The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet

from the free-speech-isn't-free dept

Thu, Nov 18th 2010 11:10am — Mike Masnick

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.

Update: Some people in the comments are claiming this is not about censorship, so I've put up a new post explaining in detail why this bill is all about censorship.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, coica, senators

433 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:18am

So, whats techdirt's IP address?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:21am
  
  Re:
  If you don't know how to find that out without having to ask... well, then you know about as much about the internet as these politicians probably do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Read a little deeper into that comment. The AC was implying that this site would be blocked. They are probably aware of how to get an IP address of a domain.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Dan (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thanks for that. I didn't get it the first time, either.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fake, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:05pm
  
  Re:
  208.53.48.36
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There's no place like 127.0.0.1
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re:
  208.53.48.36
  
  what, are you not capable of getting it yourself?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Garth anisin, 18 Nov 2010 @ 5:16pm
  
  Re:
  try copy pasting this in your browser:
  
  208.53.48.33
  
  :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Troy, 18 Nov 2010 @ 5:27pm
  
  Re:
  Why do you want to know, I don't get it.
  
  http://tech.rawsignal.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 7:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    He's suggesting that this law will be used to turn of the domain names of web sites that criticize copyright and the entertainment industry. After that happens you need the IP address to access the web site.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Sorak, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Were this to occur, we would set up a network of un-policed nameservers to index such now-unpublished names, and then you'd have to get on the alternate nameserver network to access content 'restricted' in this way. That will not happen.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Joe, 28 Nov 2010 @ 5:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or you could just add them to your hosts file...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 5:29pm
  
  Re:
  ping www.techdirt.com
  PING techdirt.com (208.53.48.36) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from delta.techdirt.com (208.53.48.36): icmp_seq=1 ttl=38 time=133 ms
  
  208.53.48.36 bookmark it now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 5:35pm
  
  Re:
  And overnight, wikileaks like websites pop up containing lists of ip addresses for various websites....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tim, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:57pm
  
  Re:
  ping www.techdirt.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2010 @ 11:46am
  
  208.53.48.153
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Lockyear, 20 Nov 2010 @ 6:21am
  
  better question...what are THEIR IP addresses :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sorak, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:16am
  
  Re: IP Address
  This data is publicly available. Whats your point?
  
  [sorak:0]% nslookup techdirt.com
  Server: 192.168.42.1
  Address: 192.168.42.1#53
  
  Non-authoritative answer:
  Name: techdirt.com
  Address: 208.53.48.33
  Name: techdirt.com
  Address: 208.53.48.36
  Name: techdirt.com
  Address: 208.53.48.129
  Name: techdirt.com
  Address: 208.53.48.153
  
  [sorak:0]%
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:17pm
    
    Re: Re: IP Address
    He's suggesting that this law will be used to turn off the domain names of web sites that criticize copyright and the entertainment industry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- aveilleux, 21 Nov 2010 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re:
  http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4829/captureyx.jpg
  
  BRILLIANT
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 2:52am
  
  Re:
  127.0.0.1
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 7:55pm
  
  Re:
  ping the domain and see!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrWilson, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:20am

And I'd thought Al Franken was a decent politician until now...

Serves me right for not believing in the rules of politics:

Rule 1 - All politicians are corrupt and/or negligent.

Rule 2 - If a politician does not appear to be corrupt and/or negligent, see Rule 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:23am
  
  Re:
  I'd make a stronger statement: all politicians are negligent. Many (if not most) are corrupt as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - you are, 21 Nov 2010 @ 6:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Stop with these fucking blanket statements. Not all politicians are corrupt. Just like not all internet bloggers are fucking idiots.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2021 @ 12:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I believe you failed to prove your point (you are.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kingster (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:40am
  
  Re:
  Yeah... I was shocked to see his name on there. [sigh]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I know! I did a literal double-take. I felt like *I* was in an SNL sketch.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Petard, 19 Nov 2010 @ 10:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Shocked? Are you serious. Check out this idiots' (Franken) voting record so far. This is not a shock, but par for the corse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re:
  I wonder if he had to vote for it under duress or something?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re:
  Seriously, what are they putting in the Washington air? Al Franken still on his website today, at the top of the dang page in a huge font - "stop corporate takeover of the media". So, pushing for a bill to increase corporate control of the new media (the internet) is the obvious first step to improving the situation. Duh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jon B., 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm not surprised that a guy whose talk show couldn't gain ground in a competitive market is complaining about "corporate takeover" of the media.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ah ha, his stance on "the media" makes a bit more sense now. Here I was being all naive and optimistic that he was actually in favor reducing the power of the corporatocracy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re:
  Perhaps this was added on to another measure that he wanted to pass but knew that the COICA wouldn't pass the constitutional sniff test anyway? Anyone have access to details that might support this?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TechnoMage (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:40pm
  
  Re:
  Perhaps there is a deeper meaning to this only being the Senate Judiciary Committee, perhaps these senaters, including Franken voted this way because from the "Judiciary Point of View" it is "legal" or whatever all criteria they use.
  
  Also, the list that really matters is the final vote IMHO.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:05pm
  
  Re:
  that is ok, i thought Patric Leahy was a nice guy when I fixed his printer for him. Talked to him to no end about things, he seemed like he had a good head on his shoulders.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 6:00pm
  
  Re:
  Al Franken was an actor and probably has had some of his stuff ripped off.
  
  Geez, I can't believe he would want to protect the right of remuneration for himself and his fellow actor friends...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, Al Franken was a comedian, so he definitely ripped off jokes and passed them off as his own.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yet another pirate fail
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4709928/Stuart_Saves_His_Family_-_DVD_Rip
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Huh, and here I was going to use the same link to support my claim that he wasn't an actor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 10:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wait a tick, did you just induce copyright infringement? I'm fairly sure your position on posting links to torrents hasn't been a permissive one at the very least. Goose, gander, someone alert the FBI.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 10:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And I'd be happy to cooperate with them. ;)
        
        You guys have simply failed all over the place here.
        
        It's been a blast to watch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If that's your idea of a proper troll or even a good zinger, you have a very poor grasp of the concepts of both wit and debate. I could get better than that on slashdot; 4chan users and 90% of all teenagers wouldn't have even noticed your attempts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kim Priestap, 19 Nov 2010 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  And I'd thought Al Franken was a decent politician until now...
  Well, that's your problem right there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- coolbeans, 19 Nov 2010 @ 2:37pm
  
  Re:
  seriously? franken is your run of the mill liberal idiot. liberals in the USA are fascists in disguise. if you haven't figured that one out then you're in the wrong country.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 19 Nov 2010 @ 4:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I know that the education level is pretty low in the states where the Tea Party is most active, but please at least take a 100 level community college political science course.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    To be more specific, it sounds like you don't know what facism actually is (don't worry, most people don't). It would be strange (IMO) to suggest that liberals are more facist than conservatives in the US.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Cdaragorn (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 10:43am
      
      Fascist sides not what they used to be
      Ok, I know that fascism has historically been almost entirely on the conservatist side of the scale, but that is honestly part of the problem now.
      
      Things have changed, and if you really look at what the liberals are doing and advocating right now, it fits the fascist ideology almost word for word.
      
      Basically, the tables have begun to turn, and things are not what they have always been....Those who HAVE taken courses in pol science may need to scrap what they thought they learned and look more carefully at how things are moving today compared to how they used to be
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re:
  I hear ya,..I was shocked to see Al Franken's name on that list,...but it just goes to show,.its all a bunch of bull
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jj, 20 Nov 2010 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re: Al Franklin
  before saying hes corrupt, you should read what he says about this law.
  not that i support it, or not, i dont know enough, But Al isn't corrupt, i'm sure of that!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jennifer call, 20 Nov 2010 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re: Internet censorship
  What on earth made you think Frankin was OK. He's a nasty leftist pig, who stole the election with dirty tricks. He needs to go together with the rest of the bums who voted for this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roflcopter, 21 Nov 2010 @ 11:18am
  
  Re:
  What's hysterical is that you thought Al Franken was a good politician. Unsurprising this list is full of democrats.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Philip, 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: MrWilson
  Al freakin' Franklen, or do you mean Frankensten? 90 to 99% of the politicians in the USA are corrupt or will ultimately be corrupt - especially the liberal elite. Al Franklen definitely "thinks" he knows better than the vast majority of the American people. He is brain washed enough to believe he knows better how to spend your and my money, censor our use of the internet, and how and when to tell you how to wipe your ass and with hand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bill Stewart, 23 Nov 2010 @ 12:37pm
  
  Coons isn't in the Senate yet?
  I'm really skeptical about this list. Chris Coons just got elected, and doesn't take office until next January. How can he be voting on it.
  
  Dianne Feinstein? No surprise there, she's never approved of free speech on the Internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 3:12pm
    
    Re: Coons isn't in the Senate yet?
    Chris Coons is on the committee.
    
    http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm
    
    He doesn't have an official Senate page yet, but WP indicates he took office on November 15.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Coons
    
    It was a special election, not part of the normal midterms.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Delaware,_2010
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 3:12pm
    
    Re: Coons isn't in the Senate yet?
    Chris Coons is on the committee.
    
    http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm
    
    He doesn't have an official Senate page yet, but WP indicates he took office on November 15.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Coons
    
    It was a special election, not part of the normal midterms.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Delaware,_2010
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- L. J. Webber, 24 Nov 2010 @ 8:42am
  
  Re: Franken
  Al Franken is Muslim if that tells you anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kendrick Ed (profile), 28 Nov 2010 @ 8:10am
    
    Re: Re: Franken
    One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.) [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]
    
    The internet is the last bastion of free speech on a mass scale--and the "muslims" wish to censor such speech as this:
    
    http://ReDiscover911.com Who allowed muslims to place explosives in the Twin Towers and Building 7
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Linda, 28 Nov 2010 @ 8:30am
  
  Government regulation of websites
  I DO believe that if a website is stealing from the public they should be closed down. But that's it. I am appalled that Al Franken stooped this low - I am now paying more attention to Rules 1 and 2 !!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Justin, 30 Nov 2010 @ 1:16pm
  
  Rule #1
  I used to think well of Leahy until I was shocked into investigation by his sponsorship of this bill. Openpolitics confirmed that law firms, entertainment and ISPs basically bought him in the last election- he's from Vermont where NONE of these industries accounts for more than .8% of the state's GDP. He's doing a whole lot more for the out of state special interests who purchased him than the issues which are really of importance to the people who voted for him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mr.smith, 11 Dec 2010 @ 11:43pm
  
  Re:
  lmao! good one!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LiveFreeNow.org, 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  Ron Paul. The one and only unwavering politician in Washington.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon Dirt, 25 Oct 2011 @ 8:42am
  
  Re:
  You forgot:
  
  3 - When you get tired of this cycle and apathy, see Ron Paul.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Franken, SNL funnyman on SNL is funny, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:28am

But Mike, the Nazis want to keep you safe!
Can't you see that our taxpayer-subsidized content filters will keep you super safe? It's the Great Firewall of Amerikka!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:40am

The sad part is that it doesn't even take down the websites. It just takes away the domain name. The server is still online and can be connected to by IP address.

In other words, not only is the bill an overreaching bill by the government, it's also a stupid ineffective one.

Also, I'm ashamed to be a part of a state that voted for this bill (California).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:46am
  
  Re:
  Likewise. Already shot off an email to Senator Durbin via his online form, for all the good that will do.
  
  I'm expecting Chicago's finest at my home today when I return from the gym....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sending a third one to hatch(he has lost respect and I wil no longer capitalize his evil name) expect a third copy of he form letter I got twice before. After what happened to Bennett you would think hatch would be a bit more
    careful.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TheStupidOne, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I likewise sent an email to senator Feinstein. I chose not to attack her supporting of the bill, but to simply highlight the many ways in which it could (read will) be abused.
    
    I doubt she'll ever read it, but I did try and if it looks like she will continue to support it, I'll just have to give her a follow up call or two to make sure she understands that people will always abuse power that they are given. Not ever single person, but people in general.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Designerfx (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    durbin doesn't even read or respond to that stuff.
    
    chalk it up as another one for transparency - not only is there not a way to track those emails, there's no guarantee you'll get a reply
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - agent sector 069 sorce, 30 Dec 2010 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: Re: recovery retrain ACT
    hes going to send Chicago S.0.S special forces aka the mafioso AKA Irish thumpbreakers after you
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- citizen, 19 Nov 2010 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: ???
  this is what it took for you to be ashamed of California? I would have thought the record deficit, the sanctuary cities, home state of Pelosi would have done it...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2010 @ 2:40pm
  
  Re:
  i live in california and i can tell you first hand that the eco-fascist granola nazis here would love to limit your free speech and kill jobs. but what do i know, i'm a right leaning libertarian. :P people on our side have been trying to tell you guys this for years. you only listen when they try to take away your rights i guess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Harley, 20 Nov 2010 @ 8:15pm
  
  Re: Anonymous Coward
  I'm totally embarrassed to have my Senator(Utah) on this list. I thought Orrin Hatch was more technical than it appears he actually is. Very sad that we have politicians that don't understand the constitution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cliff Hutchison, 22 Nov 2010 @ 4:47am
    
    Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
    I hope this isn't your first clue about Orin.
    Bennett was replaced this year, Hatch is next.
    
    Philpot for Senate 2012
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Dagne, 22 Dec 2010 @ 8:03pm
  
  Boxer kills her own
  Don't you remember Boxers' new hairdo and campaign ad playing with children, the boy any ways in her ad died in Iraq, so much for her "for the children" pledge. When will these murderers be called to task
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lee Martin, 18 Jan 2012 @ 11:28pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 18th, 2010 @ 11:40am
  It's like the crook who wants to erase the security footage. We must stop this!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:44am

SAIC strikes again! It's amazing what a few thousand can buy.
Remember The SAIC company that makes the backscatter X-Ray machines and gave tons of money in this last election...?

Well, they were also the company that owned Network Solutions, the original domain registrar in 1995 before spinning it off to Verisign. Additionally, it looks like they maybe had their hands in the cookie jar with the AT&T wiretapping case, by working on the Trailblazer Project. I bet they have a shiny solution that they plan to install on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: SAIC strikes again! It's amazing what a few thousand can buy.
  Here's your shiny solution:
  
  http://www.cloudshield.com/
  
  Acquired in Jan of this year, specializing in deep packet inspection gear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:45am

Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
I have had the displeasure of speaking with Specter on a number of occasions, and my impression is, he is a complete jackass. Turn your TV to an off channel, and that's what I saw behind his eyes...static.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re: Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
  Soooo... I can pick up EVP thru his head? Sweet!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BearGriz72 (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:54pm
    
    Re: Re: Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
    The ghost voices in his head made him do it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Frank, 20 Nov 2010 @ 6:35pm
  
  Re: Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
  Yep, and remember Specter is the one that came up with the "magic bullet theory" on the Kennedy assassination. How does this guy keep getting re-elected?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Huffer, 1 Dec 2010 @ 5:01am
  
  Re: Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
  It took you long enough??? This is the same moron who gave us the "magic bullet" from the warren commission report on the murder of Jack Kennedy in 1963. Just shows you how deep the ignorance of the Pennsylvania voter to continue to reelect this conspirator in the assassination of a sitting and duly elected President. Are you beginning to see the pattern now???
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:45am

The only acceptable course of action when it comes to IP right now is to substantially repeal it. Maintaining or expanding the current laws is absolutely unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:48am

Another Lame Duck
You can add the retiring Sen. Voinovich of Ohio to that list. He co-authored this bill and in his response to my letter seemed proud that the "process would be made fair by industry representatives interfacing with the DOJ".

He also "looks forward to working with Rob Portman", who will take over his seat, to move this bill forward.

So you can probably add incoming Sen. Portman of Ohio too.

