Senator Wyden Promises To Read Out The Names Of Those Who Oppose PROTECT IP
from the sign-up-now dept
As stories begin to circulate that the Senate is about to make a big push to get PROTECT IP (aka PIPA) through while everyone's been focused on SOPA over in the House, Senator Ron Wyden has reiterated his commitment to being against the bill, and promising to actually use his allotted time to filibuster on the bill if he has to. Too often these days, Senators have been able to get away with a sort of fake filibustering, where they say they will and everyone just assumes it's as if they did stand up and talk for days on end. However, Senator Wyden has said that he'll really filibuster if the Senate really does try to move forward by standing on the floor and talking. While, in the past, the "standard" is to do something like read names from the phonebook, Wyden is promising to read the names of people who signed petitions against PIPA. So if you'd like your name to go into the official record of the US Senate as being against PIPA, here's your chance... You can sign at that link.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: filibuster, grassroots, protect ip, ron wyden, sopa, support
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually breaking the law, if and when it's passed is another matter entirely.
During Prohibition, many people spoke openly against it in newspapers and on radio. (There was no TV or Internet, as hard to believe as it is...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yet.
Do you honestly think they will stop after PROTECT IP and SOPA are purchased?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will probably pass anyway. If they overcame his hold, they will probably have the votes to pass the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Signing up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Signing up
Then we can put things in there like "Thomas Jefferson" or "James Madison"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Filibuster: Good or Bad
That being said, if someone does it for something like this and as stylishly as Wyden seems to be planning then I find myself supporting it.
Maybe I'm just a hypocrite and think its wrong when I don't agree with it and right when I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Filibuster: Good or Bad
Filibuster is a double-edges sword that cuts both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Filibuster: Good or Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 + 2 = 5
karma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 + 2 = 5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 + 2 = 5
The process by which they are made is sub-optimal and not working properly.
We're just hacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Filibuster: Good or Bad
Filibusters only work if you can't get 60 Senators to break it or who want to move on to the next bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Filibuster: Good or Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Filibuster: Good or Bad
When someone finsd something so obnoxious that they are willing to stand up and shut down the Senate over it, they should have that ability...provided they are standing on the floor and talking non-stop. Nothing else gets done until that issue is resolved.
Unfortunately the Senate has changed the rules so that things can run in 'parallel tracks' so that while a filibuster is being conducted, other business can be taken care of. It makes it toothless.
The filibuster is a good idea, but it needs to 'hurt' to use it. You need to be the poster child for holding up the Senate while you are doing it.
Instead you have Harry Reid being completely ineffective as leader by simply not holding votes if the GOP merely threaten to filibuster.
To that end, the filibuster doesn't even exist in the original Senate rules. It only came into existence basically by accident when they removed a procedure from the rules in the early 1800s ("to move the previous question").
People should be allow to gum up the works. However, there shouldn't be ways to 'ease' the pain of that gumming up of the works. And of course, ways for the majority to override that stand so progress can be made once enough people agree.
It gives power to the individual Senator, but not unlimited power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.
And take the time to tell your family and friends why they should vote against these politicians too.
Spread the word and the insight.
Because we all know, those very same politicians are going to do there very level best to make themselves look like they are your very best friend!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.
Of course, that means we may end up with George 'Macaca' Allen in his place...
wheee.
But you are correct, we need to start voting people out on principles so that their replacements start adhering to principles instead of campaign contributions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.
Any who votes for this should never be voted for in office again.And for all who say nothing then if it happens it will be partly your fault as well.Took Hitler a little at a time until he became the dictator and it will take 1984 a little time before you wake up with o freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.
To counter that the political discourse needs to move to a public space where we have access to it and we can decide things like in a true democracy and until we do that, we are not going to get anything from the farting politicians.
Everyone should have a copy of the laws and have the ability to edit it and submit that to a review somewhere and we all should vote to choose which laws we want, that would make lobbying difficult, after that it is just a matter of electing the necessary people to go to congress to enact those laws.
