The Hypocrites Of Congress: Who Voted Against Net Neutrality, But For SOPA/PIPA

from the just-checking dept

Tue, Nov 29th 2011 12:38pm — Mike Masnick

An interesting article by Grant Gross over at PC World notes the hypocrisy of many in Congress who screamed loudly about how net neutrality was a dangerous attempt by government to "regulate the internet," but are now the main supporters of SOPA. We already highlighted one of these, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who went so far as to create a video hysterically warning about the dangers of regulating the internet: As we noted at the time, many of her arguments apply equally to SOPA's regulation of the internet, but she just doesn't seem to get it. Here are just a few of her arguments:

But some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy... the World Wide Web! This has never happened and there has never been a time that a consumer has needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene.... Here's what they want to do: Take the private internet and put it all under government control. Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application. And what would happen to your small business, if you had to depend on internet speeds that Uncle Sam says is going to be okay.... We want to keep [the internet] open, free and prosperous.

How that doesn't apply equally to SOPA... I don't know. But she's listed as a co-sponsor. Funny, that. Especially since SOPA is likely to have a much more direct impact on "the next Facebook innovator" than anything in the (yes, poorly designed) net neutrality rules put forth by the FCC.

Unfortunately, Gross's article only names a few names. But not all of them. So we thought we might as well do that. Below, for your viewing pleasure, the list of hypocritical Congressional Reps and Senators who claim to be against regulating the internet, but have no problem doing so when it comes to SOPA or PROTECT IP (PIPA):

Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Rep. Mary Bono Mack, California
Rep. John Carter, Texas
Rep. Steven Chabot, Ohio
Rep. Elton Gallegly, California
Rep. Robert Goodlatte, Virginia
Rep. Tim Griffin, Arkansas
Rep. Peter King, New York
Rep. Thomas Marino, Pennsylvania
Rep. Alan Nunnelee, Mississippi
Rep. Dennis Ross, Florida
Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Rep. Lee Terry, Nebraska
Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire
Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri
Sen. John Boozman, Arkansas
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi
Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee
Sen. Michael Enzi, Wyoming
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
Sen. Charles Grassley, Iowa
Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah
Sen. John Isakson, Georgia
Sen. James Risch, Idaho
Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida
Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana

Of course, the really amazing thing is that SOPA and PIPA are much more about regulating the internet than the FCC's "net neutrality" rules are. I already think the FCC's rules are pretty silly (designed more to protect a few big businesses), but they'll have little to no impact on everyday internet startups. That's not true of SOPA/PIPA. Those rules will have a massive impact on every day startups. So how can supporters of SOPA/PIPA claim to be against "regulating the internet" while signing on to a bill that is almost entirely about regulating the internet?

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, internet, net neutrality, protect ip, regulations, sopa

64 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

SabreCat, 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:45pm

All well and good to call out the hypocrisy, but "hysterically" is a gender slur. Might do well to watch out for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re:
  Pussy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jessie, 1 Dec 2017 @ 7:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Fun fact,pussy isn’t a gender slur. It is a shortening of “pusillanimous”. Has nothing to do with vaginas.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nathan F (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re:
  So what word in common usage in the English language would you suggest in its place?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SabreCat, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It'd need some slight rephrasing, but the following jump to mind: alarmist (probably closest in meaning), overreacting, overblown, exaggerated, hyperbolic, etc. etc.
    
    Or you could remove it. The sentence and article as a whole work fine without.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:07pm
  
  Re:
  re: sabrecat,
  Mike used "hysterically" because the speaker in the video uses the same word (to describe the Obama Administration).
  
  Try R'ing TFA next time before you comment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SabreCat, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Doesn't refute the criticism. One party's using problematic language doesn't justify somebody else using it back--it's stooping to her level, at best.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - FuzzyDuck, 30 Nov 2011 @ 8:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you think "hysterical" only applies to women, then maybe it's you who harbors certain prejudicial views on women? Just sayin'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re:
  All well and good to call out the hypocrisy, but "hysterically" is a gender slur. Might do well to watch out for that.
  
  Wait what? Since when is "hysterical" gender specific? I've never heard it used that way *at all*.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:36pm
    
    Re: Re: "Hyster"
    'Hyster' being the Latin word for a woman's uterus. Thus, the word 'hysterical' specifically refers to when a woman's actions/emotions are entirely under the sway of her uterus.
    
    Hence, it could by some be considered a gender slur.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Hyster"
      While I'm aware of the origin of the word (SAT root words FTW), I'm with Mike on this. I have never heard any modern usage of the word that was specifically gender based.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sks (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It is very much a gender slur, used quite often to undermine women when they express empathy instead of just reason.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BobVila, 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Most women get hysterical when a gender slur is used.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 4:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It is very much a gender slur, used quite often to undermine women when they express empathy instead of just reason.
      
      I have always heard it applied equally to men and women. I've never heard it used as gender specific.
      