I also wrote to the other Ohio Senator, Sherrod Brown, who, while citing industry statistics, at least made mentioned the 1st amendment concerns in his response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruiner, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:48am

?
I just don't understand how this group voted together, some of the most liberal senators; Feingold and Frankin, some of the most conservative; Sessions, Cornyn and Kyl, and Spector in the middle?! WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:54am
  
  Re: ?
  Er, because there really isn't any difference between the two. The political fighting is a show put on for your consumption.
  
  You'll notice that the news programs focus on the fighting, rather than the voting on this horrendous bill and its implications on personal liberty. You REALLY think that's a coincidence?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free Capitalist (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:56am
  
  Re: ?
  I just don't understand how this group voted together, some of the most liberal senators; Feingold and Frankin, some of the most conservative; Sessions, Cornyn and Kyl, and Spector in the middle?! WTF?
  
  Did I just hear a veil dropping? You might want to go on a safe bender and purge your brain to assist the reset.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:04pm
  
  Re: ?
  Because both the extreme left and extreme right have the same intent to control content they don't like, you know, like the truth. The truth may get in the way of their own personal agendas.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 5:39pm
  
  Re: ?
  Are you people really that dense?
  
  It's like you're pretending piracy isn't illegal and a massive problem.
  
  Hilarious.
  
  And how many Senators do you think give a damn about young people that rip off music and movies? They probably believe that if you're that lame and/or broke that you more than likely don't vote.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JX, 18 Nov 2010 @ 8:21pm
    
    Re: Re: ?
    You misunderstand. We don't honestly care about "The Pirate Bay". Firstly, the ones who use trackers also understand IP addresses, and most of them are comfortable with returning to the FTP/Courier/Usenet/0day model, if they wish to pirate things. They also won't hesitate to evangelize to others how this is done, and create alternative, equally effective methods. The URL is convenient, sure, but critical, no.
    
    The real problem here is that it prevents people from having a website that is free and open and allows people to post what they want in a manner that truly exemplifies free speech. If you want to punish the guy that uses those sites to post copies of video games, you can get his information and prosecute that one guy, individually, for his crime.
    
    There's no need to pass a law that makes it difficult or impossible to create a forum for the exchange of ideas and data, and allows a very small group of people to decree that a website should no longer be accessible to the general public because some portion of the community of that website decided to infringe someone else's copyright.
    
    Furthermore, virtually zero expertise or knowledge of copyrights are required for this kind of action. If a court isn't involved and copyright law isn't properly cited amongst LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, you have someone making claims of wrongdoing against someone else, and people WHO DID NOTHING WRONG having a service denied to them that they may have been using 100% legitimately.
    
    Example... rapidshare shows up on this list because someone posts a copy of Duke Nukem 3d on it (because you know, people still pay big bucks for games from 1995 )... Now Joe the teacher from Detroit who used Rapidshare to copy his student's work back and forth on occasion, or used it to make his life easier in other, non-harmful ways just lost access to a very valuable online resource.
    
    It's plain stupidity. There are far more elegant ways to prevent piracy... and honestly, a large portion of piracy can simply be ignored.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 8:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: ?
      In the real world, stores have to police themselves. They can't just allow fenced goods to be sold and then claim "censorship!" when they get closed down.
      
      The idea that the internet should somehow be exempt from the same laws that exist in the real world is delusional.
      
      It's why all the whining being done by the piracy apologists isn't going to mean squat.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: ?
        In the real world, malls, flea markets, open air markets, etc... are not responsible if one of their stores engages in illegal activity. In the real world, state and federal governments are not responsible for their roads being used for illegal activity. In the real world, you are a shilling twat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 10:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?
        LOL
        
        Wrong!
        
        It's over. You look like a fool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 10:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: ?
        In the real world, stores have to police themselves. They can't just allow fenced goods to be sold and then claim "censorship!" when they get closed down.
        
        Indeed. But that's a case where stores have control over what's being sold and pick and choose what's being sold. When it's an open platform -- such as eBay, we don't blame the store.
        
        That's just common sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 10:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?
        Ebay polices itself. So does YouTube now, after the Viacom appeal.
        
        So will every other site on the internet. Just like in the real world. Because the internet is now the same as the real world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?
        Ebay polices itself. So does YouTube now, after the Viacom appeal.
        
        Um. No. In both cases they will take down content if the rightsholder makes a request, but they do not "police themselves" as you claim.
        
        So will every other site on the internet. Just like in the real world. Because the internet is now the same as the real world.
        
        Cool. So, then every time you visit a foreign website, you get a visa, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gabriel Tane (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 5:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: ?
        I must be a sucker for punishment... second time this week I've fed trolls....
        
        One problem with your argument... There IS a difference between 'stolen property' (what you call fenced goods) and 'copied intellectual property'. One is theft and the other is not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 4:30am
    
    Re: Re: ?
    Are you people really that dense?
    
    Right back at ya. After all it's you who thinks this law will change anything. It's only sad to know that after the law did fail you won't be coming back here and we have less to laugh about.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nobody, 19 Nov 2010 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re: ?
  FTA: "because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Guest0987, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:03am
  
  Re: ?
  Because they are basically all the same. This proves it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kk10, 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re: ?
  The vote was in the Senate Judiciary Committee at its weekly executive meeting on Thursday. The bill was voted unanimously out of committee, but it will not go anywhere since the 111th Congress is coming to a close. To consider it in the next Congress, it will have to be reintroduced and will have to go through the Judiciary Committee again and then be considered by the full Senate. I doubt that will ever happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cliff Hutchison, 22 Nov 2010 @ 4:40am
  
  I hope to "Ruin" your illusions about politics
  Why do you think being "liberal" or "conservative" has anything to do with this?
  
  Even moderate or "in the middle" is not a very meaningful term, either.
  
  "Liberal" or "conservative" or "in the middle" ABOUT WHAT(?) is the necessary question.
  
  This internet "neutrality" scam is about control, and both "liberals" nor "conservatives" have plenty of control freaks in Congress.
  
  Why did the PATRIOT Act pass and was renewed, too, by Bush AND OBAMA with "wide bipartisan support"? That's also a head-scratcher for all the clueless folks who are suckered into the two party shell game.
  
  Reject the false images and rhetoric and FOCUS on the voting records of these liars! While we still have internet freedom, spend some time doing some real research on Thomas.gov (or a host of sites that compile vote records) and after a while you'll see through the charade of these political charlatans.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DB, 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:10am
  
  Re: ?
  It is all about power. The liberals want it so they can stifle opposing speech (what they would term 'radical' or 'extremist') while the conservatives want it so they can start shutting down porn sites and sites dedicated to anti-christian sentiment as well as stifling opposing speech when the occasion calls for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DB, 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:10am
  
  Re: ?
  It is all about power. The liberals want it so they can stifle opposing speech (what they would term 'radical' or 'extremist') while the conservatives want it so they can start shutting down porn sites and sites dedicated to anti-christian sentiment as well as stifling opposing speech when the occasion calls for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 5:18pm
  
  Re: ?
  They are all jewish
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2010 @ 2:12am
  
  Re: ?
  because they're all on the same team... all their strings are pulled together from the top of the pyramid
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sandra bell, 28 Nov 2010 @ 9:16am
  
  Re: senators closing down websites?
  This travesty is yet another proof that these elected "public servants" are all the same -- greedy, power-hungry whores who want to make as much hay as possible while the sun shines. They ALL feed at the same trough and go to the same toilet. Shame on them!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sandra bell, 28 Nov 2010 @ 9:17am
  
  Re: senators closing down websites?
  This travesty is yet another proof that these elected "public servants" are all the same -- greedy, power-hungry whores who want to make as much hay as possible while the sun shines. They ALL feed at the same trough and go to the same toilet. Shame on them!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:52am

We Were Warned
Robert A. Heinlein, Revolt in 2100 (1954)
I began to sense faintly that secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy . . . censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- susan mullins, 26 Nov 2010 @ 5:37pm
  
  Re: We Were Warned
  you are so right. americans will surpressed from communication, unless its what they want us to hear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DogBreath, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:54am

Don't the Senators understand?
If they block and/or remove the alleged infringing sites, there will be no more illegal downloading, and no one for the RIAA / MPAA / IP lawsuit trolls to sue (with the exception of each other). Come On Senators! Think of the children! (and all the lost future "extra" campaign contributions from the RIAA / MPAA / etc...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:20pm
  
  Re: Don't the Senators understand?
  Or we'll just switch dns servers and not even notice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jorolo87 (profile), 30 Jul 2011 @ 3:08am
    
    Re: Re: Don't the Senators understand?
    Censoring the internet is not right!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yogi, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:01pm

Problem
The problem with the democratic system is that no normal, honest, decent person would ever want to go through the process of getting elected.

Politicians are people who crave power - and they are exactly the type of people who should be nowhere near any position of authority.

I am all for democracy, it is the least evil system of government, but it is definitely flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:17pm
  
  Re: Problem
  "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting upon dinner."
  -Samuel Clement
  
  (paraphrased)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 7:04am
    
    Re: Re: Problem
    It's bad enough not to know the quote well enough that you have to 'paraphrase', but you also have the attribution wrong. It's Samuel Clemen_s_ (Mark Twain)...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon B., 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re: Problem
  This is why centralized power should be limited and why localized control should be the focus...in other words, why bills like this are very wrong.
  
  Term limits would be nice, too. At a glance, I think most of those names are 20+ year senators.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jose_X, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Problem
    And how about electing your representative whenever you want (with some limits)? Why have professional politicians? Assign your individual vote to an organization you trust and then change it when you lose trust or specifically want a different vote for a particular bill. The idea is that you pick your exact vote if you want on a per bill basis, but to the degree you don't care, you effectively leave your proxy (your rep) in place.
    
    We manage large numbers because on average the proxies are reset very infrequently. We wouldn't need to secure online voting. We could instead do the assignments and re-assignments via snail mail, on the web with a follow-up confirmation, through phone call, or, safest of all, at a local government office using picture ID or something similar.
    
    The Constitution would have to be changed to do this at the federal level, but it would be nice to see this democracy in action locally.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:25pm
    
    Re: Re: Problem
    Coburn isn't. Pretty sure he just got reelected to his second or third term. Absolutely certain though that I'll be placing a call or twenty to him on the subject of this bill. If he votes for it if and when it comes up for a full Senate vote, I'll also be giving any Tea Party candidates my vote in his next primary too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re: Problem
  not completely true. I would love to run for office. I can't afford to get my name on a ballot or to take time off to get signatures to get my name on the ballot
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 4:24pm
  
  Re: Problem
  But we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. Look it up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 4:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Problem
    Some definitions that disagree with you:
    
    # the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
    
    # a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
    
    Indirect democracy is a broad term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives.
    
    1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
    3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
    
    Looks to me like the US is both a democracy and a republic, by most definitions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Problem
      This is a really old argument over semantics and should never again be brought up. Likewise, the term democracy should never be chosen over the term republic to be applied to the US. Yes, both are technically correct but very little power actually rests in the hands of the people, so it's an extremely misleading statement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 7:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Problem
        If you think definitions of "democracy" imply more power in the people than actually exists, then "republic" has the same problem:
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
        
        Perhaps the term you want to use is "facist plutocracy". I'm open to other options.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Len, 19 Nov 2010 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re: Problem
  It's too bad it's not really a democracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thomas White, 27 Nov 2010 @ 11:08pm
  
  Re: Problem
  Yogi, we do not live in a democracy. A 'representative constitutional Repulic' is a little closer to the truth, and quite different from democracy. Preferable, in my mind.
  
  Cheers,
  A son of the American Revolution
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 28 Nov 2010 @ 2:44pm
    
    Re: Re: Problem
    I think it was already mentioned in this story or another recent one, but that depends on what definition of "democracy" you use. By most or all of them in common usage, the US is a democracy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- billy, 28 Nov 2010 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: Problem
  So right!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeDough, 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:39am
  
  Re: Problem
  @Yogi - don't confuse a democracy with a republic. The United States is not a democracy, it is a republic (as in the Pledge of Allegiance: "... and to the Republic, for which it stands..."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:22am
    
    Re: Re: Problem
    The United States is not a democracy
    
    See above - that depends on what definition of "democracy" you use.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:02pm

You ever notice how lists like this always contain names of senators you recognize? the ones always on tv, trying to put their face out there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re:
  Well, that's because it's the Senate Judiciary Committee, and you don't get on that without seniority, power, and clout.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cynyr (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 7:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Franken hasn't been there very long, as to "power and clout" I have no idea how much of it he has in washington...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2010 @ 7:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Chris Coons has been a senator for about a week.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:06pm

Can't you get around this by simply using a DNS service that is not in this country? Doesn't OpenDNS have some servers in Amsterdam?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 5 Apr 2011 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  They may block at the root servers. But finally a new breed of root servers line torrent trackers may arrive and the whole DNS system on the internet may be corrupted. This WILL also give rise to a huge financial fraud.
  
  The politicians are real idiots and the industry is real selfish.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:10pm

Lots of people will be installing BIND if this goes through.
So what it seems they're going to do is require authentication of each website's purpose. If it's not legitimate, this governing authority will have the ability to re-route the DNS entry.

If you ask me, this is a complete waste of taxpayer money because it only adds administrative costs and does nothing to ask business to better leverage internet distribution capability, which is the core issue in play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MysticMia, 27 Nov 2010 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re: Lots of people will be installing BIND if this goes through.
  Any chance you could explain more? I'm trying to understand it better. ON another note is anyone good at writing a response for us to send to these politicans. ?Not sure if I responded to the correct comment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:14pm

Glad to see that this bill passed out of the committee by unanimous vote.

Of course, this is only the first step in the legislative process. It still has to pass the full Senate, the House Judiciary Committee, the full House, and then the President. At every step along the way there are opportunities presented for the introduction of amendments.

The professors referenced above would be well advised to stop their "academic ranting", focus on what amendments they believe should be made, and then find a sponsor for such amendments.

Contrary to much of the FUD that has been made about COCIA, there is much more to this bill than the perception by many that the bill is directed almost exclusively to stemming the tide of illegal downloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  The professors referenced above would be well advised to stop their "academic ranting", focus on what amendments they believe should be made, and then find a sponsor for such amendments.
  
  I find it amusing that these distinguished professors raising very serious and legitimate concerns are reduced to "academic ranting" in your book. But when your beloved friends in Hollywood rant ridiculously about "piracy" and "theft" you rush to their support.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I find the thought that this will stem "the tide of illegal downloading" amusing.
    
    In college dorm rooms across the country:
    "Oh no! I have to use an IP address to look up my torrentz? That's just too hard for me...I should go find an engineer or comp sci major..."
    5 minutes later...
    "So just don't change any of the settings, and click that link on your desktop and you should be fine to download whatever you want"
    
    Wait a minute...after my college put in place their blocks on certain piracy sites they stopped checking for illegal downloads. The IT team explained it to me as "since we can now say that we're blocking the sites, we aren't required to watch the traffic. Less work for us, and you can still download". If this bill means that they will stop worrying about piracy and trying to stop it, I hope it passes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "But when your beloved friends in Hollywood rant ridiculously about "piracy" and "theft" you rush to their support."
    
    You are speaking in generalities that I believe are incorrect. Do you have any specific example that I can address?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "You are speaking in generalities..."
      
      Oh no, he's stealing your commenting style!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are speaking in generalities that I believe are incorrect. Do you have any specific example that I can address?
      
      It is impossible to go back through your previous statements on this site since you choose (for no clear reason) to post anonymously -- even though you make clear who you are via your tone and statements. I now recognize part of that is to make it impossible for us to call you on your blatant contradictions.
      