Then maybe something new happens instead of government agencies trying convince congress they would have to try and convince the joe's and mary's on the streets as why such proposals are necessary, they would need to explain in no uncertain terms what it means and why we should chose that and not other options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elsewise, is there a list somewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I say, name all persons involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Senators opposing: Wyden, Cantwell, Moran, Paul
Senators for: The other 96
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, you'll eventually be right if these laws continue to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> Senators for: The other 96
So, you nuts have elected those who would f...k up your lawful rights in favor of big bucks, yea? Sounds unlucky enough for citizens. USA democracy is such a funny thing. You have so many freedoms... to get jailed, censored and prosecuted, lol. This idiocy is laughable. And let's say, even if you will sentence those unlucky persons to death penalty, THIS WILL NEVER STOP PIRACY. You can't forbid the freedom. And for most people piracy simply does not appears as serious offense at all. So, at very most, you can torture or kill some people who will be considered innocent and repressed by others most of time. So what? F...k the RIAA. F...k MPAA. F...k BSA. F...k those business mafia & E-PARASITES. It's THEM who should be sued for such a blatant f...kups of freedom just to earn some extra dollars. That's E-PARASITES who should be considered criminals, not citizens. Enforcing artificial business models, eliminating competition on market, racketing those who disagrees to pay unfair prices, bribing politics and so on. Isn't it looks like a serious crime, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only if you sport the cash Google did when they bought his needy ass off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How much did that plate of food cost again at Wyden's last Silicon Valley meal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00968:@@@P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, to contact 200 million other Americans...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well that won't take long, will it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think we all agree that delaying SOPA and PROTECT IP a few years is a small price to pay to make sure that these laws are constitutional and serve the publics best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So there, I've done the math. And it shows that Protect IP is by no means a sure deal in the Senate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to place a small wager?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you think Wyden put a hold on it? He knows it's a slam-dunk and that a hold was the only way to slow it down. He also knows his hold is on life support, that's why he is frantic trying to negotiate some face-saving (and meaningless) changes to the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Be useful to keep an eye on who suddenly changes position during the filibuster.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the math has four Senators opposing it. Let's just wait and see how this works out for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Take also notice that the BSA (one of the strongest copyright supporters around) has already come forth to oppose SOPA. I know, SOPA != PROTECT IP, but still, it sends across the message that this kind of legislation is not wanted. Even by those that, theoretically, depend on copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh well, reality will be a real slap in the face soon enough.
The worst thing is, they love to say things like "well, once it's passed you all will shut up and blah blah blah". But you know, if the shoe's on the other foot, and it doesn't pass, we'll never hear the end of it from the supporters. They'll come here day in and day out, heck even if it did pass, same thing. Some people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if SOPA passes, unless they quickly whip up an amendment saying you can't announce who voted for it then those politicians are going to lose their jobs come the next election (possibly sooner if the public decides to take up its 2nd amendment right to overturn an unjust government that no longer represents the people)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?
Look, I'm not American, but even I took my time to read a bit about what Filibustering is.
As I understand it, in the senate, your "allotted time" is infinity. You can speak continuously as long as you stay on topic, or until "three-fifths" (60 or so) members of the senate vote to shut you up (so to speak).
Relevant link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Senate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?
Expecting something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?
What exactly did I fail to comprehend?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?
There will be no filibuster or hold on the bill because it only takes 60 Senators to move forward.
The bill already has over 40 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?
"I'm not going to look up how long that is"
Yeah, why bother with silly little fact thingies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?
The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" --
It's those damn pirates again, them and their due process!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the link maybe you'll have more luck than I did.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3261863
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh wait.....NVM. You're a shill trying to get people to think it's not working and or easy to do. Sorry for F-ing that up for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://stopcensorship.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Correct link is http://www.stopcensorship.org/
previous link was just a pathetic shill attempting to stop people from signing....damn you must be shitting your pants about the number of people signing up to resort to those sorts of tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State by state......
Might give them some pause on an individual basis when they find out how many from their state are against this when they're thinking ahead to election time.
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: State by state......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because - if we don't ALL put our foot down on these rights being taken from us and given the corporations - the corporations will end up being the only ones with rights.
I'm not willing to live in chains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you honestly think they will stop after PROTECT IP and SOPA are purchased?
No and if we fail to make a stand for our rights - we won't have any left.
If you choose to sit and play the quiet game - remember this concept when it hits home - and it will, eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great idea, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great idea, but...
I hope so. I also signed as "Mike Hunt" "Ahjeet M'Drrorz" "Hassan Bin Sobaar" "Hooben Pharteen" and "Suk Mediq". Rumor has it that "Harry Tuell" "Alec Yerklett" and "Ben Dover" are on as supporters as well. I guess he'll look like a bigger fool than he does already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question about the process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question about the process
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question about the process
It was so obvious that the current landscape was rife with illegality, that the Senate drafted their own bill without the House. They'll vote to pass it and send it directly to the President to become a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question about the process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question about the process
It was so obvious that the current landscape was rife with illegality, that the Senate drafted their own bill without the House. They'll vote to pass it and send it directly to the President to become a law.
Um. You might want to bone up on your knowledge of how the federal government works. The Senate can't just send a bill to the President w/o approval of the same bill from the House. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question about the process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
Someone wasn't paying attention in history class.
The US has a history of standing up to evil dictatorships that try to grab too much power, RIAA etc will be just the latest in a long line of vanquished scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: well
+1 funny. The homeless, unemployed, disaffected and malcontents are far more concerned about getting a job. They have more important things to be concerned about than freeloading content. Like feeding themselves. Odd that outraged rabble from Techdirt hasn't sought to bring the message to the movement. But perhaps expected as it would require effort, sacrifice and personal integrity - which runs counter to the underlying sense of entitlement that has you freeloading in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: well
Even if it passes, one of 2 things will happen:
1) it will thrown out as unconstitutional through judicial review
2) it will be completely disregarded and circumvented by the international community
Either way, this whole process has been a waste of money and lost reputation by the parties that are currently pushing this, which I feel is richly deserved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: well
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: well
Over 100 law professors say you're wrong.
What are your legal credentials again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well
And what are your legal credentials, chubby?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]