Who Will Be The First Politician To Be GoDaddy'd?
from the turning-into-an-election-issue dept
Having GoDaddy back off its support for SOPA/PIPA is one thing, but it hardly kills off these bills. Politicians are still very much in support of the bills, and both bills are poised to move forward in Congress when it comes back into session in late January. Of course, 2012 is an election year, which means that all of the members of the House who are supporting SOPA are up for re-election, and 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election. If I were a candidate looking to challenge the incumbents, I'd be paying close, close attention to what happened to GoDaddy, and seeing how the "netroots" community was willing to band together quickly to make things happen. I'd be especially focused on this if I were running against one of the key supporters of SOPA, like Lamar Smith, John Conyers, Bob Goodlatte or Mel Watt (whose opponent should just play that video of him saying he doesn't understand technology, but believes the experts are wrong anyway, over and over and over again).Perhaps a little crowdsourcing is in order. Can we figure out who's already registered to run against the incumbent supporters of SOPA and PIPA, and reach out to get their opinions on the bills and of censorship of the internet?
Here's the full list of the current co-sponsors for SOPA. If any of their opponents in next year's election are paying attention, they should be using this as a key issue and reaching out to the internet community, ASAP. What happened to GoDaddy can happen to a politician in an instant:
- Mark Amodei [NV2]
- Joe Baca [CA43]
- John Barrow [GA12]
- Karen Bass [CA33]
- Howard Berman [CA28]
- Marsha Blackburn [TN7]
- Mary Bono Mack [CA45]
- John Carter [TX31]
- Steven Chabot [OH1]
- Judy Chu [CA32]
- John Conyers [MI14]
- Jim Cooper [TN5]
- Ted Deutch [FL19]
- Elton Gallegly [CA24]
- Robert Goodlatte [VA6]
- Tim Griffin [AR2]
- Tim Holden [PA17]
- Peter King [NY3]
- John Larson [CT1]
- Ben Lujan [NM3]
- Thomas Marino [PA10]
- Alan Nunnelee [MS1]
- William Owens [NY23]
- Ben Quayle [AZ3]
- Dennis Ross [FL12]
- Steve Scalise [LA1]
- Adam Schiff [CA29]
- Brad Sherman [CA27]
- Lee Terry [NE2]
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz [FL20]
- Melvin Watt [NC12]
- Ben Cardin [Maryland]
- Bob Casey [Pennsylvania]
- Bob Corker [Tennessee]
- Dianne Feinstein [California]
- Kristen Gillibrand [New York]
- Orrin Hatch [Utah]
- Amy Klobuchar [Minnesota]
- Bob Menendez [New Jersey]
- Bill Nelson [Florida]
- Sheldon Whitehouse [Rhode Island]
It seems that anyone running against these folks would be missing out on a huge opportunity not to make the incumbent's support of censoring the internet into a campaign issue.
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: campaigns, censorship, elections, free speech, internet, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: godaddy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Holy crap, you guys really don't care about free speech or rights to have an opinion unlike yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You've already had free speech explained to you, and yet you continue to be totally ignorant.
Do you honestly think it's a violation of free speech rights to campaign against a politician?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A small, noisy group of people forcing politicians to take a stand that they do not agree with, or "face the consequences" seems like really pushing the limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Push the limits of what, pray tell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
By "small, noisy group of people", are you referring to the SOPA/PIPA detractors, or the heads of Big Media?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A large, widespread group of people strongly suggesting that politicians take a stand that represents them instead of corporate sponsors, or face the possibility of not getting re-elected, seems like how representative democracy is supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello, My name is......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello, My name is......
No... wait that's not quite right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny, when you lobbied and protested in favor of SOPA, it was "the will of the people".
Apparently, you believe in freedom of speech for you, but not for those who disagree!
I think you take a size 11 jackboot.
[ 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 ]
Re:
Here's what the relevant part of the first amendment means ... and I'll use small word where possible:
The government is not allowed to stop you saying stuff.
There! That's it.
It says nothing about stopping people passing on their own opinions to others, even when ... get this ... even when you don't like what they are saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> amendment means ... and I'll use small word
> where possible: The government is not allowed
> to stop you saying stuff.
The even more relevant portion is "...or the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Speaking out against pending legislation is one of the core freedoms protected by the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm still going to reply, anyway.
Mike Masnick and the commenters here at Techdirt -- including myself -- care more about the rights to free speech and freedom of expression than you will ever know or care to comprehend.