      You regularly commented in favor of the MPAA and RIAA positions in various lawsuits and when they called infringement "theft." You also regularly mocked defendants in cases when the RIAA and MPAA threw "hissy fits" falsely suggesting they were costing the industry millions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re:
  So, back in college, did a mean professor fail you in a class? I can only assume that is the reason why you think "academic" is some sort of insult.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Hate to agree with a douche like the gp but "academic" is a pretty derogatory term in my personal vocabulary. Even though I disagree with everything else he said. They're largely intolerant, elitist assholes in my experience.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zink Sauce, 7 Jan 2011 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ahahahahah, yeaaaah!!! Hence his calling it "academic ranting" - maybe he really did fail his classes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free Capitalist (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  One "bad" provision can and should kill a bill if it cannot be purged. If by "amend" you mean "redact" then yes, that's one way to skin this cat. Either way, we fight from here, while we continue to watch the incessant, very non-academic pro-IP ranting on TV and on message boards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 4:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I would amend it to read like so:
    
    "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ��Combating Online In5
    fringement and Counterfeits Act��."
    
    That's it. I wouldn't have a problem with that bill if that were the whole thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:34pm
  
  Re:
  I'd like to see an amendment that legalizes underaged rape while stomping on puppies added to it, personally.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carling, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:17pm

No Georgians!
Yay! No Georgians on here! That's probably because they don't know what an internet is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re: No Georgians!
  Nor a Floridian... I'm getting scared when we aren't to blame for something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:49pm
    
    Re: Re: No Georgians!
    Fear not. You're to blame because you couldn't get a Senator on the committee.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 19 Nov 2010 @ 11:59am
    
    Re: Re: No Georgians!
    Funny thing was when someone linked to this article, I was actually looking through the list for a FL senator and was surprised there wasn't any. I had to look over it a few times thinking it had to be a mistake.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 19 Nov 2010 @ 11:59am
    
    Re: Re: No Georgians!
    Funny thing was when someone linked to this article, I was actually looking through the list for a FL senator and was surprised there wasn't any. I had to look over it a few times thinking it had to be a mistake.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DS, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:25pm

No Way!
Chuck Schumer voted for this! That's sooo unlike him.

And Al Franken did too? I thought he was the people's candidate?!?

(In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free Capitalist (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re: No Way!
  (In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic)
  
  You! Can't! Say! That! about our Big Entertainment Industry "Expatriate" turned Senator for The Little People Franken!
  
  (In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic)
  (I lost the ability to give a shake about "either party" long long ago)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rick, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:29pm

ITS BS!!!!the government need sto get their snotty noses out of our business Go to hell you Senators in the child's play game your in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:38pm

The terrorists have already won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:54pm

As hard as I tried to think of a constructive and useful comment, I could not. My heart is so full of anger at politicians, certain corporations, and the American people in general for accepting the loss of more freedoms, I am without an insightful comment.
The last several days have clearly shown that fear and greed are the choice America has made for the future.
I know most people think politics are boring and stupid. While in many respects, they are correct, ignoring that which places restraints on upon you, even a little, causes the democracy to die in equal parts.
I want corporations to get their fair due. However, the solutions that have been put in place, demanded to be in place, seem shortsighted and ultimately evil.
In the short term, those with money and power may get their way, reaping the rewards they so viciously desire. I'm just glad that their children and grandchildren will have to live with these various affronts to liberty, as my own will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 5:46pm
  
  Re:
  LOL
  
  Yea, you're gonna lose your "freedom" to visit websites "dedicated to infringing activities".
  
  Poor widdle you...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cynyr (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 7:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    by who's definition of "dedicated to infringing activities"?
    
    Is youtube? how about 4chan? techdirt? slashdot? digg? bbc.co.uk? foxnews.com? the sundance film festivals page?
    
    This is the issue, it's not that we disagree that "illegal"(criminally) sites should be shut down, but in almost all cases there are already ways to do this, injunctions, court orders, etc.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 7:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      by who's definition of "dedicated to infringing activities"?
      
      Exactly. Remember, according to the entertainment industry, radio, YouTube, cable television, the photocopier, the DVR and the MP3 player were all "dedicated to infringing activity."
      
      What's amazing is I have yet to see a single one of COICA's supporters explain that issue away. The entertainment industry *ALWAYS* insists new offerings are dedicated to infringing activities when they first show up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love how Mike thinks he can fool people. It's hilarious.
        
        The industry doesn't have to insist anything at this point now. The illegal activity is flagrant and out in the open.
        
        Why do you insist on defending illegal activity and the ripping off of artists, Mike?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 4:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, like the non-crediting of the AP image of Obama. Or the Warner Bros. flagrant copying of Kurosawa's ideas. Or the deliberate misappropriation of Cinderella to Disney. Or Fox news's flagrant bullshittery in the name of 'hot news'.
        
        Yes, I'm bored. Deal with it.
        
        Also, you've not seent he Creative accounting habits of the RIAA, have you? OR of a funny little company called soundexchange who couldn't find Kanye West. OR of the trillions (I shit you not, THAT was what was said) 'lost' to infringement. This, in spite of the fact that more money has been spent on music in the past five years year-on-year, even accounting for inflation. And that's the RIAA figures talking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FromBeyond, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:55pm

Woah
I don't live in the U.S but I recognized Al Franken and thought he was a good guy. Turns out he's like the others after researching. Trying to rape internet are ya mr Franken? Good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PookieBadMuffin, 20 Nov 2010 @ 6:59am
  
  Re: Woah
  You recognized an old SNL cast member and thought he was a good Senator? I'm guess I'm glad you live outside the US.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:56pm

Furthermore
They voted on an amended version of the bill that was not published until today (you can see a link to it on the bottom of the http://judiciary.senate.gov/ site). It's kind of them to not let us see the bill until after they've voted on it. It's still not on thomas.loc.gov. I'm sick of this back-room legislation.

The new version removes the public blacklist, but it keeps the immunity for 'voluntary' (non-judicial) service termination. And there's no process to get service re-instated. Now the government and/or entertainment industries won't have to bother going through those pesky courts that require evidence and what-not. They can just apply carrot/stick techniques to get service terminated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ltlw0lf (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re: Furthermore
  Now the government and/or entertainment industries won't have to bother going through those pesky courts that require evidence and what-not. They can just apply carrot/stick techniques to get service terminated.
  
  By service termination, I wonder if they will mean physical termination (your phone company disconnects you,) or logical termination (as in, your ISP removes access to their network.)
  
  I figure, if it is the later, what stops us from just starting Internet 2.0 and just not invite the government (or at least the part that kowtows to the entertainment industry,) and the entertainment industry to our new one? Of course, I am all for moving backwards to the internet we had pre-1994, where no commercial organizations were allowed to join. Seems like we came off the rail around that point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Furthermore
    Service in this case means things like dns service, credit card processing, etc.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse Townley (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:59pm

Guh
Arg. More proof that national politicians don't have a good understanding of technology issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:01pm

I'd just like to point out that this is not the first time U.S. politicians have openly voted for censorship. Does anyone remember hearing about the Sedition Act of 1918? And I'm pretty sure the FCC engages in state-sponsored censorship as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse, 19 Nov 2010 @ 9:00am
  
  Re:
  The FCC is actually fighting to keep at least one such 'censorship' rule in place. People are fighting back, these days. http://bit.ly/d75Ys5
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:05pm

Mike, your tone harms your credibility.
"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."

Hmmm ... so no one that voted for the DMCA (or any other laws now abused for widespread censorship like that) counts as "voting in favor of censoring speech"?

Look, I totally agree with the content of your message (especially in this case), but you're making the argument against this look bad by making emotionally extreme statements like that. It might even be technically true by the definition you set up in the preceding sentence, but you're inciting an emotional argument that doesn't even need to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lee martin, 18 Jan 2012 @ 11:48pm
  
  Re: Mike, your tone harms your credibility.
  Derek your a tool
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:12pm

Al Franken betrayed us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wallow-T, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:13pm

As a small-scale contributor to Sen Franken, I am deeply disappointed. The way things are moving, I expect to sit out the next several elections.

I predict that one consequence of moving this forward will be that Obama's young voters will sit on their hands in 2012, leading to his failure to win re-election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jose_X, 18 Nov 2010 @ 4:18pm
  
  Re:
  Losing the young vote (for the Democrats) is a good point. These people are opening themselves up to attacks.
  
  There is too little competition for representatives of citizens (partly due to high costs to make yourself known and defend against attacks), and worse is that you have to pick one person to make a decision on hundreds or thousands of bills. That is very coarse-grained.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:28pm

SO, Mike, how will COICA and ACTA affect your "free" economy?
First a couple quibbles:

"many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries" -- Doing the opposite of words is a main feature of today's pols.

"these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America" -- WW1 censorship was pretty severe. And we are "at war", right?

But seriously, whatta y'all gonna do about it? ... No, the IP # work-around won't last long, that's just a minor technical point: masking off any specific address requires only a large bitmap at most, though presumably would slow down servers; besides that, they'll soon just physically raid the premises, as most of these measures are for *domestic* use. -- Anyway, they've *crossed* the Rubicon of tyranny so many times that they've built a bridge.

So that's why I say we're doomed. This being Thursday, I lean toward chuckling over it, cause over the last couple of decades y'all wouldn't even look up from your empty entertainments to notice you're being caged in, step by step, not longer than to mutter "conspiracy theorist"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re: SO, Mike, how will COICA and ACTA affect your "free" economy?
  The IP workaround? It's not a workaround. It's how the Internet works! No, it will not be a simple job of "masking" off specific addresses. They would have to control all routes and they don't. That's the whole point of the Internet and its design. It was meant to function, even if a large swath got nuked.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
LW1, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:31pm

COICA is not Censoring the internet
"COICA targets websites �primarily designed� as pirating sites which are �dedicated to infringing activities,� with �no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use� besides distributing pirated or counterfeited files."

I think that concept of the law does not hurt free speech, the right to give away one's intellectual property, or true one on one sharing. - it should just prevent a massive downloading of your art without your permission. read about it here:
http://tinyurl.com/2a93hoc

No doubt the language should be specific to not allow Censorship of anything other than the description I copied above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free Capitalist (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
  The provision in question calls for a partnership between industry representatives and the blessed DOJ. In other words: a big corporation points out a target, and the DOJ "kills" it. There is no provision for due process before the "kill", it must be disputed in appeals/motion to quash once the block (censor) goes into place.
  
  Tell me, how long do you think the ideal of supporting creators and promoting innovation last if this bill passes?
  
  The ideal will not even be attempted.
  
  This bill needs to go down in flames if they refuse to cut the crap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Terry Hart (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:12pm
    
    Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
    There is due process. The AG has to serve notice to the person who registered the site and serve notice by publication when it initiates the in rem proceeding. Then, it has to go through court, where anyone with an interest in the domain name can make an appearance. The bill also provides for an administrative appeal procedure.
    
    Only after a judicial determination can the domain name be seized or an injunction be issued.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
      There is due process. The AG has to serve notice to the person who registered the site and serve notice by publication when it initiates the in rem proceeding. Then, it has to go through court, where anyone with an interest in the domain name can make an appearance. The bill also provides for an administrative appeal procedure.
      
      There is due process *for some* parts of the bill, not for all. Furthermore, even the process you describe above almost certainly violates the First Amendment and the concept of "prior restraint" in that it takes down an entire website, rather than narrowly targeting specifically infringing works.
      
      Only after a judicial determination can the domain name be seized or an injunction be issued.
      
      Determination, not trial. I know you know that, but it's not clear from the way you stated it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 4:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        "There is due process *for some* parts of the bill, not for all."
        
        I have not seen this raised before as an objection to the bill. Can you elaborate so I can better understand your point?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 5:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        He can't elaborate because what he's saying is bullshit. There's no "prior restraint" happening there. Even that Law Prof doc couldn't explain it. The sites are already violating the law. No prior restraint is occurring. If a grocery store sells weed, they don't get to stay open simply because everything else they sell is legal. I'd love to see your local grocer try to scream "prior resraint!" when he was shut down. LOL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        xenomancer (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        "The sites are already violating the law."
        
        WRONG - So far only the sites' users are being accused of violating the law, and often with useless evidence of any wrongdoing at that. This bill is using a Tsar Bomba nuke to kill a fly in the middle of Tokyo: everyone who could be there before, now can not. The intent of lawfully assigned liability is to assign said liability to the proper party before considering claims against said liable party. Taken to farcical extremes [ie. COICA included], this line of reasoning is sufficient for a me to be able to sue the US government for someone humming a tune to which I "own" the copyright; or better yet, to sue the RIAA. The simple fact of the matter is that this law allows for blatant censorship via failure to produce evidence for any actual unlawful activity otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        LOL
        
        You're losing it. Sorry, but yes, they're already violating the law. Go read up on copyright and IP.
        
        BTW, none of what Mike is trying to do is going to work. A book store in 1986 already tried Masnick's tact, and the Supreme Court laughed at them:
        
        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=478&in vol=697
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 10:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        BTW, none of what Mike is trying to do is going to work. A book store in 1986 already tried Masnick's tact, and the Supreme Court laughed at them:
        
        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=478&in vol=697
        
        I already responded to this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here, since it's so laughably wrong:
        
        'm glad you pointed out the Arcara v. Cloud Books case, because it actually demonstrates why you are wrong. In that case, the bookstore was shut down for prostitution -- which had nothing to do with expression at all. As is noted:
        
        The closure statute is directed at unlawful conduct having nothing to do with books or other expressive activity.
        
        Copyright law, on the other hand, *is* about expressive activity, which is why the First Amendment applies, and any effort to take down speech must be narrowly tailored to take down the infringing speech only.
        
        And, of course, we have cases that are much closer to the situation here. The CDT v. Pappert case involved a law that required ISPs to block URLs named by the state (sound familiar...) and was rejected as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech due to prior restraint.
        
        More importantly, the Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota is again quite similar. It was about a law that tried to shut down "scandalous" or "malicious" newspapers (sort of like "dedicated to infringement," right?) But it was struck down as a violation of the First Amendment.
        
        Of course, I pointed these cases (and a few more) out to you in the past. Funny that you would ignore them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        I did respond to them, Mike. They're still there (hopefully).
        
        Neither of your examples works with regard to COICA.
        
        And the Arcara case is exactly what will be used. Infringement isn't "expression".
        
        You're trying exactly what they did: cloak yourself with the 1st Amendment to excuse illegal behavior.
        
        And it won't work. Sorry. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        And the Arcara case is exactly what will be used. Infringement isn't "expression".
        
        Again, you are falsely focused on the infringement. I'm talking about the non-infringing content. Why do you ignore that?
        
        Anyway, we shall see which the courts actually rely on, won't we?
        
        How about this: if it turns out we are right, you will (a) reveal who you are and (b) publicly admit that you were wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Paul Jones, 19 Nov 2010 @ 1:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Are you resorting to 'kill the messenger', Mike? No surprise.
        
        Since I won't expect people to go look up previous responses, I'll address them again here.
        
        CDT v Pappert required ISPs to filter child porn websites. It failed for two reasons:
        
        1. It was a lawsuit brought on by the state of Pennsylvania; since the filter might have an effect on other states that the ISPs served, the lawsuit failed due to interstate commerce laws.
        
        2. Because of the random nature of the filtering used by the ISPs, they claimed that both legal and illegal sites might be affected. Legitimate websites were blocked.
        
        The PA AG's case was a clumsy one, and deserved to fail.
        
        COICA, with due process, looks to block the DNS names used by sites that are "dedicated to infringing" practices.
        
        The second case Masnick cites, Near v Minnesota is a classic example of prior restraint. I suspect that's why he uses it, but the problem is that there aren't any parallels with it and any of the current situations discussed here on Techdirt. Especially the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court based their decision in Near v Minnesota on the 14th Amendment, and how freedom of the press was being impugned. Rightfully so. Besides, libel laws are already in place to take care of such matters should someone care to dispute something written in scenarios like the above.
        
        But there was no illegal activity already occurring in the above case, and obviously, there is no freedom of the press issue involved with intellectual property theft. Fear-mongers like to bring up wikileaks, however that site is protected by the above ruling, just as the Pentagon Papers were in 1971.
        
