights and intellectual property from others then they have an obligation to protect it just as we all have an obligation to spend money for a safe deposit box or gun safe. The obligation to protect data should be put on the owners of the copyright, through civil action, not by taking taxes and freedoms from taxpayers. Too many take down claims and violations digital piracy have been determined to be false.
Anyone who hosts a blog or discussion site should be concerned about their exposure to blockage and charges.
Here’s how it works:
1. I post this link on Free Republic:
2. SOPA enforcement contacts the Registrar (www.gkg.net) where the domain name www.freerepublic.com was registered and confiscates the domain name.
3. Now when Freepers attempt to pull up Free Republic their browser returns nothing.
The likelihood for this power to be abused by the government is certain. It won’t just be for sites like this one either, post a video link you think is neat or funny on Facebook? Zap - the next day Facebook nukes your account.
There are already limitations on committing crimes, terrorism, fraud, making threats, etc. over the Internet. You can actually go to jail right now for Internet stalking. In fact, there are already laws against piracy (stealing intellectual property).
There is no need for this law and it can only harm the free exchange of information.
Though it may just be nothing but local bugs in the system, has anyone noticed unusual lag times in internet functions of changing pages or being transferred to links?
This is happening in another locality nearby as well and the conspiracy mindset is telling me someone is xxxxxxx with the internet on a rolling brown-out basis and testing until they are ready to go with a full blackout. It’s more than a week this time.
He would readily impose social control over the country - including the Internet. Then the Left’s lawyers, billionares and CEO’s would move in and use what he enacts to harm the Left’s political and social enemies.
Wonder what he thinks about Homeland inSecurity expanding the meaning of domestic terrorists to pro-lifers, pro-constitutionalists, pro-second amendment activists, Ron Paul/third party supporters, Iraqi vets, etc. How about them sexually molesting women and children at the airports? I bet he thinks that is fine, too. He’s a McCain statist.
Is the internet a right or a privilege? Just ask’n
I’m reading up on SOPA now. I doubt I’m the only one who hasn’t heard of this, or much about it, before.
I think he’s a party guy and would have gone along with TARP. He’s also a social engineer.
>> There is, and can be, a limitation on that. You know, freedom of speech. The things you cant say. You cant cry fire in a crowded theater. And there are limitations to all freedoms. Theyre not absolute rights. They are rights that have responsibilities that come with them, and if you abuse those rights then you have a consequence of you using that right.
In other words, the government knows the limits of your bill-of-rights freedoms better than *you* do. Relax and let Rick Santorum take control of your rights! He knows what’s best for you.
While watching this video, keep in mind that SOPA and PIPA
Every time someone quotes, I think it's Justice Holmes, and repeats this most stale conventional wisdom I have to ask what immediately comes to mind. What if the theater is on fire?
And I'm sympathetic to this Rick and 'tother.
> Observe him by what he does and not what he says.
That applies to Newt as well, no matter how articulate and eloquent he may be.
So who does that leave?
I don’t know.
I’m leaning towards Perry again.
Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, pro-Freedom.
The only sticking point with Perry is pro-Amnesty.
But I’m not sure that any of the current group of publicans would want take the hard line on this issue that most of us support.
Well said RC51. This why a Facebook account is like renting a house with your possessions in it, but the front door key is kept in a lockbox owned by Facebook. If they decide they don’t like you, they take the lockbox away, meanwhile they make lots of money telling and selling others about you and giving the rights to your stuff to others.
But if SOPA passes then not only Facebook has the lockbox but so do the feds and other companies, and they will have the lockbox to domain names that you own (like freerepublic.com), but no longer control. It would become another TSA type blacklist.
We need politicians that do not look for reasons to take away our freedoms. I agree with Perry. We need less laws and less politicians in DC, not more.
That is true.
It appears Ricky's google-bombing at the hands of Dan Savage has traumatized him, leading to his apparent confusion about the meaning of the First Amendment.
Let's get behind Newt. Romney's ceiling seems to be around 25%. We need to narrow the field, so that a real conservative can exceed the Mittwit's low ceiling.
Not all of us we're fooled by the sorry puke Specter, but I can see how Pennsylvania real politik would make "supporting" Arlen a necessity at times. That is, unless you're in favor of Public Campaign Financing, naturally.
Ohhh noooo, Rick! There already exists net nanny, etc, for families to protect kids. You MUST come out against SOPA. There must be Internet freedom!
Fortunately, this comment was NOT made by a serious Presidential candidate. Otherwise, I would be quite concerned.
Or when you shout “Fire” and everybody tells you to sit down and shut up...
Why don’t we let the govt eavesdrop on every phone conversation? People might be up to no good.
YES! I have noticed this for nearly a week on multiple computers, regardless of internet connection speed. At first I thought it was just my computer/connection, but I have a friend’s whose is the same. I knew that it wasn’t just me!
Exactly. There was a mechanism, civil law, which always governed contract and copyright law.
It was decided some years back that this was too troublesome and expensive to use for enforcement of copyright, so the burden was shifted to the public, by moving it into criminal law.
You could really consider this to be corporate welfare, since the expense of prosecution is now borne entirely by the taxpayers, whereas before some share of it was paid by the copyright holders.
Add to this the nearly-perpetual extension of copyright terms (something the Founding Fathers specifically excluded), and you can see that the entire system is broken and corrupt.
I got an email today from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they are for it. I won’t be renewing with them.