      I just looked it up on dictionary.com, and it makes no reference to gender at all:
      
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical
      
      hys�ter�i�cal
      [hi-ster-i -kuhl] Show IPA
      adjective
      1.
      of, pertaining to, or characterized by hysteria.
      2.
      uncontrollably emotional.
      3.
      irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock.
      4.
      causing hysteria.
      5.
      suffering from or subject to hysteria.
      
      Ok. We can also look up hysteria:
      
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysteria
      
      hys�te�ri�a
      [hi-ster- ee-uh, -steer-] Show IPA
      noun
      1.
      an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.
      2.
      Psychoanalysis . a psychoneurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks, disturbances of sensory and motor functions, and various abnormal effects due to autosuggestion.
      3.
      Psychiatry . conversion disorder.
      
      Again absolutely no reference to gender.
      
      It's not a gender slur.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2011 @ 1:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that I'm not even a native speaker.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "All well and good to call out the hypocrisy, but "hysterically" is a gender slur. Might do well to watch out for that."
    
    Wait what? Since when is "hysterical" gender specific? I've never heard it used that way *at all*.
    
    Have to agree with Masnick on this one. He should know, he's constantly in hysterics over the Chicken Little scenarios he invents for himself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yep, along with the rest of the internet that agrees with him. Looks like the problems of SOPA and PIPA are being discussed and exposed through social media sites.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 6:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oooooooo..... I'm scared.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        rubberpants, 29 Nov 2011 @ 6:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I bet you're a real force on the playground.
        
        *eyeroll*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2011 @ 1:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who cares?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2011 @ 4:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We know you are. Hence daily showing up on the site and trying to dismiss everything Mike and others say or denounce them and attack them with ad homs.
        
        If you weren't scared, you wouldn't feel the need to do any of that (unless you're just acting like a child or a troll that is).
        
        Your fear that people are waking up to what you just tried to have passed without their knowledge and are now responding in turn is evident to all. You are indeed scared. Poor AC. You were so close. You'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 3:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Have to agree with Masnick on this one"
      
      So you admit you agree with Mike?
      
      Freetard.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Noah C. (profile), 30 Nov 2011 @ 6:16am
  
  Re: ...Hysterectimony?
  You might be thinking of Hysterectimony... (sp?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScytheNoire, 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:50pm

America, Land of the Free?
As I have stated before, the motto of America has changed from Land of the Free to Land of Hypocrisy.

Welcome to your Corporatocracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:54pm

SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57332246-261/grooveshark-email-how-we-built-a-music-service-withou t-um-paying-for-music/

'"The only thing that I want to add is this: we are achieving all this growth without paying a dime to any of the labels," wrote Sina Simantob, Grooveshark's chairman, in an e-mail on Dec. 1, 2009.'

You can try some weenie legalism to excuse it, but this is EXACTLY the kind of grifting that Mike denies goes on, and why there's actual need for SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  But who says they have to pay them in the first place? Who says copyright is the right thing for the Internet?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Another AC, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:07pm
    
    Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
    Agreed, ootb seems to think that they have some kind of obligation to pay.
    
    btw, like you ootb I did not read the link, I already know what it says ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  So, you're mention of a yet unresolved court case is proof of what?
  
  Oh, you've learned to use links! Very good!
  
  Feel free to use the court-set precedence of your linked court case when somebody's been proven guilty of something.
  
  Good try though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  this is EXACTLY the kind of grifting that Mike denies goes on
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
  
  and why there's actual need for SOPA.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:44pm
    
    Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
    I almost never comment, though I come here to read the discussions. This, though, made me feel like I had to say something.
    
    Bravo. Powerful, pithy and precise. A perfect interweb argument.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  Based on how GrooveShark operates they shouldn't need to pay a damn thing you reeb.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 6:47pm
    
    Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
    What is it about its operation that leads to your view re paying?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  There are already legal methods in place for dealing with Grooveshark. In fact, Grooveshark is already being sued by Universal.
  
  So, tell me...why do we need a new law? Why can't we just enforce the existing laws?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:32pm
    
    Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
    because lawsuits cost money, duh!
    
    this way we can just shut them down and ask questions later.
    
    no harm, no foul!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 6:49pm
    
    Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
    What is it about its operation that leads to your view re paying?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 30 Nov 2011 @ 1:24am
    
    Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
    Because the current laws require pesky things like due process, evidence and the right to trial. These people want ultimate sanctions based on mere accusations, with the victim bearing any related costs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Guy (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  I'm not going to defend Grooveshark. Grooveshark will fail in court because they paid employees to upload music. If the labels make the argument in court, Grooveshark will lose their safe harbor because of that. The DMCA is sufficient to deal with groovshark.
  
  SOPA goes beyond punishing bad actors. It provides tools that will be used to hurt legitimate businesses and public forums and will drive investment out of the United States. As written, it is bad public policy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sks (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:32pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  There's never a reason to allow censorship under the guise of piracy.
  A lot of people that do pirate software, movies, music, ect., some of those people actually do buy what they pirate if they enjoy using it that much, just to give money to the creators.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  This comment has nothing to do with this article. Please do try to stay on-topic. People might think you're a troll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  You can try some weenie legalism to excuse it, but this is EXACTLY the kind of grifting that Mike denies goes on, and why there's actual need for SOPA.
  
