House Judiciary Committee SOPA Hearings Stacked 5 To 1 In Favor Of Censoring The Internet

Politics

from the what-are-they-afraid-of dept

Tue, Nov 15th 2011 5:51am — Mike Masnick

Apparently the folks behind SOPA are really scared to hear from the opposition. We all expected that the Judiciary Committee hearings wouldn't be a fair fight. In Congress, they rarely are fair fights. But most people expected the typical "three in favor, one against" weighted hearings. That's already childish, but it seems that the Judiciary Committee has decided to take the ridiculousness to new heights. We'd already mentioned last week that the Committee had rejected the request of NetCoalition to take part in the hearings. At the time, we'd heard that the hearings were going to be stacked four-to-one in favor of SOPA. However, the latest report coming out of the Committee is that they're so afraid to actually hear about the real opposition that they've lined up five pro-SOPA speakers and only one "against."

Why is the Judiciary Committee so afraid to hear the concerns of the wider internet industry?

The five "pro" speakers are the Register of Copryights, someone from the MPAA, someone from Pfizer, someone from MasterCard, and someone from the AFL-CIO. The choice of MasterCard is deliberate, since Visa is against the bill -- because Visa recognizes that supporting a bill that requires them to cut off customers based on accusations of infringement is going to be a huge burden, and one that isn't good for their own customers.

Furthermore, the "one" against SOPA is going to be Google. This is a strategic choice, because the pro-SOPA folks know that Google is easy to dismiss on this topic, because they'll claim (not accurately) that Google just wants to profit from infringement. Google is already under a lot of scrutiny in Congress, and so it makes it much easier for pro-SOPA supporters to say that "ah, the only opposition is Google." And, yet, that's not true. Companies throughout the tech and internet industries have expressed concerns. Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay and over 160 startups have all come out against the bill. This isn't "just a Google issue." This is an issue of the entertainment industry trying to change the fundamental legal and technical framework for how the internet has functioned -- and in doing so, creating tons of liability and compliance costs for the part of the economy that is growing and has been creating jobs. Just because Hollywood is jealous, doesn't mean that they should get to use Congress to punish the industry that's doing well.

Either way, it's quite stunning that the Committee has decided to go so far in stacking the deck, and it shows just how unwilling they are to hear the real concerns about the bill.

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: copyright, fairness, hearings, industry, lamar smith, sopa
Companies: afl-cio, google, mastercard, mpaa, pfizer

65 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hulser (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:18am

Strategy
Hopefully Google will realize it's being played and react accordingly. My strategy would be to present myself as a representative of a coalition of companies, tech and non-tech, who are against SOPA. Downplay Google's concerns and drop the names of those companies like Visa, Facebook, Twitter who oppose the bill. Whenever they ask about Google, use the standard politician's trick of answering the question that you wish they'd asked instead of the one they actually asked. Reply with example after example of how other companies and the public would feel the negative effects of this law. Don't let them make it about just Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:23am

Past time to throw the bums out
I know that it is probably too late, and not likely to change much, but I think it is way past time to throw out ALL of the incumbents in Congress and elect independents to Congress. Both parties are terminally corrupt, and although there is nothing to say that an independent (not affiliated with any party) Member will not be or become corrupt, at least we will have cleared the decks and can, hopefully, regain our respect for the institution... :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:32am
  
  Re: Past time to throw the bums out
  I am going to vote INDIE all the way starting in 2012.I will not be voting for any Reps or Dems.
  Nor will I feel sadness if I see them both fall.
  SOPA is the act of a traitor selling out the whole Country.We will know their names and I will not feel sadness to see them all go down one way or the other.
  You do not mess with basic freedoms we are entitled to living here and this bill crosses the line.There are many wack-jobs in this Country who will find some Employment coming up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike42 (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Re: Past time to throw the bums out
    As I've stated before, this only further destablizes the government. The system itself is now corrupt, regardless of who is in office. Do you remember it took Obama less than 2 weeks to resind his "no lobbyists in my administration" policy? Do you really think Obama wanted to do that? Do you really think it was because that person was the best person for the job?
    No, we had 30 years of an amazingly good economy, where everyone could ignore the graft and corruption. Now that we have to tighten our belts, we are seeing the parts of the system that don't work.
    Changing the talking heads will do NOTHING to change the government, because THEY AREN'T IN CHARGE. Find and remove the parasites, and actually check to see if your congressperson is TRYING to fix things. Several of the reps voted out last term were just knee-jerk reactions.
    Or, to put it another way, who trains new congresspeople? Their constituents, or lobbyists?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:38am
  
  Re: Past time to throw the bums out
  Remember, when we did that the first time, Rick Boucher who championed Fair Use, was also thrown out with the Democratic party.
  