        As the internet has evolved, it has become quite clear that it is about more than the exchange of information and opinions. Goods, both tangible and intangible, are now bought and sold. Legally and illegally.
        
        The closest case to what you all are discussing is Arcara v. Cloud Books.
        
        The Supreme Court, with my adds:
        
        "The First Amendment does not bar enforcement of the closure statute against respondents' bookstore (website). United States v. O'Brien, supra, has no relevance to a statute directed at imposing sanctions on nonexpressive activity (infringement), and the sexual activities (infringement) carried on in this case manifest absolutely no element of protected expression. The closure statute is directed at unlawful conduct having nothing to do with books (non-infringing files) or other expressive activity. Bookselling (legal files) on premises used for prostitution (infringement) does not confer First Amendment coverage to defeat a statute aimed at penalizing and terminating illegal uses of premises."
        
        An entity can not engage in illegal activity and expect to excuse themselves for such behavior because they also engage in legal activity and free expression.
        
        I suggest you all get familiar with this case.
        
        http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/697/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 2:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        I don't know why I bother, but I'll just note that JPJ carefully misinterprets the Pappert case (gee... wonder why...).
        
        He points out that it was rejected for two reasons, but does not note that the second reason was due to First Amendment violations. He's right that it's for blocking legitimate content, but does not seem to recognize (even though we've already pointed it out) that this is exactly what we're concerned about here. The issue is not about blocking infringing content, for which laws already exist, but how COICA does not just target infringing content, but entire sites that have much more than just infringing content.
        
        That's why Pappert is absolutely relevant, despite JPJ's confusion about it.
        
        As for the Near case, there are actually quite a lot of parallels to COICA, despite JPJ's confusion. It involved a state law blocking newspapers deemed "malicious." Basically the same thing as being deemed "dedicated to infringing," rather than focusing on the actual infringing content.
        
        As for Acara, I've already pointed out why JPJ is (again) wrong. Note that he ignores what's actually in the quote there, in which the court specifically says Acara only applies to *NON-EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY*. Yet, in the case of websites -- which are recognized as speech -- it is, quite clearly expressive activity. JPJs willful ignorance on this is pretty funny if it weren't so sad.
        
        An entity can not engage in illegal activity and expect to excuse themselves for such behavior because they also engage in legal activity and free expression.
        
        Again, no one has argued otherwise, which is what makes JPJ's complaining so funny. No one is saying that these sites are not liable for any infringement they actually do (the problem, of course, being that most of them don't actually do any infringing). The problem is how this law blocks the non-infringing stuff.
        
        In the meantime, funny (and amazingly TELLING) that you refuse to even respond to the offer I made. Apparently JPJ knows his side on this is weak. I'll ask again, though, just for kicks: will you reveal who you are and admit you were wrong (and, apologize for bogus attacks on me) if the court agrees with me?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Paul Jones, 19 Nov 2010 @ 3:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Mike, why do you want to play kill the messenger? Is it because the flaws in your agenda are now so apparent?
        
        Funny, you pretend to be such an advocate for individual rights, especially on the internet, yet all of the sudden you're obsessed with who I am...
        
        You know you're diving headfirst into the trap I've set for you, don't you? Exposing you for the hypocrite that you so genuinely are?
        
        Tsk, tsk, Mike.
        
        Anyway, while I'm sure anyone can see the holes in your lame rebuttal, I'll just go ahead and point them out for those that need some guidance. :)
        
        Regarding Pappert- indeed I purposely pointed out the blocking of sites; it's fait accompli that there would be a 1st amendment issue there. I respected the intelligence of your readers when I wrote that. Too bad you didn't.
        
        And with regard to sites "that have much more than just infringing content", did you not understand what I wrote about Arcara v. Cloud Books?
        
        a state law blocking newspapers deemed "malicious." Basically the same thing as being deemed "dedicated to infringing,"
        
        hmm, except it's not the same thing, Mike. First of all, once again, Near v MN was a freedom of the press decision. Music piracy isn't. : )
        
        Being deemed malicious is an opinion or accusation open to interpretation, for which there are libel laws.
        COICA addresses sites which are already clearly illegally infringing. It's right out there in the open at this very moment. Go look some up. The evidence is conveniently already displayed for us. You already know this. And so does everyone else. You're not fooling anyone with this approach.
        
        You keep referring to websites as being speech. As I noted, the internet has matured and websites are no longer just speech. Let me know what speech I am supposed to derive from the Bed, Bath and Beyond website.
        
        I'm not quite sure if you're being pedantic when you try to equate infringement with expression. At this point all I can do is reiterate that infringement isn't expression. You really should stop trying to link the two. For real. It's not working.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 5:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        "Being deemed malicious is an opinion or accusation open to interpretation, for which there are libel laws.
        COICA addresses sites which are already clearly illegally infringing. It's right out there in the open at this very moment. Go look some up. The evidence is conveniently already displayed for us. You already know this. And so does everyone else. You're not fooling anyone with this approach."
        
        And there you're wrong... by whose estimation are those sites "clearly illegally infringing"? The main problem that Mike has been pointing out is that this law will allow the 'powers that be' to shut down whole websites without the due process of accusation and defense. All a 'wronged party' has to do is point the DOJ at the offending website and it's shut down in its entirety.
        
        To show why this is bad, look at a political site... one that says something the political majority doesn't like. All they have to do is abuse the COICA (just like many entities do with DMCA) and accuse that site of infringement. It's removed from the internet. And while this site is jumping through the hoops and cutting the red tape to get their legal and legitimate contact back online, their opponents have successfully (and illegally) silenced them. But since there's a law in place that allows this process, it's cloaked in the sheep's clothing of law.
        
        And here's another problem... you tried a grocery store selling illegal substances as a parallel to a website who is hosting content. And that analogy is flawed in one major point... a grocery store selling goods is not expression. A website's legitimate content IS. So by removing a website in whole is blocking the free expression of that legitimate content.
        
        You make a lot of noise to debunk what Mike is trying to say, but you don't seem to listen to what he's saying the first place. You take side points and misquotes and ignore the main point just to sound right... as though you being right automatically makes Mike wrong. There's a logical fallacy for that, but I'm too lazy at the moment to Google it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Paul Jones, 19 Nov 2010 @ 1:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        In the eyes of the law there is no difference between a brick and mortar store and an online web store. I don't know who misinformed you about that - I'll assume Masnick, but they were wrong. Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 2:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        In the eyes of the law there is no difference between a brick and mortar store and an online web store. I don't know who misinformed you about that - I'll assume Masnick, but they were wrong. Sorry.
        
        As per usual JPJ is pretty good at demonstrating ignorance of the law.
        
        The law is actually pretty clear on this subject: if you are a *platform* provider (as many of the sites targeted by COICA are) the situation is *VERY* different than if you were a store proprietor. JPJ is either totally misinformed or just lying. I'm not sure which is worse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 2:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Maybe not, but there is a difference between physical goods and intellectual property... which was my point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        I'm adding JPJ to my anti-darryl script if anyone wants it. :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse, 19 Nov 2010 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        It would only be 'killing the messenger' if he were right. Why do you ignore this very salient point?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 10:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        "Sites", per se, do not violate the law. People do. One of the underlying purposes, among many, of an In Rem action is to remove the "tools" (here, the "sites") used by wrongdoers to carry out their illegal activities.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Read the part of the bill regarding Immunity for those voluntarily cutting off services to bad sites (search for the phrase VOLUNTARY ACTIONS) - and then imagine all the ways that government and media industries could 'encourage' providers to volunteer to take down sites they don't like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Terry Hart (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        There is due process *for some* parts of the bill, not for all.
        
        What parts are lacking due process?
        
        Furthermore, even the process you describe above almost certainly violates the First Amendment and the concept of "prior restraint" in that it takes down an entire website, rather than narrowly targeting specifically infringing works.
        
        You may want to look up the meaning of "prior." A "prior restraint" stops speech before it is made. And copyright infringement is not protected by the First Amendment. This bill is limited to domains where the entire site is dedicated to infringement.
        
        Determination, not trial. I know you know that, but it's not clear from the way you stated it.
        
        A determination as a result of a trial.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 9:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Perhaps it would help to beat the drum that an In Rem action is a full-fledged lawsuit that may proceed to a trial on the merits, with the only substantive difference between it and the more conventional lawsuits being the named defendant.
        
        By the tenor of the article and most comments, it seems most here labor under the impression that an In Rem action is more akin to Traffic Court where the word of the police officer is almost universally accepted as the "Gospel Truth".
        
        It also seems that most here have very little, if any, appreciation of the extent to which judges insist upon exercising independent judgment and authority, as by law they are required to do. It is disheartening to read comment after comment that fundamentally misapprehend the role of the judiciary.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        The thing is, even if the due process in the law is perfect, there is NO REASON for COICA to exist! Copyright infringement is already illegal. The DMCA already provides means to rapidly take down infringing material (with its own due process problems). Why should the AG have the responsibility of carrying out civil copyright infringement proceedings, when those are more appropriately handled by the copyright holders? Why should taxpayer money be spent to help the "content industries" police their copyrights? What benefit does the public receive in turn?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 10:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        What parts are lacking due process?
        
        In the initial bill there was a plan for a list to put together a "recommended" list.
        
        In the current bill ISPs and other service providers are encouraged to block sites without judicial review.
        
        You may want to look up the meaning of "prior." A "prior restraint" stops speech before it is made. And copyright infringement is not protected by the First Amendment. This bill is limited to domains where the entire site is dedicated to infringement.
        
        You may want to look up the case law on prior restraint. And this is absolutely a situation of prior restraint. The issue is not the past content, but the future content that is blocked due to the takedown. By your ridiculous argument above, Near v. Minnesota would have gone the other way because it was all about newspapers that were already published, rather than those that weren't yet published.
        
        Separately, surely you're aware of the Bantam Books ruling, which found prior restraint in already published works.
        
        And, yes, infringement is not protected by the First Amendment (though, there's some debate there -- you should be fair on that). But we're not talking about infringement. Don't play semantic games. The point is that many of these sites do not have infringing content directly on them, but merely links and discussion forums, some of which may be infringing, much of which may not be. That's the concern. When you are taking down non-infringing speech.
        
        There are existing laws to deal with infringing speech.
        
        A determination as a result of a trial.
        
        Um. No. The content is taken down *PRIOR* to an adversarial trial. You know that. It does not require the owner of the website be informed of the action or give them a meaningful chance to be notified of the hearing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2010 @ 6:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        I'm curious Mike Masnick; what websites that aren't dedicated to infringing do you believe would be blocked?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2010 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        When the initial bill was presented, Orrin Hatch expressed his support for the bill and listed the Chinese search engine, Baidu, as a site that was on his blacklist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Terry Hart (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 8:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Um. No. The content is taken down *PRIOR* to an adversarial trial. You know that. It does not require the owner of the website be informed of the action or give them a meaningful chance to be notified of the hearing.
        
        Huh? There certainly are notice provisions in the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804&version=is&nid=t0:is:29
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Huh? There certainly are notice provisions in the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804&version=is&nid=t0:is:29
        
        Notic e provisions to the registrant. Not the owner/operator. The two are often not the same.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Adrian Lopez, 18 Nov 2010 @ 5:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
      "The AG has to serve notice to the person who registered the site and serve notice by publication when it initiates the in rem proceeding. Then, it has to go through court, where anyone with an interest in the domain name can make an appearance. The bill also provides for an administrative appeal procedure."
      
      All this due process and not a single trial.
      
      You'd think before taking down an entire website for copyright infringement the state would first have to prove that the website's owners are in fact guilty of copyright infringement, but not under COICA. Under COICA, if the US Attorney General thinks it's infringement and can find the support of a judge, the website is taken down exactly as if it were infringing. Even with the opportunity for an administrative appeal, whatever due process is granted doesn't make up for the lack of a trial.
      
      Indeed, what you call due process is a joke compared to what it ought to be like. If a website is truly infringing the government should have no problem proving it in court so it can then have the website taken down. Too bad you COICA supporters have your heads stuck so far up your asses that you're unable to see that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 7:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Too bad you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
        
        Are you aware of the duties the AG is charged with?
        
        Do you know what a judge is? Or what due process is?
        
        They could send every instance to the Supreme Court and you would still bitch about it.
        
        It's hilarious how you people actually think you're fooling anybody with all this "censorship" BS.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse, 19 Nov 2010 @ 9:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Judge =/= Court. A court requires at least three bodies present, one of which is the adjudicator (Judge). The others, of course, being the Plaintiff and the Defendant. When a motion is taken to a judge, and no one is there to speak on behalf of the defendant, then it isn't a court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Adrian Lopez, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Why do you object to having a trial before a website can be shut down for copyright infringement?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Thing is, this process is a lawsuit between a plaintiff and a defendant that like any other lawsuit can proceed to trial if there are issues of fact that cannot be resolved otherwise.
        
        Hate to break the news, but most lawsuits never make it to trial. They are either settled beforehand, or they are decided during the pre-trial phase, based upon either the pleadings or what turns up during discovery. This is why we have things like "judgment on the pleadings" and "summary judgment".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Thing is, this process is a lawsuit between a plaintiff and a defendant that like any other lawsuit can proceed to trial if there are issues of fact that cannot be resolved otherwise.
        
        Hate to break the news, but most lawsuits never make it to trial. They are either settled beforehand, or they are decided during the pre-trial phase, based upon either the pleadings or what turns up during discovery. This is why we have things like "judgment on the pleadings" and "summary judgment".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
        Not sure why the double post. Only hit submit one time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
  "COICA targets websites �primarily designed� as pirating sites which are �dedicated to infringing activities,� with �no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use� besides distributing pirated or counterfeited files."
  
  Of course, it should be noted that the MPAA argued that the VCR, YouTube and many other similar technologies in the past were "primarily designed" for pirating, "dedicated to infringing activities" and had "no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use besides distributing pirated or counterfeited files."
  
  The music industry said the same thing about radio and MP3 players.
  
  I think that concept of the law does not hurt free speech, the right to give away one's intellectual property, or true one on one sharing. - it should just prevent a massive downloading of your art without your permission.
  
  And by that argument there would be no VCRs, photocopiers, radio, MP3 players or DVRs -- all of which were declared "pirate tools" by various industries.
  
  read about it here:
  
  The link you sent is to a letter generation engine set up by Universal Music -- a company that clearly would stand to benefit from less competition in terms of alternative distribution.
  
  I find it quite telling that the form that Universal set up DOES NOT ALLOW those who use it to edit the message at all.
  
  No doubt the language should be specific to not allow Censorship of anything other than the description I copied above.
  
  But the language is not that specific. It takes down *entire web sites* rather than specific infringing content (for which we already have laws that allow takedowns).
  
  That's the big problem here. The law targets entire websites, most of which don't actually have *any* infringing content at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 6:16pm
    
    Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
    "The law targets entire websites, most of which don't actually have *any* infringing content at all."
    
    ah, more disingenuous BS from Mike Masnick.
    
    Sites "dedicated to infringing activities".
    
    IOW, not just servers with content, but those that exist to skirt the law and direct and enable people to break the law.
    
    And you support that Mike. What an upstanding person you are.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Modplan (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 8:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
      So we already have laws that make certain activities illegal and have processes to deal with them, which already includes the ability to take down or attempt to block a site if ICE's work is any indication. What we really need to deal with these threats though is more laws for an already illegal activity that allows arbitrary determination of infringing activities that's even more open to abuse and where similar laws have already been struck down as unconstitutional in the past.
      
      That's what you're saying?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Almost Anonymous (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
      Because he knows, just like YOU know even though you refuse to admit it, that this law will be abused immediately upon going into effect. Note the word "will", not might, not could, not may. If this law passes, it absolutely WILL be abused to limit free speech.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:42pm

hmm..
another example of government trying to sensor and control citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:56pm

And they want money?

LoL

Are there ways to evade taxes legally?