Differing opinions aren't the problem here; uninformed opinions about the effects SOPA and PIPA will have upon the Internet and the First Amendment rights of American citizens are the problem.
SOPA and PIPA will attack the security of the Internet and put in place an architecture for censorship that will be abused by those in power (and I don't mean the jackasses in Congress who deign to pass dangerous laws like SOPA and PIPA). Political dissent, "offensive" content that has been ruled legal, and content of all kinds that could be considered "illegal" (fanart, fanfiction, fan videos on YouTube, videogame playthroughs, video reviews of movies/TV shows/videogames/etc., music remixes, mashups) would be made potential targets of broad-sweeping censorship under SOPA and PIPA.
SOPA and PIPA are broadly defined and offer no true solution to the real problem facing the media conglomerates that are behind the bill (the failure of said conglomerates to adapt to the Internet Age and use the Internet to their advantage). Those two bills represent the clearest attack to a free and open society that many of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.
Free speech is the first right guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment is arguably the most important law ever signed into existence by the American government.
Supporters of SOPA and PIPA don't give a shit about that, though, because what's some collateral damage to them when they have a "war" to fight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Besides, as anyone can tell, Masnick is now focused on PIPA, because it also tackles piracy enforcement- which he hates, because no one loves piracy more than Mike Masnick.
[ 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: Re:
The laws were written by the entertainment industry for the better part of a century. They were only passed by Congress because the people were for the most part, uninformed and unaffected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If only things were really so clear then there would be no argument. Trouble is that nothing is black and white. These bills have a great potential for abuse. In the past we have seen that if people can cheat the system they will. This is what a lot of us fear.
I will admit quite proudly, I am a pirate. I have pirated a lot of things supposed to be "impossible" to copy due to DRMs. I can say a large part of that was because I love to take on a challenge. I will also say though, every time I took something that I actually used I would go out and pay for a copy.
If you took a moment to look you would find that many of these "filthy pirates" are really everyday people all around you. Most of them know what is going on and will support content creators if they provide a good product. A lot of the "piracy" is really people trying out the software seeing if they really want to purchase it. I know if I'm going to spend over $100 for some software I would sure like to know it is going to do what I want before I buy it.
So yes, I'm a pirate. I can also stand here and say though that I would not mind seeing the end of piracy so long as with it comes reasonable copyright laws. The laws were put in place to encourage innovation. It is supposed to motivate you to produce more content. Well how does a copyright that last for half a century after the death of an artist help do that? You think after he has been dead 10 years he is going to write a new song or story?
Copyright like most laws in this nation needs to be reformed. It does not need to be added too, and it does not need better enforcement. It needs to be overhauled back into what it was intended to be. Once these laws are back into the realm of sanity then the general population will respect them. As they stand now though they are a joke. No one will respect them.
I support content creators I like. Why am I going to support someone who has nothing to do with the content? If the author has been dead for over 10 years then why am I paying some random company for his work? What are they really giving me now? People really need to stop and really think about how stupid this system has become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If this goes through, I will never spend another penny on entertainment ever again. I will literally buy huge hard drives, put everything on there and sell them at cost + �3. I'm talking video games, music, movies.
You fucks wouldn't even know the meaning of the word privilege, seeing as how you're entitled to make money hundreds of times, whilst evryone else only gets to make it once.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First off, Congress has the ability to allow for copyright, it's not a right, it's a privilege. Enacted for a limited time, with the intent that after set time has expired (in it's original form, ONLY 10 years), what was copyrighted goes into the public domain.
That's the long and short of it. Copyright is NOT a right.
Mike and the rest of us on here have no problem with tackling piracy enforcement. What we have a problem with are bad laws that will have (un)intended consequences of the rest of us and our rights.
You want to enforce copyright and take a stance against piracy, by all means, knock yourself out.
Doing so with bad laws that won't actually do anything about it and will cause harm to the internet and my rights though, you can bet your a$$ I'm going to be against it and point out all the flaws and stupidity of such a thing.
You sir fail as a troll. But I'm sure you think you're oh so clever.
Oh, fyi, there have been ample quotes (from Mike himself) regarding his stance on piracy. I'll give you a hint, he's not in love with it. Ah heck, I'll just say it for your simple minded, he does not support, condone, approve of it. He understands some of the reasons it happens, he acknowledges that it will NEVER be stamped out entirely, he offers ideas on how you can deal with it (mostly by just admitting you can't get rid of it, then focusing more on the people who do matter, the paying customers, and how to entice them to keep giving you their money and also on how to provide better products/services than the pirates).