  We need a better system that allows more people to vote and represent their constituents instead of the safe voting methods we currently have.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowardly Anon, 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:25am

I read a comic a few days ago and I think it offers the best explanation: Why Terrible Bills are Passed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:38am

This bill is not about, nor was it ever about, piracy. It is a giant hammer that is going to be used to pound out the legitimate competition. The pirates are not following the law now,creating more laws is not going to impact them one bit.

A common argument of the shills is that they are going to make it much harder for the masses to "pirate", that they hardcore guys won't be impacted, but the "masses" will step back into line. Historically speaking, has this ever worked for any industry? Ever?

Most people I know listen to YouTube, Pandora, or other free legal services for music. They don't need to pirate because what they want is already free. Why break the law if you can get it legally for free? So what happens when the AA's use this new hammer to destroy the above mentioned free services? People go right back to pirating, that's what... but they already know that I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btrussell (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:44am

If they really wish to wake the public, take down youtube.

Everybody from youngest to oldest use the site.

Wait till they see it was taken down because a young mother recorded her baby, with some music barely audible in the background, was heard.

That is when the shit will hit the fan. Pun intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Valis (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:46am

Will the last person to leave America...
please turn off the lights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ArkieGuy (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 6:56am

Lock Out
Back in the day, unions would have sit in's and other types of civil disobedience, maybe an electronic version of something like that could happen today.

If all of the opposing tech companies shut down access to their sites for one day with a simple page explaining to ALL of their users what this will do, I bet the legislature would be HAMMERED by irate constituents complaining about unfair representation.

And yes, I know this won't happen, but it could certainly open some eyes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ShellMG, 15 Nov 2011 @ 7:06am
  
  Re: Lock Out
  ArkieGuy, this time the union is at the table against SOPA. It's not about freedom or what's right or wrong, it's about the number of people from whom they can deduct union dues. Just the fact they're given a seat tells me this is a very bad deal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ArkieGuy (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:11am
    
    Virtual Tech Industry Union
    I understand, but in this case there are two different groups of impacted citizens (the RIAA mafia) and the tech industry. My idea was a virtual tech industry union that has the capability of cutting off access to peoples services as a method of "striking".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 7:08am
  
  Re: Lock Out
  They're too concerned about the profits of today to worry about the long term. This may or may not be because of the company itself. It may be because of the shareholders.
  
  Visa would be the best one for this. Don't process credit cards for one day. Put out a press release letting everyone know when it will be. Put a note on the front page of their website explaining why they are doing it. A lot of people would sit up and take notice if they couldn't process their Visa card for one day. Youtube and Facebook may hurt some people a little, but showing them what the consequences could really be if they were ever on the accused end of that stick would resonate a lot better than taking away Farmville or videos of cats chasing laser pointers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ArkieGuy (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:06am
  
  Re: Lock Out
  Ok... So how about a less aggressive approach. What about a 30 second full page ad that shows up on all of the opposing companies web sites with instructions on how to oppose the bill.
  
  I really think it would have been really funny if it had been done to just the constituents of the members of the judiciary committee 2 days before the hearing... ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 7:13am

All well and good, except that it isn't censoring. But carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:18am
  
  Re:
  "except that it isn't censoring"
  
  OK then, "government mandated destruction of websites and companies based on accusation alone with massive amounts of collateral damage that will violate the 1st amendment". That better?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    [citation needed]
    
    there is no indication that this is going to happen, except from a few chicken littles like Mike who seem convinced that the sky is falling.
    
    Mike, is this going to be "all SOPA all the time" until they pass it and shut you up already?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, the sky isn't falling, except for the MAFIAA and their ilk. Their attempts to legislate are going to fail, and the "damage" will be routed around.
      
      #Oh, and by the way: you're not fooling anyone.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 10:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I wonder if Masnick realizes that his hysterics and the comments on his blog by pirates, only give observers and politicians more evidence that the bill should be passed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/00240216771/new-study-shows-majority-americans-against-sop a-believe-extreme-copyright-enforcement-is-unreasonable.shtml?threaded=true
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First of all, I buy my stuff.
        