The entertainment industry I know will never see a penny from me ever again, now I just need to figure it out how to live without the federal government us much as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:14pm

You Motherfuckers!
Well I'm writing Dianne Feinstein a letter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:19pm

The Real Sponsor Of This Bill
SAIC via http://www.cloudshield.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyle Simpson, 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:40pm

shame
How long until the government tries to use the law to take down anti-TSA sites. Think I'm crazy? What about saying the sites are illegally linking to images of TSA equipment and staff? Not as far fetched as you might thing.

We need to stop censorship like this bill as it's anti-American. We also need to stop TSAbuse as it's also anti-American. The government is really batting 1000 these days. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2010 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: shame
  How is all that hopey changey working out for you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Bailey, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:06pm

Good thing is some of them have already been voted out of office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uuuhhh....what?, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:11pm

California
WTF Dianne!? I can see that kind of idiotic thinking from the senators from some of those other states; but from California?!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RadialSkid (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:33pm
  
  Re: California
  What? You mean you're surprised the state that's basically the home of the entertainment industry would be for it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wallow-T, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:51pm
  
  Re: California
  The behavior of California representatives and Senators is called "Constituent Service," as most of the entertainment industry is headquartered in California. Don't expect any enlightened attitudes on copyright from California legislators.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PookieBadMuffin, 20 Nov 2010 @ 6:57am
  
  Re: California
  Seriously! In California, we're enlightened enough to ban toys in Happy Meals - to say nothing of the fact we can spend money we don't have better than any of the other 49!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheila Humphrey, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:14pm

19 Senators
So how many more senaturds are going to jump in on this one?Precisely why I DON'T VOTE,never have, never will, and if I had a politician in my family, I'd disown them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JefPrice, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:26pm

Liberals at work.
These guys have been pushing for more Government control for a long time, with the internet being so cast and powerful it was only a matter of time before policing the internet became censoring it. I'm not surprised that ever name I recognized is that of a hard lined left winger.

Does it really surprise ANYONE that guys like Spector and Franklin who think that we're to dumb to even take care of ourselves, think that we need to have a babysitter for our internet ramblings as well? These are the guys who think that we need to all let them tell us what to do, how to live, and what is right for us, because we can't decide for ourselves. Not to mention that this gives them more power over the information at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jefprice, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:29pm
  
  Re: Liberals at work.
  (re: last line first paragraph) Or one of those wonderful "I'm a conservative" so they can get elected types.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2010 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: Liberals at work.
  Who is Senator Franklin?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peterk, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:58pm

How come party affiliation
isn't displayed? don't want to embarrassment leading Democrats like Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein and Franken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DF, 19 Nov 2010 @ 10:44am
  
  Re: How come party affiliation
  Here ya go & divided up by party affiliation
  
  �Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont (D)
  �Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin (D)
  �Dianne Feinstein -- California (D)
  �Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin (D)
  �Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania (D)
  �Chuck Schumer -- New York (D)
  �Dick Durbin -- Illinois (D)
  �Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland (D)
  �Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island (D)
  �Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota (D)
  �Al Franken -- Minnesota (D)
  �Chris Coons -- Delaware (D)
  
  �Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma (R)
  �John Cornyn -- Texas (R)
  �Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina (R)
  �Jon Kyl -- Arizona (R)
  �Chuck Grassley -- Iowa (R)
  �Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah (R)
  �Jeff Sessions -- Alabama (R)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 4:35pm

LOL sounds like America's going to be like North Korea very soon ;) Trying to censor the internet is impossible...sorry but it just is...how do they expect to authenticate EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE in the world..there are billions, literally billions, gl with that american senate :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jared W., 18 Nov 2010 @ 4:43pm

Vote this down. I voted it down on MyGov365 and you should too.
http://www.mygov365.com/legislation/view/id/42005
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nasch (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 5:08pm

Parties
Since it was asked for, members with party affiliations:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

Jefprice, you don't recognize any of the Republicans on that list? Or you consider them hardline left-wingers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 6:23pm

Ima twit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Paul Jones, 18 Nov 2010 @ 6:57pm
  
  Re:
  nah. As of today, I'm a winner. And you're the loser.
  
  Obviously.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - amirite?, 18 Nov 2010 @ 7:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Vular language adds so much to a rational discussion, it should always be used.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Black Sheep, 18 Nov 2010 @ 6:57pm

Interesting how none of the Senators speaking out against the TSA voted to censor the internet. Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
J. Gray (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 7:38pm

As I wrote to Sherod and Voinovich with the government taking away so many rights that were given to us by the constitution we are quickly becoming a modified dictatorship. The very type of governments our government condems because of how they rule their citizens. Didn't our government just raise major issues with China because of their censorship of the internet?

It's not the artists who have an issue with these sites, it's the industry that labels them. It's easy to go online and find artists who are balking at the greedy recording industry because they readily make their music available to download. Even they are rebelling against the greedy music executives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brooke Allen, 18 Nov 2010 @ 11:19pm

Surprising names
I'm surprised to see John Kyl on the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2010 @ 12:16am

For all of you who had an illusion that Al Franken was a standup un-bribable politician, here's a list of his campaign contributors. Thanks for letting me shatter your fragile dreams.
http://www.newsmeat.com/campaign_contributions_to_politicians/donor_list.php?candidate_id=S 8MN00438
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Deriso, 19 Nov 2010 @ 1:02am

Senator Feinstein responded to my letter about COICA.

I posted the letter here:

http://bit.ly/aloQ8c

What do you think about her letter?

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 7:28am
  
  Re:
  You got more hits than you expected, that's what I think of it. :-) Maybe put it on Scribd or something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 19 Nov 2010 @ 5:39am

So ... war on pirates then huh?

Add that one to the long list of wars that will never be won and are simply a big waste of resources. I'm sure some fat cats will get rich off it, as always. At what point do we invade in order to impose our "rights" upon other sovereign nations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2010 @ 7:35am

SHAME on Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Who is his puppeteer? No surprise from the infamous Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He is a traitor of the highest order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RT Cunningham (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 7:51am

How about a huge belly laugh?
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid the leftists hanging out around here are, or in the world for that matter. Every retarded bill that's passed in the US filters out to the developing countries (like where I live) because of the strings attached to things like "financial aid".

As your constitutional rights get voted out of existence, don't say you weren't warned by sites like this. I do not care what you think about infringement cases against the moneychangers and the gatekeepers. The only infringement I care about are the infringements against the Bill of Rights. And who is protecting them? It certainly isn't the US government at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheJimmyZShow, 19 Nov 2010 @ 8:07am

Internet censorship
"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."

So - what's wrong with this again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boris, 19 Nov 2010 @ 8:07am

sickening
reading the comments here... when will you stand up and say you've had enough of the current washington game?? as long as you guys joke about politics instead of actually doing something or saying something to change it instead of accepting and joking about it, it will never change. Dems AND Repubs got us in the mess we're in... by extension, if you supported them, you did too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AMusingFool (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 9:35am

very disappointed in Franken
Big black spot on his generally-quite-good record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RAY WATSON, 19 Nov 2010 @ 9:56am

ANY RINO'S ON THIS LIST SHOULD BE REPLACED THE NEXT TIME THEY ARE UP FOR RE-ELECTION.

THEY SHOULD BE CHALLENGED IN THE PRIMARY ELECTIONS, AND IF THEY SURVIVE THE PRIMARY, THEY SHOULD LOSE THE GENERAL ELECTION.

WE NEED TO ELECT ONLY ONLY ONLY CONSERVATIVES TO OFFICE !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 11:37am
  
  Re:
  WE NEED TO ELECT ONLY ONLY ONLY CONSERVATIVES TO OFFICE !
  
  Because they're all about protecting free speech?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wade, 19 Nov 2010 @ 10:15am

Banning the Internet
Why on earth would they want to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glen Bradley, 19 Nov 2010 @ 10:35am

All the ususal suspects
No surprise here, really. If you have been following these guys over the last 5 years or so, these are about the top 19 anti-liberty members of the Senate as demonstrated by their history and voting records. Frankly not one single name on this list is a surprise to me. Hopefully everyone on this list gets sent home in their next election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Odradek, 19 Nov 2010 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re: All the ususal suspects
  You're calling Feingold one of the 19 top anti-liberty members of the senate? This is a bad thing he just did, but...what bizarro senate represents you that has 81 more vocal proponents of civil liberties than him?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harry2248, 19 Nov 2010 @ 11:02am

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Smith, 19 Nov 2010 @ 12:11pm

VPN, IPSec, P2P encryption, Neighbor's pipes...
Okay now if "SOME" sites went blocked everybody would have to pay for the OEM CDs for the computer they already bought, just got shorted by the computer MGR! (Just because they didn't have a CD to burn one "BEFORE" they got infected!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thamios, 19 Nov 2010 @ 12:28pm

*sees Amy Klobuchar in list*

FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Knew there was a reason I hated that woman. Heck, all politicians from Minnesota (yes, I'm in MN) can't do their jobs and realize what the people want (as of right now, we just want a bloody governor!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patriot, 19 Nov 2010 @ 1:05pm

Whether something is unconstitutional is less compelling to the current Supreme Court than whether wealthy special interests favor it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Delores, 19 Nov 2010 @ 1:45pm

What the heck is Cornyn doing up there? Bun of a stitch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mary, 19 Nov 2010 @ 1:58pm

First Amendment
Well now that they have flushed another Amendment Perhaps We the People will be able to hear what goes on in their Back Room Dealings..
" YA THINK!?."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
coolbeans, 19 Nov 2010 @ 2:42pm

Re:
everyone notice that i believe every single person except the ones who didn't run this election has been FIRED from their jobs. damn nazis. this is exactly one of the reasons why. democrats don't want your freedom because you can't have control and freebies at the same time. figure it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ceric Lasentri, 19 Nov 2010 @ 4:45pm

Internet Censor Bill.
Let me explain the game of chess. This way you will understand the out come of this bill. IN the game of chess, in the order to beat your opponent you have to be able to think 5 - 7 moves ahead. With several contingency plans. So with that being said, and the idea of the new internet censorship bill "which could be passed" which will fail in the eyes of the supreme court. This will be a key to the door that will open up a slough loop holes for the government to abuse. First comes the restriction of information flow, thus properly relaying concerns and topics between one another and than the restriction and banning of information or software that is crucial to our society. Thus restricting us from being active voters, contributors, open source developers and the list goes on endlessly. So when I make a profound statement that the greedy corporate money dogs slipping the green back to our spongepocket senators to push their ideas of market on can kiss my ass. I literally mean, good luck trying to pass this bill. Because it is a clear cut violation of the 1st amendment. Guess what, Violating that will only end up with you (Mr Greedy Spongepocket Corporate Rubberneck) holding the slit moneybag. (I admit this is pretty general and doesnt target anyone, other than referring to the many companies out there who are out to protect every penny they can, even though they will lose more in the end. But what can one do, with out having an actual senator in front of you to punch in the nose for being an idiot)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BeachN, 19 Nov 2010 @ 5:10pm

Morals
Could this be in any way shape of form an attempt to try to relocate MORALS in this Country again?? We are living in the pits of hell where sex has become a sport of sorts .... I can do without having photos of bestiality and whatever floating around the net...There are some boundaries in life that one should possess in order to have character and be considered a level above animalistic behavior..What is acceptable in society these days is unreal...and I am no old prude...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eugene Hernandez, 19 Nov 2010 @ 6:18pm

censorship
what a bunch of assholes, some where supposed to be liberals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 19 Nov 2010 @ 7:23pm

Of course
If they were indeed trying to relocate the morals of this country, this might not be so bad; but they aren't. This is about censoring things that they or their contributers don't want floating around. It's an abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Susan Carole Negron, 19 Nov 2010 @ 8:06pm

They should be ashamed. Chuck Schumer is on the list. His views are moving farther to the right. Almost sorry I voted for him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benjamin Burkhardt, 19 Nov 2010 @ 9:21pm

Really! It's really our leaders working together on something for a change...
A bipartisan bunch of Freedom Stompers! Isn't it sad that the only thing we can get out of two parties is Statism? VOTE LIBERTARIAN IN 2012. And if you're a registered Republican, vote for Gary Johnson in the primary, them vote for the libertarian nominee if he doesn't win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luis Atehortua Jr., 19 Nov 2010 @ 9:51pm

I no longer trust any legislator, neither federal nor state!
It is a shame that 19 US Senators want to deprive us of our freedom of speech!
My goal for 2011 is for me to become politically neutral!

Hopefully by going neutral and NOT voting for anybody running for public office will change my luck for good!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2010 @ 10:44pm

We fired the BUMS on 11/2/10 and 2012 we will get the rest out of OUR HOUSE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pam, 19 Nov 2010 @ 11:48pm

An alabama senator? I thought the heart of dixie had more pride than that. For shame, you're sopposed to be a rebels senator. Grow some grits for your southern friends sake!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 5:19am

STUPID STUPID the republicans keep saying less government control but what is this more government control. I think it is time to fire everyone in congress and start over with people that actually understand what being poor or what it is like to have the government run our very lives. Today I announce my candidacy for President of the United States even if I can't spell everything just right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PookieBadMuffin, 20 Nov 2010 @ 6:52am
  
  Re:
  Do you know anything about your government?! Of the 19 Senators, 12 were Democrats. Their votes almost outnumbered Republicans 2 to 1.
  
  >>>I think it is time to fire everyone in congress and start over with people that actually understand what being poor or what it is like to have the government run our very lives.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PookieBadMuffin, 20 Nov 2010 @ 6:48am

12 Democrats to 7 Republicans (including Graham: RINO) - that's telling. At least the party of encroachment will have fewer seats next term...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re:
  Did you miss the part where it was a unanimous vote?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lynn Dee, 20 Nov 2010 @ 8:31am

Is there more to the story? What does "censoring the internet" even mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erik, 20 Nov 2010 @ 8:45am

Americans like conspiracy theories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 8:52am

What a terribly written article. Shame on you for publishing it. I'm against COICA, too, but this article does nothing to explain what it is or why it was proposed. Simply listing the names of Congresspersons who voted for it without context is nothing but rabble-rousing. Such poorly written articles give conservatives the ammunition they need to completely denigrate The Huff Post. Mr. Masnik has done a better job of making The Huff Post look bad than closed-minded conservatives do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clarkster, 20 Nov 2010 @ 8:56am

IT IS TIME TO HUNT AND CUT HEADS OFF FRENCH STYLE
How much more outrage do the ignorant Americans take from the corrupt legislators, senate , Banksters, greedy elite circle of rich, I SAY DECLARE WAR AND CHOP THE FRICKEN HEADS OFF THESE DIRT BAGS , THEY ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICALS , WHO REPRESENT ANY VALUES , WHAT SO EVER, MAY THEY ALL ROT FROM A PLAGUE !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel, 20 Nov 2010 @ 9:14am

Unconsitutional Sillyness
It will never stick and why are you surprised about Feinstien? Have we forgotten the PMRC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clarkster, 20 Nov 2010 @ 9:29am

IS THIS WHOLE WORLD THIS STUPID,IGNORANT , UN EDUCATED
How much more is the out of work sector, the under employed, Americans, going to take:

1 illegals have a voice to and is destroying our rights ,not their rights, they are criminals working for legislators etc.

2 Regulations have stopped any and all business of manufacturing in Most states, hmmmm , HINT FUK ED UP CALIFORMEXICO, LAND OF FREE LOADERS OF TAX PAYER MONEY

3 Rigged voting on candidates who can never loose their stinking seats for the wills of them, not FOR our benifts !

4 Does anyone remember the BILL OF RIGHTS , CONSTITUTION, IF NOT READ THE DAMN THING AMERICANS !

5 YOU know it is time for declaring war on government , the question is not why but when they take your rights away to protect against the SCUM SOMEONE , NOT ME , ELECTED !