  Grooveshark is being sued under current law. What would SOPA do other than give someone an end run around the law?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- duffmeister (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:41pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  So aren't there laws that already cover this? Aren't they being sued under those existing laws?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  Freeloading sacks of dogshit
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JJB, 29 Nov 2011 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  Seriously? While I don't condone grooveshark because of it's copyright infringement, that does not mean we need SOPA. The RIAA already has the right to sue you into oblivion for a song playing in the background of a video on youtube. If anything we need underregulation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JJB, 29 Nov 2011 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
  Seriously? While I don't condone grooveshark because of it's copyright infringement, that does not mean we need SOPA. The RIAA already has the right to sue you into oblivion for a song playing in the background of a video on youtube. If anything we need underregulation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:54pm

Thank you for this list. Every time politicians vote for a bill against people's will, their names should be all over the Internet in Hall of Shame lists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PlagueSD (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re:
  I really don't think there's enough room on the interwebs for that info. When was the last time politicians voted FOR the people's will? All of them support the wishes of whomever gives them the most money. That's why they all seem to "flip-flop" at a moments notice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:58pm

They were against regulating the internet before they were for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffhole (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 12:58pm

Yeah, we're look at you, the south.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vic, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:18pm

Oh, good! Not a single senator out of my state is on the list!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re:
  And yet, Florida is on this list. Come to think of it, some one was talking about him running for President. I guess it would be more of what I already am getting in that case...
  
  I had high hopes for him. Guess I fell for his "Change".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:23pm

LOL
It's only hypocritical if they actually understand what they are legislating. The interwebs confuzzle them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:48pm

Government Regulation - the Perpetual Bogyman
Blackburn simply regurgitates the too easy mindless blame government regulation mantra. --> "Take the private internet and put it all under government control." These proposals for so-called government control are being pushed by private industry for the benefit of companies that can "buy" our politicians.

Blackburn goes on to say: "Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application." Again, it is private industry that is attempting to use regulations to quash competition.

Blackburn should be demanding that the private refrain from manipulating the politicians and to let the free-market work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mickeywhite, 29 Nov 2011 @ 1:53pm

Why does Marsha Want Congress to Regulate the Internet? Why not just say NO FEDERAL branch (the FCC and congress and the federal courts included) has any authority to decide or rule on any aspect concerning the Internet?

BUT Marsha Blackburn did Vote FOR: Patriot Act Reauthorization, Electronic Surveillance, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes �Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extension; and only NOW she is worried about free speech, privacy, and government take over of the internet?

Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her �blatantly unconstitutional� votes at :
http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html
Mickey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ArkieGuy (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:14pm

Tweet your congress critters!
I just sent out a tweet naming my congressmen and mentioning this article. Probably won't help, but can't hurt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:22pm

because they have no clue about the internet, no clue about the impact the bill(s) will have on EVERYBODY, including them, that use the internet, because they are more concerned with their pockets than the people that put them where they are and are supposed to be representing and basically, because they dont give a flying f**k for anyone other than themselves, even though they are making themselves look like absolute twats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mibsfo, 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:32pm

Vote with your Twitter account
If you believe in Net-Neutrality, go public by posting it on your Twitter account. Either go here: http://hashthevote.com/issue/net-neutrality and click "Vote Yes" or tweet with the hashtag: #NetNeutrality_YES (either way, we will pick up your vote).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erik (profile), 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:38pm

Not surprised about Sen. Hatch, he's a big-time recording artist
Just take a look at his portfolio on Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=or rin+hatch&x=12&y=14

If PIPA doesn't pass, he may have to give up his dreams of being a performing artist! Then he'll be completely dependent upon whatever scraps his loyal lobbyists might deign to toss his way!

Save his dream! Support PIPA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re: Not surprised about Sen. Hatch, he's a big-time recording artist
  He's so in bed with the copyright lobby they're common-law at this point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lazuli, 29 Nov 2011 @ 5:19pm

Oh yup. Kelly Ayotte is on the list, no surprises there. I'm sorry on behalf of NH. :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mimi, 29 Nov 2011 @ 6:56pm

Please sign this petition to stop congress from passing S.O.P.A:
http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-do-not-pass-the-sopa-bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Noah C. (profile), 30 Nov 2011 @ 6:13am

The Representatives that voted for SOPA but spoke out against in the first place don't actually care about SOPA or PIPA or really anything else but their bank accounts.

I think that's pretty obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meee, 30 Nov 2011 @ 8:57am

It seems the list of people have no particular order. Are they in ascending or descending order for how much money they have received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2011 @ 12:31pm

It is possible to be against "net neutrality" while being in favor of SOPA/Protect-IP. They are directed to different issues. To call those who may recognize the differences and support one but not the other "hypocrites" is quite misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 1 Dec 2011 @ 5:33am
  
  Re:
  No, it's not. That was explained above.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]