        Second, Why does Hollywood tend to remake shut that's already been made?
        
        And third, why are you acting like a cancer that is killing culture?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 2:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First of all, I don't believe you.
        
        And have zero reason to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 2:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who gives a shit what you believe douchebag.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        David Evans (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 4:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ROTFLOL This is the internet. If you 'believe' any of it, you're doing it wrong. It's only all true.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 16 Nov 2011 @ 1:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is your problem.
        
        You think all people are criminals.
        
        Not everyone thinks like you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't give a flying fuck if there are no indications. If the law can be used in this way, it's a bad law (and it will be used in that way). If they aren't going to use the law in that way, then why not re-write the law so that it can't be used in that way? There would be no argument if they did that.
      
      You do realize that this law will be used to shut down TechDirt right? So many people think that Mike is advocating piracy, it's only a matter of time before someone files the paperwork. That is a violation of the first amendment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeff (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 9:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Shut up? Never!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      there is no indication that this is going to happen, except from a few chicken littles like Mike who seem convinced that the sky is falling.
      
      Not a fan of history, are you? Anyone that is given power eventually abuses it, and in this case the people getting the power are /paying/ for it, so it's a guarantee that it will be abused.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 7:27am

Dirty Tricks? Really?
You know, I was expecting the Government to do better, however, this fully convinced me that they're nothing but spoiled brats.

Hopefully, Google will see this, and start calling them out for being the cheaters they are. OR use that "Google must blacklist stuff" against them and blacklist MPAA, Mastercard, and all the other supporters of the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 15 Nov 2011 @ 7:30am

No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay all RE-distribute previously existing wealth, DO NOT create it. Yes, they make "jobs", but those jobs are similar to stealing the copper sword off Lincoln's tomb, are "monetizing" what they can snatch into a quick buck now.

Recently Google has become MORE embedded into many file-sharing sites, requires allowing javascript to run Google captcha. While you try to inoculate it here by a mention, it's still in practice /directly/ profiting from file-sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 7:39am
  
  Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
  And UMG and their ilk don't? A lot of people like sharing content to get others interested. Why do you hate free advertising?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
  "Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay all RE-distribute previously existing wealth"
  
  You heard it here first, if SOPA passes, Firefox and Google Chrome will be killed. You all will be stuck with IE, *Insert evil laugh*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
    I can't get it to play nice with my Linux box.
    
    Guess I'll be stuck with Opera or Konquerer or Dillo or ...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - davnel (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:54pm
    
    Re: Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
    OMG! You're absolutely RIGHT! This whole thing can be nothing but an evil plot by Micro$oft to monopolize the browser market AGAIN, and to sink Google once and for all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul, 15 Nov 2011 @ 9:19am
  
  Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
  I think you are off your medicine, "Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay all RE-distribute previously existing wealth" they can be also categorized as service providers and service providers do not produce content so if you are against service providers please do not take that taxi cab tomorrow a taxi fare is a service o...o...o and the bus too, public transport is a service, you know what turn off your internet connection the people who give you internet they are also "RE-distribute previously existing wealth, DO NOT create it."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brandon, 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:48pm
  
  Re: No, it's still basically producers of content versus grifters.
  Viacom and many of the other opposers to the bill were original contributers and supported a large amount of the infringing softwares. For instance, Limewire, CNet, Kazaa, and many other services all had support and investment from CNBC, ESPN, VIACOM, and many others for at least 10 years. In fact, many of the now supporters of SOPA were distributers of the software for piracy. In fact, most of these companies who distributed the software are suing people for violating copyrights and they broke many copyright laws themselves. However, they did not get prosecuted because the owners of the copyrights (also the distributors of the file sharing and infringement removal software) could not complain and sue themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A. Lloyd Flanagan (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 7:33am

Let it pass.
It's time for a real knock-down drag-out fight with the copyright pros, and it's not going to happen until the average person feels the pain. Let them enact any crazy thing they want, then watch people find a million ways around it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- IanM (profile), 16 Nov 2011 @ 6:05am
  
  Re: Let it pass.
  This.
  
  Every time an ISP or carrier is forced to blacklist a site, they should blacklist both the site (complying with the law), and the requestor's site too (in the case of the RIAA and the MPAA, they could blacklist both that site, and a randomly chosen member of the association) - 'We decline to transport your data'.
  