6 If the FREELOADERS KEEP THINKING ALL IS WELL, give me freebee's THINK AGAIN !

7 LAST RANT FROM ME ! WENT TO COLLEGE: DIPLOMACY :

DEFINITON : DIPLOMACY, to work out in a compromise , give on both sides, come to mutual agreement, both sides agree and balance issues, NOT LET DUMB AZZ GOVERNMENT , GREEDY , IGNORANT , OLD BASTARDS DEAL WITH CORPORATIONS TO MAKE MONEY ELSEWHERE AND KEEP ALL THE PROFITS, EXEMPTING TAXES OWED, TAKE OUR JOBS OVERSEA'S DUE TO EPA, AQMD, REGULATION , THE GOVERNMENT CREATED !

WAKE UP AMERICA, WAR IS COMING , I JUST HOPE TO HELL YOU KNOW WHO IS THE CORRUPT PROBLEMS, HELP EACH OTHER , THROUGHT CHURCH , GODLY NEIGHBOR FRIENDSHIP, WHATEVER, BUT WHEN THE DAY COMES , DON'T WAIT , GET THE ADDRESSES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS WHILE YOU CAN , AND EXTERMINATE THEM ALL !

DON'T WAIT, TEACHERS ARE TOO CORRUPT, GOV. TELLS THESE EDUCATED BABOONS WHAT TO TEACH YOU , IGNORANCE IS ONE OF THEIR HIGHLIGHTED PROGRAMS

GOD HELP US ALL, CAUSE THE RATS IN CONGRESS SUCK TO HIGH HELL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just lil old me., 20 Nov 2010 @ 9:31am

It just looks like another part of their New World Order plan to me..they control all the media to brainwash everybody with lies because they want us to be slaves to them.
Your amendments and constitution are falling apart and will cease to exsist when they join your country to Canada and Mexico and take down your borders,no more dollar either,they have a new currency planned the almero.Soon the armed forces will be knocking on your door to collect your firearms, when you hand in your guns its game over. Illuminate win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- clarkster, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:32am
  
  Re:
  ARM YOURSELF LADY : You wait and yes the game is over, you read up on HITLER, Osama obama , pelosi, reid , bacus, they are the grim reapers of NATZI ISM ALL OVER AGAIN !
  
  LIVE IN FEAR OR ARM AND FIGHT BACK WHEN THE TIME COMES!
  
  YOU THINK I AM KIDDING , GUNS AND AMMO IS YOUR ONLY DEFENSE, DIPLOMACY IS A JOKE , A WORD ,
  
  ANARCHY IS UNFORTUNATE, IT WILL COME AND HELL IS GONNA RUN IN THE STREETS, EUROPE HAS JUST STARTED !
  
  WAIT TILL YOU SEE THE TAX AGENDA THEY ARE GONNA SMACK ALL US WITH, VAT , CALL IT CONSUPTION TAX, WHATEVER, WE HAVE A UNSUSTAINABLE SYSTEM AND THE VIRUS IS BIG GOVERNMENT !
  
  YOU VOTED FOR CHANGE, SUCK IT UP AND EAT THE SHIT YOU ASKED FOR !
  
  REMEMBER: WHO THE LITTLE HITLER'S ARE NOW !
  
  THEY LIVE HERE IN AMERICA NOW AND UNTIL EXTERMINATED , COCKROACHES IN WASHINGTON !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andy, 20 Nov 2010 @ 9:42am

This is only a committee vote
This isn't exactly what it appears to be. Any vote out of a committee is just a vote that it should be sent to the entire Senate for debate. This is something that probably should be debated because I would like to hear why those that are for this bill are for it. Maybe I'm being short sighted but any bill that goes to the Senate should be thoroughly debated by the Senate. The Senators should go on record as what their positions are, and why they hold those positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danjo, 20 Nov 2010 @ 9:44am

There must be more to this bill if some of the most progressive Senators are voting for it. I would need more onformation before I could condemn all of these people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 9:58am

you are lying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
grumpychief (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:04am

This article is not entirely true.

Read this and you'll have a better idea what it's all about.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023238-38.html?tag=cnetRiver

Then will you understand why these guys are for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:14pm
  
  Re:
  Then will you understand why these guys are for it.
  
  Because of the "flurry of last-minute lobbying from representatives of content providers including the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)"? Or were you talking about something else?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mariah haveen, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:14am

censorship
Feinstein, and all....they are being paid off to do this. none are trustworthy, but we know that. Franken? why is he even there? Schumer? about par for that jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ewkeane, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:21am

19 senators, not one Hoosier
But our neighbor from Ill, Dick Dirtbag, is on the list.
He is a Georgetown boy, so no big suprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not some blind sheep, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:28am

It's about piracy, not censoring the internet u dolts
I can't believe you all are just blindly assuming this is about censoring free speech!

It's not free speech to aid online piracy, and that's what this bill is about.

Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- clarkster, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:44am
  
  Re: It's about piracy, not censoring the internet u dolts
  U R THE SHEEP U DUMB ASS !
  
  U VOTED FOR CHANGE, GO COMMUNISM, HITLER'S REICH , YOU BABLING FUK N FOOL, FREE SPEECH MEANS FREE SPEECH, YOU GIVE IN YOU TOO MUST ME A VIRUS NEEDING ERADICATED !
  
  WHAT COLLEGE DID YOU GO TO MIT, YALE , HARVARD, YEA YOU FUKED UP OUR SYSTEM AND HERE IS YOUR GO PAST GO, AND GET YOUR STAY OUT OF JAIL CARD, YOU MUST BE PART OF THE BIG PROBLEM ! WHAT A STUPID, ILLITERATE DICK HED YOU ARE!
  
  SENSOR, MEANS YOU CAN'T GET INFORMATION , AND THAT IS WHAT OUR FOR FATHERS FOUGHT FOR , DUH DUMB ASS READ HISTORY AND HOW GOVERNMENT TAXED AND LAWED US TOO DEATH!
  
  SENSOR, SENSOR YOUR IGNORANT SORRY ASS FOOL!
  
  SE
  
  FREE CARD
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue Merriner, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:53am

Internet Censoring
The politicians who voted for this don't care what the first amendment says. They are the liberal crowd that wants to destroy America and everything it is suppose to stand for. All they want to do is make it into some unbearable socialistic type society. They believe they have something to gain by it when they're really nothing more than useful idiots. Once "We the People" are out of the way these useful idiots will also be killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re: Internet Censoring
  They are the liberal crowd
  
  You know the 7 Republicans on the committee voted for it too, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Saying, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:55am

Wow, that is a seriously mixed bag of senators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roxanne Prokes, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:56am

Free Speech
These are a bunch of morons to begin with and just saying to their contributors "thanks guys for all your money...I'll try to help pass censorship on the internet but in reality I'm just blowing smoke up your @ss."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheRealThunderMonkey, 20 Nov 2010 @ 11:18am

ahem...
After reading the linked article... the Techdirt excerpt seems to be completely different.

This article is trying to paint a picture that copyrighted material on the net should not be protected. Thus, by adding a new layer of protection for those who actually put out a creative effort is somehow a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:24pm
  
  Re: ahem...
  I think you're reading it wrong. It's trying to point out that copyrighted material is already protected. Thus, adding a new layer of protection is at best unnecessary and wasteful and at worst unconstitutional censorship.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gary mcclendon, 20 Nov 2010 @ 11:24am

Censor
Aren't these the people that HID the illegal wiretapping program and ILLEGAL torture programs from Americans? They have proven they aren't the least bit prudish or squeamish. Keep it UNCENSORED. Its the only FREE SPEECH FORUM LEFT. The media turned into a PAY TO PLAY Industry where you simply BUY YOUR TRUTH. We had a potus get a blowjob in the WH, we had a potus walk on insider trading, war crimes, outing an undercover CIA agent and walk away scott free. We don't need anything to be censored anymore. Let each person censor himself. STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM/HOUSE NANNY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zardoc54, 20 Nov 2010 @ 11:42am

internet sensorship
Too bad TechDirt didn't publish the email addresses for all of the 19 Senators who voted to tamper with the internet. If I could tell American politicians anything it would be "hands off the internet!" Americans deserve to have something the government can't touch or regulate. It's our last bastion of freedom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re: internet sensorship
  You feel strongly enough to email them about it, but only if their addresses are placed right in front of you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 11:47am

Wow... who would've though the FIRST STATE (Delaware, for those idiots out there) would vote for this, clearly unabiding to the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple minds, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:09pm

Hmmm
I wonder how many of the 19 senators are dems?
Hmm usually u see an (R) or a (D) in front of their names..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cricket, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:13pm

Internet Censorship
It is not only a shame but it is scary how much big government has intruded into our lives in the last 10yrs. Make our voices heard at the polls when we vote. If that does not work then pray to God that he delivers us from the power that be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas T. Panto, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:48pm

OUTLAW LYING
Corporations are setting up FAKE FRONTS ( grass root groups funded and advertised by corporate sponsors.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:50pm

this was just to get it out of committee. this isn't voting for the bill it's voting for it to be debated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ernest Partridge, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:58pm

Cesnorship
Something here just doesn't make sense.

That list contains an honor roll of liberal senators: Leahy, Feingold, Franken, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar.

So what was their objection? Not a word here of explanation.

Was this "censorship" a restriction of depictions of explicit sex to young children? Or child porn? Or "snuff films"?

I'd vote for that. Who wouldn't?

Maybe the alleged "censorhip" was bundled in legislation with a bunch of essential items.

Again, no explanation in this clip.

Unlike most respondents to this note, I choose to withhold judgment until I get more information.

gadfly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: Cesnorship
  Here is the text, see for yourself.
  
  http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/09/CombatingOnlineInfringementAndCou nterfeitsAct1.pdf
  
  It's not about child porn (amazingly), showing porn to children, snuff films, or puppies. It's a standalone bill that isn't included with a bunch of other stuff like fixing bridges or sending body armor to Afghanistan.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Starkey, 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:59pm

internet censorship
The first thing you assholes should get rid of is the word HYPOCRISY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevi, 20 Nov 2010 @ 1:11pm

Vote to report
This is completely irresponsible journalism. This vote wasn't *for* or *against* the bill; it was to report the bill to the full Senate, where everyone knew it would be defeated. Pretending that this means that the bill had the full support of someone like Al Franken is ridiculous. You may as well say "he voted for it, before he voted against it." It's a distortion of a procedural process that apparently no one here understands or has taken the thirty seconds it would require to investigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re: Vote to report
  Did they vote to kill the bill, or did they vote to send it to the Senate? If they think it's a horrible idea, they should kill it as soon as possible and not waste the Senate's time. If they think it's a horrible idea and vote for it anyway, they're corrupt*. If they think it's a great idea, they could be any number of things, from stupid to power-hungry. But above all, they're wrong.
  
  * I don't care if it "happens all the time" or is "the way things are done", it's still corrupt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugo, 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:44pm

The real victims
Won't someone please think of the poor multi-billionaire corporations? They need to start taking down web sites to protect themselves, the poor things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jo d, 20 Nov 2010 @ 2:57pm

I garuntee I will not be voting for John Cornyn again. I will vote Demorat before him or kay bailey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 3:33pm

Al Franken....does he know what the 1st amendment is...he cheated to get into office....you know the "goose"--"gander"routine!:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
E, 20 Nov 2010 @ 3:42pm

Wow, hyperbole much?
All of you do realize this is an anti-piracy messure right? What it is designed to prevent is people who host relays or otherwise sell access to paid for content. Had any of you actually read the CNN article or even bothered to read the Bill you would have seen this "`(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or `(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946' or the `Lanham Act'; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and" Congradulations you got taken in by a "ground zero mosque" scam to have you object to something that had you actually learned the truth about it, you would be ok with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 5:56pm
  
  Re: Wow, hyperbole much?
  I read the bill, and I still think it's a terrible unecessary idea that will probably fail a 1st Amendment challenge if it passes. What is the purpose of this bill when laws like the DMCA already protect copyrighted works and provide sanctions and takedown procedures? Seriously, can anyone answer that? All I can think of is, "the DMCA provides too much due process and not enough arbitrary power to copyright holders." And that is pretty scary, because the DMCA already goes too far IMO.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cga, 20 Nov 2010 @ 4:55pm

senators
what a collection of relics. they suck america dry while stealing for themselves. We bned the REVOLUTION unless we already missed the no turning point. Step one is get rid of congress and the sewer it has become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mauibrad, 20 Nov 2010 @ 4:56pm

19 Scumbags
These people are Scumbags, every last one of 'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
L. O'Toole, 20 Nov 2010 @ 5:44pm

Pay attention to real story
The vote and the story are about copyright infringement. The vote was NOT about censorship. The U.S. copyright law is very clear: It does not allow free use or sharing of material without permission or paying

Please, people, educate yourselves before you go off on a rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 5:56pm
  
  Re: Pay attention to real story
  I read the bill, and I still think it's a terrible unecessary idea that will probably fail a 1st Amendment challenge if it passes. What is the purpose of this bill when laws like the DMCA already protect copyrighted works and provide sanctions and takedown procedures? Seriously, can anyone answer that? All I can think of is, "the DMCA provides too much due process and not enough arbitrary power to copyright holders." And that is pretty scary, because the DMCA already goes too far IMO.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ilene, 20 Nov 2010 @ 5:56pm

list
Most of them are socialists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 5:58pm

Let's look at what this vote was about, before condemning it!
"Those seeking to thwart this bipartisan bill are protecting online thieves and those who gain pleasure and profit from de-valuing American property," Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman, said after today's vote. "We congratulate Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch for their leadership on this bill and to the Senate Judiciary Committee for its action today."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023238-38.html#ixzz15sV4Ra00
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 20 Nov 2010 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re: Let's look at what this vote was about, before condemning it!
  What is your point, that the RIAA loves this bill? That alone should be enough to raise suspicion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SUESUN, 20 Nov 2010 @ 6:46pm

THE RUINATION OF AMERICA BY RADICAL LEFT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NheUhwsoC24 COMMUNISM RED ALERT AND CHECK THIS VIDEO OUT ON YOUTUBE. THESE PEOPLE ARE TRAITORS TO THE UNITED STATES. WANT TO SEE WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE THEN CHECK IT OUT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ravi, 20 Nov 2010 @ 7:20pm

Please fact check...
This is the vote to VOTE on the bill. That's why it was 19-0; it's from the Senate Judiciary Committee just saying they can go ahead and vote on it! Many of those senators have stated they will vote against it when it comes to a vote. Man, please fact-check next time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mary ann schulke, 20 Nov 2010 @ 7:41pm

internet voting
Orin Hatch I am ashamed of you. thought you were really a smart person

the other republicans that voted shame on you shame on you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Munro, 20 Nov 2010 @ 8:12pm

time to look for a new job!
If you do not want to suport the people by the people and for the people get a new job!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bottom line, 20 Nov 2010 @ 8:22pm

bottom line
Looks like Hatch is still the senator from Sony. At this point the only job left to protect is his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
susan Hall, 20 Nov 2010 @ 8:40pm

Freedom to dissent or Freedom to do what we are told?
We need to stop thinking of the US as a free country since we went to war in Iraq because our leader & his HIT men lied to us and made millions afraid of not being "patriotic" enough, like the Dixie Chicks.

Now when they say they have picked up bad guys that deserve to be tortured the UK may need to go to war to get them back. This time they were complicit and as of this week they were considering paying millions of dollars for their part in the UK citizens who were kidnaped by US to secret prisons & Guantanamo then tortured. Though the UK had to made a deal to get them home and even though their Foreign Secretary Hague has BEGGED Hilary Clinton yesterday for the last UK father, SHAKER AAMER, TO BE RETURNED FROM Guantanamo after being kept in solitaire for a year & incarcerated at Guantanamo for now almost 10 yrs. without a sgl charge & in-fact he has been confirmed along with his friend who has already been returned to the UK as innocent, which may be part of the reason the US wants to block the internet.