  A bit of cooperation between say VISA and Google could have a similar effect for payments too - you block via VISA, Google declines to include your site in its search spider, and therefore its search results. You block via Google, Google declines to include you in its search spider.
  
  I wonder how long this nonsense would last if someone like Sony or Viacom got wiped off the UK or US Internet landscape for a few weeks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roni Evron, 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:09am

A simple solution
If you don't like what the MPAA is doing, don't go to any movies or rent any DVD's from any of their member companies. A 10% or 15% drop in their revenue will get the message across loud and clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:24am
  
  Re: A simple solution
  Yes, but then they'll just blame it on piracy and the censorship will only get worse.
  
  We need to strengthen opposing distribution channels - especially ones that are not under the control of Big Copyright and the Corporatist Oligarchy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 5:04pm
    
    Re: Re: A simple solution
    Blame piracy all they want, without the money to buy laws...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:33am
  
  Re: A simple solution
  Even simpler, sue them for antitrust violations. After all, they seems to be monopolising stupid here...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- George Ziemann, 16 Nov 2011 @ 1:55pm
  
  Re: A simple solution
  If you don't like what the MPAA is doing, don't go to any movies or rent any DVD's from any of their member companies.
  
  Sorry, that doesn't work. Look at how record sales dropped dramatically when they started suing people and have never returned. All this did was convince them that "piracy" was worse than ever. The entertainment community is not cognizant of "cause and effect" logic. If they aren't selling what they used to, it must be piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 8:46am

Odds in favor..
that the people in the committee are also getting money under the table from the groups that favor censorship. I wonder how much you have to pay for a vote in a simple committee? Do they have a secret list of how much a vote costs? Can you imagine if someone stole the list and published it? It would be high treason.

Just another example that the U.S. is no longer a democracy, but a plutocracy, where the rich companies and people get (via paying) the laws passed that they want and avoid taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RcCypher (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 9:03am

Someone said it
I vote we let this bill pass. Not because I support it, or because I think its a good idea. I vote we let the bill pass for 2 primary reasons.

Reason 1: The minute this bill begins to effect the broader public, those individuals will stand up and start complaining, LOUDLY. That will prime a country, which is already on the verge of a revolution with the Occupy movement to even more unstable heights.

Reason 2: Because even if reason 1 doesn't work. We can almost certainly have this bill stricken down by the Supreme court, as the bill OBVIOUSLY infringes on our first amendment rights, rights which the politicians CANNOT LEGISLATE AWAY.

Failing those two reasosn showing some degree of success, I will frankly grab my shit and move out. I'm tired of all the corruption and ignorance from the so called politicians on capital hill. They have no idea what they are doing when the propose legislation like this, and the fact that they won't even speak to industry experts on even the technical feasability of what they propose, is flatly astonishing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re: Someone said it
  When the First Amendment fails, expect the Second Amendment to pick up the slack.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RevCharlie (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 9:15am

SOPA
So, this is how it begins, not with cannons roar, but with the sound of crumpling paper and a few signatures. I don�t advocate theft, or piracy, or cloning, or archiving protected information, but I am against the foothold this provides these infiltrators into what will become �Big Brothers� playground. Next is censorship of questionable material (of course the definition is fluid) then questionable content (subjected to the same fluidity) and who knows what�s next. Like television, this will be advertiser�s central (too late) and the vehicle through which we will all be indoctrinated and assimilated.

Give them what they want, they�ll get it eventually, legally or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: SOPA
  Never say die!
  
  If you think you have lost, then you are right, you have already lost.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2011 @ 9:58am

Watch it tomorrow
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_11162011.html

10am Eastern time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 15 Nov 2011 @ 12:20pm

And Atlas Shrugged ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asad, 16 Nov 2011 @ 5:16am

SOPA - National level body representing soybean processors, farmers, exporters, and brokers. Covers activities, market updates, Government notifications, events and ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ted Smiles, 16 Nov 2011 @ 5:26am

SOPA
The story did not explain what SOPA is. The Movie industry and Mastercard are for it, so I will be against it, but it would be nice of there was an explanation of what SOPA is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FM Hilton, 16 Nov 2011 @ 9:01am

Sure, just one small step
and the line is crossed. This law is based in part on fears that the DMCA isn't working.
Time to be tougher. Take down entire domains, entire sites.