We need the internet to know who is being targeted just like during the American Revolution, because the 14 secret service agencies & the 185,000 secret servicemen, the pentagon, and the Blackwater or Xe & other Hit gang organizations now work for the Pres. & over half(more than 250) of the legislators who are now millionaires connected to corporations.

Most of us need to fire (if possible impeach the legislators. In Colo. I would love to see the Green Candidate Bob Kinsey and a peace activist Carolyn Bninski be our Senators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberalinsc1, 20 Nov 2010 @ 8:52pm

READ the BILL!
I love it when an inflamiroty Headlines has Yaa Hoos jumping through their asses!

From the link in the article :
"
In the last week, support for the bill known as COICA, for Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, broadened beyond groups traditionally active in online copyright disputes to include the Newspaper Association of America, which said the legislation was needed because online piracy "undermines the investments that newspapers make in journalism." Labor unions, including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, argued that American workers "have suffered significant harm due to theft of copyrighted and trademarked goods."

An ad appeared in a newspaper targeting Capitol Hill yesterday signed by groups including Major League Baseball, the NFL, Nintendo, and Viacom. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce pressed Congress to move quickly, and even Rob McKenna, Washington state attorney general, signed on to the effort."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023238-38.html#ixzz15tDJwRYk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 21 Nov 2010 @ 8:42am
  
  Re: READ the BILL!
  So what's your point, that a bunch of rich and powerful lobbying organizations and corporations are in favor of it? So what?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberalism is a mental disorder, 20 Nov 2010 @ 8:53pm

Libssuck
Typical dirty anti-American liberal ideology. Voting to infringe our freedom of speech. Glad we kicked your socialist arses in 2010. Next are your senators and Muslim president. What's even more funny is when you people urinate your trousers when Sarah palin walks by. Hilarious!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 21 Nov 2010 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: Libssuck
  Not a bad troll, you might even catch someone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Al, 20 Nov 2010 @ 9:11pm

Shame on them
Shame on you Al Frankinstein. We expected better from you turd!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fa, 20 Nov 2010 @ 9:25pm

Dead Drops http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3pKF6gREFw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bruno Rivera, 20 Nov 2010 @ 9:33pm

Don't forget about Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia. He wants Internet to be censored and put an end to Fox News & MSNBC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BrianR, 20 Nov 2010 @ 10:12pm

I was not aware that the 1st Amendment gave us the right to steal peoples property and give it to others by distributing it on their websites!

So, if I were to go steal people's cars and built a website to market and sell those cars you are saying that the Gov would be censoring the internet by going after those who own the website?

I don't really see how the text in the law shown below is in any way a violation of the 1st Amendment.

any domain name "dedicated to infringing activities" could find itself in the U.S. Department of Justice's prosecutorial crosshairs

I haven't read the rest of the law but this doesn't equal censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:19pm
  
  Re: 1st Amendment
  The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to lie, steal and break the law. But, it is the 5th that requires that the COURTS determine if the LAW has been broken before removing one's liberty. This is called: DUE PROCESS.
  
  COICA goes way too far. There are already sufficient laws on the books. DMCA for example already goes too far. Copyright holders can send e-mail to your ISP and get pages of your site removed VERY quickly pending litigation if someone claim infringement.
  
  The mere fact than any government official would suggest or support COICA makes me very suspicious and is downright scary!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2010 @ 11:44pm

They say that they want to censor the internet, well I say "Goodluck, you will fail."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bluezy (profile), 21 Nov 2010 @ 1:35am

De-evolution of our culture...
The United States is ranked 20 in the 2010 Press Freedom Index List.
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html
The Reporters Without Borders website has the info on how the index was calculated. Their byline is "
"As of today, more than 200 bloggers and reporters are in jail".
http://en.rsf.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Franck, 21 Nov 2010 @ 5:10am

Al Franken voted it but is against it?????
What is this????? http://www.alfranken.com/index.php/splash/netneutrality_vid "PETITION: STAND WITH ME TO SAVE NET NEUTRALITY AND STOP THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF OUR MEDIA"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
evesin0207, 21 Nov 2010 @ 5:19am

censorship of internet
I don't know why people are so surprised -- they were warned and yet they voted these same idiots back into office, didn't they? What did they expect from these lefties, an about face....get real. They are dedicated to taking away ALL our rights and these fools who vote for them should be sent to Siberia.

I expected nothing less from Chuck Schumer. He is a two-faced politician and unfortunatelyI live in New York State. This state is, and has always been for as long as I can remember, a heavily left liberal state. Once in a blue moon we get to put a Republican Governor in office and he turns out as bad as the Dem.

We in Western New York financially support Metropolitan New York and all her surroundings. They heavily tax us and Buffalo is slowly becoming a "GHOST TOWN".

AOL has already been censoring us in their comments and mine rarely get through. They did censor one of my e-mails sending me a notice that it was too controversial to allow. It was about OBAMA. My friends will attest to this since I sent them each a copy of the e-mail warning me to be more careful in the future what I send.

So these politicians are an excuse for what they are already doing on the internet....watching everything we do and eventually you will get a notice like I did and if you continue to p*ss them off, they will take away your e-mail privileges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 21 Nov 2010 @ 8:53am
  
  Re: censorship of internet
  They are dedicated to taking away ALL our rights and these fools who vote for them should be sent to Siberia.
  
  The irony is strong with this one. Or is it cognitive dissonance?
  
  Once in a blue moon we get to put a Republican Governor in office and he turns out as bad as the Dem.
  
  And yet... you still believe the Democrats are worse. Yeah, cognitive dissonance. Or troll maybe.
  
  AOL has already been censoring us in their comments and mine rarely get through. They did censor one of my e-mails sending me a notice that it was too controversial to allow.
  
  This is very hard to believe, but if this actually happened, why in the name of all that's holy are you still using AOL?? You choose to use a service provider that you know will censor you, rather than finding a different one? Do you just need something to complain about, or what?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Israel First, 21 Nov 2010 @ 5:44am

Squash Antisemitic internet
The internet is used to criticize Israel and counter the loyal efforts of america's Israel Lobby. Squash it now!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2010 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re: Squash Antisemitic internet
  the isralei lobby is a fucking demonic force in the us govt - i want them dead all of them
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
voting citizen, 21 Nov 2010 @ 7:12am

19 senators who voted for censorship on the Internet
All the usually suspects! Does this surprise anyone who is following what's really going on??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ariaram (profile), 21 Nov 2010 @ 7:13am

The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
these guys should be a priester, not a senator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WriterRighter (profile), 21 Nov 2010 @ 8:10am

Crappy "journalism"
OK, this piece was written without knowing ANY of the facts, and look how riled up it got you all. The writer should be most ashamed, but the rest of you who said things like "wow, I'm sorry I voted for _______" should also feel pretty stupid right now. Here's the REAL story:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=45b5a544-0f49-46d8-9782-ab7a3fe43a1 f
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 21 Nov 2010 @ 8:54am
  
  Re: Crappy "journalism"
  You expect to get an unbiased story from the chairman of the committee?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
souper, 21 Nov 2010 @ 8:39am

well...
This story seems a BIT bias, don't you guys think? I clicked on it in hopes of them explaining both sides and explaining the vote, and it's basically equal to a campaign smear ad.

It's sad that so many people replied the way they did about so many great senators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marsha Scribner, 21 Nov 2010 @ 11:27am

Internet Censorship
First of all where in this Bill does the word "censor or censordhip" come up? Insinuating that this Bill infringes on the First Amendement is your personal interpretation of what this Bill is not attempting to do! Doesn't pornographic websites, pedophiles accessing your teenage children's blog sites or Al Queda have any of your concerns? Our Bill of Rights implys our right to freedom from harrassment and predation ie: accessive debauchary & life threatening behaviors that come from some of the worst intentioned internet users & websites. You have mistaken this Bill as some fantasy Orwellian theft of our grand American rights to have what ever, when ever, & always at your whim. Well guess what? The faucet isn't always in the on position nor should it be as long as there are people out there who will take advantage of these open uncontrolled sites. Maybe you should read the newpaper more often as it can explain what is going on in the nation & the world better than I can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Lazarus, 21 Nov 2010 @ 11:42am

So nutty...
While, when being the Devil's Advocate, I can see a viable thought behind this ... that is, while there is legislation that allows action against illegal material, the proponents of this legislation are attempting to take early action and prevent such material getting posted.

This is a nice theory, but to think it can be implemented in this way is simply retarded.

1. Blacklisting of words prevents the legitimate study of content including those terms
2. Removing the DNS entry only removes the domain name. The servers are still available if you know the IP address
3. Removing the DNS entries implies that the US owns the internet ... so much for the global internet
4. The technology isn't there to do it in a way that can't be bypassed easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dooley P., 21 Nov 2010 @ 12:08pm

congrats
China sucked eighteen minutes of internet traffic and the USA responds by passing legislation against 4Chan.
Seriously though... how did this manage to happen?

Why is it that there are so many sites like TechDirt, but do ANY of you companies actually do anything?
No, you twitter and prattle like it matters, publishing articles, taking comments, trafficking information, and selling ads.
Never once did I hear of a TechDirt or Gizmodo lobbyist, or writer acting as lobbyist.
Never once did I hear of a voice making a stand against the senate.
But hey, I'm sure Jay-Z is just as important as anything, right?

Disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jenni (profile), 21 Nov 2010 @ 2:57pm

Not Censorship - Online Infringment
I just became aware of a link that explains that the bill is really NOT about censorship, it's about copyright violations and online infringing activities. I think someone is trying to get people upset, for what reason? I don't know.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804&tab=summary
Here is another link with the actual bill.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/09/CombatingOnlineInfringementAndCounterfe itsAct1.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shocked, 21 Nov 2010 @ 3:50pm

6 of these "senators" are jewish, and that is a third that, of all people, should understand fascism, after the experience of nazism in Germany. I am jewish, too, but I must have had better parenting. These asshats will one day find themselves censored, maybe even rounded up...if this attack on freedom continues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2010 @ 4:29pm

Maybe these 19 senators should be the 1st 19 to be voted out in 2 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe blow, 21 Nov 2010 @ 7:23pm

They work for Israel, not America. That's why they voted as they did
"You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but"

Why are you so surprised these people would vote to censor the American internet?

After all 12 of the 15 are loyal to the country of Israel. They are voting for what Israelis want, not what Americans want.

* Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
* Dianne Feinstein -- California
* Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
* Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
* Chuck Schumer -- New York
* Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
* Al Franken -- Minnesota
* John Cornyn -- Texas
* Dick Durbin -- Illinois
* Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
* Sheldon Whitehouse
* Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2010 @ 4:13pm
  
  Re: They work for Israel, not America. That's why they voted as they did
  so true i hate these people - we need to clean house of zionists in office - isreal firsters
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2010 @ 8:15pm

I am very disappointed to see that BOTH of the senators from my state are on this list!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sage, 21 Nov 2010 @ 8:25pm

In other words, everyone has voted yes so far
If the other 81 Senators vote yes when they get the chance, are you just going to list all of their names? I hope so, that will be a good read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amerikagulag, 22 Nov 2010 @ 6:37am

censor is doublespeak for 'limit the flow of information'
Exposing their crimes and corruption is what they seek to limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
settles, 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:54am

hmmm
would you look at that? a majority of them are democrats and the rest might as well be. kind of tells you what the dems think about YOUR freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:53am

For those still claiming this is not about censorship...
I've created a new post that details how this bill really is about censoring the internet:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101121/23584311958/why-voting-coica-is-vote-censorsh ip.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sr4, 22 Nov 2010 @ 4:35pm

this is about censorship
Not about censorship? Just look at these names and tell me it is not about censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 5:38pm

What were the specific terms of censorship? What was the purpose of this bill? Did it protect something like the right of all people to use the internet with same access speed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wi, 23 Nov 2010 @ 10:38am

wi
russ fiengold is not a WI senator anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deb, 24 Nov 2010 @ 10:36am

Mass Media
This sums it up for me. I did email Sen. Kyl also.

Quote from Edward Zehr

"I wouldn't call it fascism exactly,
but a political system nominally controlled
by an irresponsible, dumbed down electorate
who are manipulated by dishonest, cynical, controlled mass media
that dispense the propaganda of a corrupt political establishment
can hardly be described as democracy either."

Welcome to National Socialism. That is what I see coming for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WAArnold, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:22pm

Senators trying to censor Internet
In the first place, we don't want the federal government censoring the internet. Second, they can't take care of the things they are legally supposed to much less add more to it. When they can shut our borders, stop their ungodly waste of our tax dollars, quit shoving unwanted taxes, healtcare onto us, then, and only then, I would think about letting them censor anything.

They can't even clean up their own talk, much less assuring someone else does.

Enough Congress/Senate, get off this mighteir than thou kick you have been on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 24 Nov 2010 @ 4:23pm
  
  Re: Senators trying to censor Internet
  You might be in favor of censorship if it's done competently?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
William Estrada, 25 Nov 2010 @ 11:40am

Treason
THESE 19 PEOPLE AND AUTHORS OF THIS BILL SHOULD BE PUBLICLY EXECUTED FOR HIGH TREASON. PERIOD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
geri, 25 Nov 2010 @ 5:09pm

What is the next step before the bill becomes a law? Is there anything else that can be done to stop the bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 25 Nov 2010 @ 6:56pm
  
  Re:
  It has to be voted on by the full Senate and then the House, then signed by the President.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SK, 26 Nov 2010 @ 8:28am

Zionist Bolshevik Scum GO AWAY!!!
Too many suspiciously bolshevik-sounding names in this list for my liking. And that in spite of 'them' making up only 2% of the world's population.
My 5 Cents from equally bolshevik-undermined Germany in the equally fascist EU (did you hear JARUZELSKI of all scumbags has made it back to Polish politics? What a bummer!!!)

People of the world, RISE UP!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David H, 27 Nov 2010 @ 11:54am

It'd almost be better if they were just ignorant.
It's not that politicians don't understand the Constitution, it's that they don't give a rat's ass. I remember reading somewhere a senator from Minnesota named Sandy Pappas being quoted as saying "Legislators don't worry too much about what's constitutional. We just try to do what's right, and we let the courts figure that out."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bearcat54, 27 Nov 2010 @ 7:02pm

remember this in the 2010 elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe R, 27 Nov 2010 @ 9:26pm

stuart smally sucks
stuart smally is a short ill manner rude worthless S.O.B. who tihinks he's smarter and better than you or me. who was elected by stupid people who can't find their ass with both hands.
Joe R
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phyllis McLenon, 28 Nov 2010 @ 4:02am

Kidnapped websites
Sounds like Planet of the Apes....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kendrick Ed (profile), 28 Nov 2010 @ 8:04am

Most, if not all, are Jewish
Controlling the "news" is already in ZIonist-owned mass media's hands. Now this mostly (if not all) Jewish group of Senators wishes to censor the internet.