Let the Internet die-because they're against it-the stupid people who think that a few select interests should run the world.

When it does die, and everyone goes away, then MPAA an RIAA will have nobody else to go after or blame for their problems.

See, fixed that problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 16 Nov 2011 @ 9:23am

Congress represents us. We the people do not want this bill passed. If Congress passes this bill, we revoke their rights to represent us. Forcibly if needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 18 Nov 2011 @ 11:58am

Why this will never pass...
DNS Engineers PDF http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf

A bunch of high level engineers wrote a paper on why SOPA and Protect IP will break the entire internet on the engineering level.

One important quote stuck out...

"The site redirection envisioned in Section 3(d)(II)(A)(ii) [Protect IP/SOPA] is inconsistent with security
extensions to the DNS that are known as DNSSEC. The U.S. Government and private
industry have identified DNSSEC as a key part of a wider cyber security strategy, and many
private, military, and governmental networks have invested in DNSSEC technologies."

Did you read that line?

"The U.S. Government and private
industry have identified DNSSEC as a key part of a wider cyber security strategy, and many
private, military, and governmental networks have invested in DNSSEC technologies."

SOPA and Protect IP will be killed by the Pentagon/CIA/NSA because it would waste billions of taxpayer dollars within the military-intelligence sector spent on developing DNSSEC with is a totally at odds and incompatible with the DNS architecture proposed by Protect IP and SOPA...

At least we have the military-intelligence sector behind us...phew...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orcris, 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:47pm

Obama Against SOPA
Yeah, SOPA's going to pass. IT will be one of the two worst bills ever (the other being the PATRIOT ACT). Fortunately, Obama has said that he's going to veto the bill and maintain net neutrality. I doubt the bill will be able to pass by 2 thirds after that. Yay.

If it does pass, I'm going to seriously start considering moving to Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jonothan S. Tuttle, 20 Nov 2011 @ 9:32pm

If this bill passes it will only show what little influence the people have on governmental decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
canyon, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:28pm

crash
if the bill passes then the internet will no longer be the internet, we are the power house of the internet so if we pass this bill than the whole internet is basically screwed. i don't understand why the government would pass such a thing. if Google and every site that is under the bill shuts down then i don't know what the impact would be on every day life, i mean what the heck are Facebook addicts are going to do, checking Facebook is a habit for some people that will be hard to break, and Google is how i find out information for school and see whats going on in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
amber, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:33pm

why would anyone support sopa
SOPA is going to be the death of the internet for the us. I could sit here and ramble on about how and why but anyone with a brain that isn't ignorant to the facts can see it. so a message to all of you. read the bill learn the facts fix the issue before the problem starts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dirk, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:50pm
  
  Re: why would anyone support sopa
  you have a point, the only way to counter it is to learn it
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:01pm
  
  Re: why would anyone support sopa
  The problem is, there is no problem that needs to be fixed. There is no way they have suffered as they say and are still in business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ryuk, 18 Jan 2012 @ 10:37am

this is the worst idea ever and i dunno why dey are even considering it..... hope it doesnt get passed :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- davidbarcomb, 1 Dec 2014 @ 4:37pm
  
  Re:
  It definitely is
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
theinvisibleman, 19 Jan 2012 @ 4:57pm

wow really?
ok as we all know.....SOPA and PIPA suck! yeah thats right.
if it passed,people would protest against government and maybe even start a world war ON THE INTERNET!!!!
also how would this affect people in other countries?
if it passes hackers and other people would take down the government.....so i would be carefull if i were them.
also it is supposed to protect movie producers tooo right?
wrong. it would actually hurt them. there would be no ratings or compliments and they would have to be more carefull of what they put in the production (like thats not already hard!) so if you see this please protest for the good of you this country and the whole world too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin, 23 Jan 2012 @ 1:51pm

SOPA Better not pass
If you should know Im freaking 11 and love the internet. If they even pass this (WHich they know they can't) Im eather A. Making a child protest
B. Ask my parents to move to Sweden
c. Crap in my pants
D. Walk over to the Congress Hall place a complaint and Tell them "WHat the hell is worng with you? You guys are taking the constiution spitting,crapping and steppping on it!" The 1st Amandment will be broken and there will be mostly a voiloint revolution over the internet. (
[ link to this | view in chronology ]