Obama's Czars--mostly Jewish
Obama's cabinet--mostly Jewish
Federal Reserve member banks--mostly Jewish
Hollywood--controlled by Jews
Wall Street--controlled by Jews
Three Zionist judges now on the Supreme Court

There is a pattern here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
josef goebles, 28 Nov 2010 @ 12:18pm

Go'mint takeover of web sites
Today web sites tomorrow the web. Naturally, this is all in our own self interests and for our mutual protection. I am so grateful for an all consuming, no, wrong word, omnipotent . . .no. . .omniscient . . .all encompassing. . .no matter. . .a government looking out for the little guy. Now if they can just do something about all those �thought criminals� out there who dare call this treason. . ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 28 Nov 2010 @ 1:09pm

censor
Why are these people allowed in Office?
Everyone needs to be run out!
Our politicians have turned on us!
I tell you if you want to remain free you need to start voting for real Christians ! they are the only ones who
Integrity means something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Henry Massingale, 28 Nov 2010 @ 1:59pm

The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet vs. the International Boycott Of The Arabic Drug Empire Phase 4.
First you must understand, what phase 4 of this Boycott is about, it is a 10x10 posting into issues we face as a People. 2nd, that the People Of The United States have outgrown Government Officials and they seek a change, it was noted and shown by the movement of the Tea Party, and the voice of the people against this Health Care Bill.
One issue not seen to you is the International Boycott Of The Arabic Drug Empire Phase 4, in a goal to interface with the voices of the people to bring forward a change in Government to vote out every last man and woman in Office because of their failures in a lot of different issues.
The Freedom Of Speech is a God Given Right and it is the voice of the People that guides this Country and not Government Officials.
So I am going to go ahead and pick a fight. The line has been drawn in Tennessee, made a line at the top of Tennessee from East to West, this area below all the way to Florida is the area covered by Fasc Concepts.
Now these 19 Senators who wish to silence a People in what is now being called The New World Order movement. You 19 Senators and all your muscle, you have entered into the Matrix of the net and if you wish to leave this battle filed, and maintain your life within Government, we will allow you to leave, but first you must go on live TV and withdraw your insult to the American People, then put your heads between your legs and kiss your on ass.

Join us, unite with us in....
The International Boycott Of The Arabic Drug Empire
Henry Massingale / FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward covers the web post on google Drop by and see why we built a anti crime / war form in a Health Care Reform Concept. To strategically Rebuild America www.fascmovement.mysite.com on google look for page 1 american dream official site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drrichard (profile), 28 Nov 2010 @ 2:46pm

Re: senators closing down websites?
Wake up America! How many judges have you heard say "...can't use the constitution in my courtroom"? Why? The U.S. Gov't Corp has nullified YOUR once great Constitution and operate under their own policy - all done legally within a frame-work set up by corrupt lawyers and judges. Get the message people - your Gov't has no obligation to function within the Constitution - and it is ALL legal!!! Do your homework, it's all on the net. Soon you will see their true intent! And how do you stop this 'One World Order' path of theirs? Probably a highly organised revolution as time is running very short. Many Americans will likely die, but to do nothing will also result in large loss of life AND also total loss of freedom! The best outcome is to lynch your lawyers, bankers and politicians (innocent will need to die - collateral damage). America, the PTB have been conspiring for decades while YOU paved THEIR way in your labour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 28 Nov 2010 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re: Re: senators closing down websites?
  Wake up America! How many judges have you heard say "...can't use the constitution in my courtroom"?
  
  I don't recall any judges saying that. Do you have any references?
  
  your Gov't has no obligation to function within the Constitution - and it is ALL legal!!!
  
  Isn't that kind of a contradiction in terms? The Constitution says it's the supreme law of the land, so how can the government operate in contravention of it without that being illegal?
  
  Probably a highly organised revolution as time is running very short.
  
  If a violent revolution is only "probably" the best option, then keep looking for a better one.
  
  America, the PTB have been conspiring for decades while YOU paved THEIR way in your labour.
  
  Who is the PTB?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - stupidamerkin, 28 Nov 2010 @ 10:00pm
    
    Re: Re: Re: senators closing down websites?
    These senators need to be arrested and tried for violation of the Constitution and even possible treason, but it will continue to be business as usual.
    The dumbing down of Amerika has been a total success.
    
    �A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.�
    Marcus Tullius Cicero
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Way, 28 Nov 2010 @ 10:07pm

I believe this. Google shut down my website.
I once posted an article that encourages you to SHARE it's content. I posted on my website HOLIDAY LIGHT information at the CITY ZOO. Google SHUT DOWN my website because the person who WROTE the article that had the SHARE BUTTON ON IT, claimed that he was not paid from my company to have the ZOO LIGHT HOURS article on my forms section. All I did was click the COPY CODE SIGN and posted it so people would have the holiday light hours. I had to send a letter to Google telling my entire story. The website was kept down for 3 days.

Here is what happened. The reporter was upset that the newspaper allowed the SHARE icon on his story. The reporter then reported that ALL the websites where his article appeared (or that were subscribing to the feed) was stealing his content. They shut down my website and I couldn't find the content because it was in an RSS feed that had to be LIVE ON THE INTERNET to remove.

Shutting down websites should not be allowed without WARNING. If I could sue Google for doing this, I would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian Concannon, 28 Nov 2010 @ 11:34pm

zio censorship
the mass media is under almost full control by the zionist elites but the internet is revealing a history of their past, present and future atrocities upon humanity and the word is spreading fast, they are becoming desperate to keep full control over the masses

9/11 was only partly successful for the zio's, they got their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bogus war on terror or war against Islam into full swing, they got their multi $billion a year poppy crop flooding the world, they got us stripped of alot more of our rights, etc but they didnt get martial law imposed upon us, because Mossad stuffed up with the 5 dancing Israelis and by causing police to close all bridges after receiving a call saying "a certain bridge had Palestinian terrorists in it and police should investigate"
the police pulled over a van on the George Washington Bridge with 2 Mossad agents and full of explosives
the actions of the policeman who decided to question the occupants saved the bridge from coming down, with a bit of help with thermite

this stuffed up Mossads plans of future terrorist actions and martial law

this could also be used to shut down all conspiracy sites immediately after the next big round of inside jobs, just let the zionist mass media tell us their version of the news

our health is against the zio agenda, so our Health Rangers site would be at grave risk - these parasites make me so ANGRY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ken kalcheim, 29 Nov 2010 @ 12:21am

internet censorship
George Orwell must be "turning over in his grave" because fascism is on the move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mary Artemis, 29 Nov 2010 @ 5:03am

This angered me. I sent it to EVERYONE on my list. I would love to know how many of these people will NOT be returning to office!! GREAT reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
michael sharpe, 29 Nov 2010 @ 9:40am

We must force the Republicans into doing the right thing even if it hurt. Some on the list, and often we can not tell the two parties apart. What a sham i mean shame. We must rectify this. These guys continue to give Our freedoms away. There freedoms are the ones that should be in question. rebelforiam.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kendrick Ed (profile), 29 Nov 2010 @ 9:52am

What they are hiding with internet censorship...
Likely targets of censorship include the following websites:

http://911missinglinks.com
http://ReDiscover911.com
http://whodidit.org/cocon.html

"They" already control and censor mainstream media "news". "They" are threatened by the internet exposure of rampant criminality--lies of Biblical proportions on which the foundations of domestic and foreign policies are based.

Orwellian--Brave New World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theron Brinson Sr, 29 Nov 2010 @ 11:19am

19 Senators
What a surprise that all of these supposed public servants (they forgot who they worked for as soon as they got in office) all of them ultra liberals, and constantly lining their pockets with campaign contributions, to further their own agendas and to hell with the people who elected them. People are going to have to wake up, you can't keep growing government and reduce taxes that doesn't work anyone who knows how to balance a checkbook can see you only have so much money, we don't have the luxury of printing more money to make our checkbooks balance, we have to live within what we have a lesson our leaders need to learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 29 Nov 2010 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re: 19 Senators
  Really, these guys are ultra-liberals?
  
  Jeff Sessions
  Ranking Member, R-Alabama
  
  Orrin G. Hatch
  R-Utah
  
  Chuck Grassley
  R-Iowa
  
  Jon Kyl
  R-Arizona
  
  Lindsey Graham
  R-South Carolina
  
  John Cornyn
  R-Texas
  
  Tom Coburn
  R-Oklahoma
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Okie Dokie, 30 Nov 2010 @ 7:33am
    
    Re: Re: 19 Senators
    my automated response from my senator
    
    Dear Friend: Thank you for taking the time to write me. I have received your letter and I value your input, which is why I will personally read your letter. Please allow me time to review your correspondence to ensure you receive an accurate, detailed and thoughtful response to your inquiry. It may take at least 30 days or as many as 60 days to reply due to the heavy volume of mail that I receive. I appreciate your patience as you await my response. If this matter is time sensitive matters, please contact my office at (202)224-5754 and my staff is ready and happy to assist you. Sincerely, Tom Coburn, M.D. U.S. Senator
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2010 @ 4:02pm

thsy should all be fuckin executed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
realworldrep, 30 Nov 2010 @ 1:28pm

funny all far left liberals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 5:01pm
  
  Re:
  Funny another person who didn't look at the list of Senators.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evrim B, 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:51pm

Like a who's who
Reads like a Who's Who list of senators whose policies I can't stand.

Take for example, John Cornyn. When I lived in Texas, he was my senator. Every time I signed a petition, it was sent to him. His office always, ALWAYS, sent back a reply about how they valued my opinion, but he was against such and such. Such and such = helping the environment, women's right to choose, food safety and any other rational right you would think a human being was naturally entitled too. And Lindsey Graham?!?! I needn't say more. The name alone has become a brand, a personification of the persona.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robert tubear, 1 Dec 2010 @ 12:10pm

internet seizure
it was said in the latter days this would come to pass. now it is fact. but in the end all these eliete and corrupt politicians will be begging , and no one will hear them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guest, 4 Dec 2010 @ 6:20am

Many of them are Jews..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
deZengo, 7 Dec 2010 @ 11:30am

RE: What can BE said ...
that has not already been said? There are pro's and con's to everything that the "government" does on behalf of the people. I mean right now, while they are voting on censoring the internet - we are trying to use it to share what is going on at the local level. Affordable housing in Asheville is being challenged as one home owner faces losing his home and his residents have had forced eviction.
http://ning.it/ffrtbV

Is this the "beginning or the end" as we know it?

And besides, this is really in our best interest after. You know you can't handle the "POWER!"

I send love & light ... everything else is just in between!

~deZengo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 8:13pm
  
  Re: RE: What can BE said ...
  There are pro's and con's to everything that the "government" does on behalf of the people.
  
  Aren't you the optimist? :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ryan12e2, 10 Dec 2010 @ 7:17pm

FORGET ALABAMA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lawscout, 12 Dec 2010 @ 12:36am

First Amendment
It seem that the First Amendment is under serious attack from the other side of the Great Cheese Wall! Psssss! The next step is censorship of content campaign contributorss do not like! How long will it take to wake up America? (((Fix Congress First)))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ker Ash, 12 Jan 2011 @ 4:58pm

Huh
George Orwell's 1984!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:27am

Sell them a customized censored version and then let everybody else alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:28am

Let them move to China, you want censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BestGames (profile), 16 Jan 2011 @ 1:02pm

Herb Kohl, you idiot! Is it so cold in Wisconsin your brain was not warmed up yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sugarbum, 31 Jan 2011 @ 11:34am

So well over half were liberals. Makes sense for left-wingers to vote for this, as the further left you go, the more government control you have.

But why on earth would conservatives vote for it? The further right you go, the more the people are in control.

I smell liberals in conservative clothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sugarbum, 31 Jan 2011 @ 11:35am

So well over half were liberals. Makes sense for left-wingers to vote for this, as the further left you go, the more government control you have.

But why on earth would conservatives vote for it? The further right you go, the more the people are in control.

I smell liberals in conservative clothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 31 Jan 2011 @ 8:16pm
  
  Re:
  People in power vote to give themselves more power. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ralph Barnes, 31 Jan 2011 @ 12:18pm

The usual suspects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Frangiskakis, 9 Feb 2011 @ 2:03pm

what was the number of the SB bill?
what was the SB # and what was the outcome of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lhon, 11 Mar 2011 @ 4:54pm

dumb senators
maybe those dumb senators dont know how to use computer and have a boring life.lols
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bumbaclat, 17 Mar 2011 @ 5:11pm

yup
i say viva anarchy and shoot the god damn lot of em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rogue, 16 Apr 2011 @ 7:59pm

figures
sounds about right... just another law to take away our rights. bet it starts with infringement then working on taking away youtube just wondering how far sites like myspace and facebook are going to last. just my worthless 2cents
wonder if they'll let me hold the Declaration of Independence so i can wipe my DIRTY ASS.....

one a side note where'd my PORN go lol...jk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terry Mayo, 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:19am

Internet Rights and Infringement
1. I would have no problem signing this petition, but what happens IF this becomes law, and "our" government then comes after those who signed the petition?
2. How do we know these 19 Senators are not part of a bigger plot to destroy our Freedom of Speech/Constitutional Rights and have placed this storyline on here to rid the Country of these (us) freedom fighters? They have us by the nads if they have our names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous fact checker, 17 Nov 2011 @ 6:27pm

Russ Feingold, at least, is no longer a US senator, HE WAS DEFEATED BY RON JOHNSON AND ENDED HIS TERM THIS JANUARY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm allergic to bullshit, 24 Nov 2011 @ 9:48am

Freedom of Speech. That's what the internet is. If that's censored, one of the basic American rights had been taken away.
It's a stupid idea to even think about censoring the internet. Seriously, if they do manage to do it, the government will be under so much shit. Not just by average citizens, but by Anonymous as well. And judging by what Anonymous can do, they wouldn't be too pleased at the outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jones, 21 Dec 2011 @ 6:00am

This is Utter Childish Nonsense
I find this rather funny since this is one of the few things that can make a nation into a large uproar and almost every internet user will be debating about such a topic. Nearly 98% won't support such nonsense. This is just too abrupt to control what they want. Like a child throwing a sudden fit while holding an ax because something is not going their way. If they want the proper action to control of illegal content, things are just best done gradually without causing sudden fear, anger, and other negative view upon this from the citizens. Just enforce additional moderation to prevent piracy and illegal downloads. geeze...

There are websites and applications that already have censoring means to prevent illegal download and/or mature content. Another move has been made to even push adult sites to a new domain extension via .xxx.

Their just impatient fools who aren't fully aware of the repercussions that this bill may cause if it passes. Here's a view: It's no fun playing a video game if all of the fun is taken out of it in the next version; it dies off like a bad idea because nobody is interested in it any more. Many folks will lose interest and/or perform a massive move to encourage folks not to use the internet. Like a national hunger-strike of internet access. I'm not really throwing ideas out there, just making a prediction. This isn�t like television to where the FCC can take off content and you�ll have to purchase a special channel, tape, or dvd -- the internet is different�and much more powerful to how information is handled and a nation�s citizens psychological disposition. If they really want to help remove illegal content (with only good intentions) in such as piracy they�ll need to do it gradually (redundant statement). Ah now a good example is that: You can�t rip off a damaged arm of a person and tell them to adjust, it has to be gradually prepared for the removal with the proper and easy-to-adjust-to care.

Overall I do not support this move. It's abrupt and is a childish decision to handle something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foo!, 24 Dec 2011 @ 12:32am

Is it any wonder
Is it any wonder that so many of those names are Jewish? They can't maintain a stranglehold on the media as long as a free and independent internet exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:08am

fuck yes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dina McClusick, 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:32pm

internet censorship
I have yet to read the bill, however, I just found out today through my daughter who is a senior in high school.

It is a crime against my rights to censor the internet.

This is outrageous and I will educate myself about it and do as much as needed to oppose this vote. How dare the government try to take away Americans rights. Stop gearing towards communisum. We have fought and lost millions of great men in wars to avoid this tradegy.

I am a an American, a voter, a mother, an aunt, a sister, a daughter, a cousin, etc....and I speak for them and all the other billion of people in America and around the world to declare that this is an injustice to us.

I served in this country, for things like this. Was that a waste of my life when I signed the dotted line?

Sincerly,
Dina M.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 2:35pm

I'm glad there are articles like this one. Every single one of the senators on this list are idiots! And I'm betting have received money from someone in the movie or music biz. This is the United States of America, not China or Iran!!! The worst part of it, the people that are complaining about the small percentage of people illegally downloading movies, music, or software are the ones that fit into the top 1% when it comes to Americas wealth. Assholes! Please people, support the opposition against the COICA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rbblum (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 10:33pm

D vs R - Not Quite
The political environment today is not Republican vs Democrat . . . but one of progressives vs libertarians. . . . plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- davidbarcomb, 24 Nov 2014 @ 4:40pm
  
  Re: D vs R - Not Quite
  Well said
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]