Of course, let's not anything like facts and actual things Mike has said and advocates for (the rest of us included) get in the way of your daily tirade against Mike and piracy and the rest of us. You poor fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Modern copyright law is a perversion of the original intent of copyright law ("to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective Writings and discoveries"). Under the right set of circumstances and with a broad enough scope, anyone is an infringer of copyright.
A movie trailer gets uploaded to a YouTube account other than the official studio's channel and gets one million views. Under the law, that's one million separate acts of copyright infringement (the uploader didn't have any right to upload the trailer to their account, after all).
Does that sound fair or right?
Copyright law was conceived in a day and age where reproduction of copyrighted works was expensive and time-consuming (as compared to the ease of copying today). The founding fathers of America -- nor anyone who conceived of the original copyright laws -- could not have forseen the Internet. Modern copyright law is nothing more than an attempt to apply 18th Century logic to the 21st Century, and it is failing miserably. More people pirate content than ever before, and a fair number of those people feel no remorse whatsoever for committing illegal acts of piracy. The state of copyright law today turns everyone into criminals, and nobody is to blame for that but the media companies that pushed through extensions and alterations to copyright law that perverted copyright into its current state.
Copyright law can be used to silence legally-protected speech, too. Under the law, it's the burden of the accused to prove that a certain use of a copyrighted work in a derivative work is "fair use". When the average Internet user is faced with a DMCA complaint for a derivative work that they may have felt used a prior work "fairly", they will often give up the fight to have the derivative work reinstated because they can't afford a legal battle of any sort.
Does that sound fair or right?
Copyright now lasts in perpetuity; there has never been a shortening of the length of a copyright term in the history of copyright law.
Copyright is a legal cudgel; the laws governing this special right can be used to swat content out of existence if even a tiny portion of a work is used in a wholly different work.
Copyright needs to be rewritten from the ground up with the 21st Century in mind -- and until that happens, copyright in this day and age will be seen as little more than an annoying obstacle to sharing information and experiencing new content.
By the way: if the government and the media companies really want to attack piracy, they should start by writing narrowly-defined laws that target the real problems instead of writing broadly-defined laws that will erect a framework for censorship that China would be jealous of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That sounds like they can't sell their works to publishers, just licenses. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not so minor point: The First Amendment is not a law. It is an integral part of the Constitution, arguably as important as us having three branches of government and not being able to purchase liquor .... er, I mean allowing women to vote.
I have always been a little annoyed at the founding fathers that they had to separate out the "Bill of Rights" rather than having them as part of the core document. On the whole, though, I think they got it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disingenuous AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben Cardin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Report from Conyers' neighborhood
One can probably forget any effort to target Rep. John Conyers (D-MI 14). He's the longest-serving black member of Congress (nearly 50 years) from a majority-black district (mostly Detroit) which has been configured (by the state GOP) to be a lock for him. His wife Monica Conyers is doing prison time for a City of Detroit corruption scandal and even this does not seem to have dented Rep. John Conyers' popularity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Report from Conyers' neighborhood
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house/michigan/14
Conyers had a squeaker of a contest :-) in 2010, winning only 77% of the vote in the Tea Party's boom year. Usually he wins with 80-90%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thought it meant something else...
Then again, it's probably happened already. Dirty tricks by politicians is the oldest trick in the book-- I know Talking Points Memo has been targeted in the past for highlighting regrettable comments caught on film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure if I LOOK hard enough, I could find a copyright violation on 80% of sites out there - maybe more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's just "quote" this, sounds like it supports us! Attributing the quote to someone who doesn't and who still has control over their copyright. (OK, that's a very rate beast, indeed, but I'm told they still exist.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd prefer a good primary challenge, but that's not likely in the offing.
Can I get a none of the above?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nebraska Challenger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nebraska Challenger
"Terry�s support of this bill, in addition to his recent support of both the Mobile Information Call Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act, demonstrates a troubling trend of disregard for our individual freedoms."
Here's the link to the post: http://lindstromforcongress.blogspot.com/2011/12/brett-lindstrom-national-defense.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nebraska Challenger
"We feel SOPA could have unintended consequences and could lead to communist-style censorship. We do not support it."
So, those of you in the Omaha area, get to it and support this guy!
http://www.lindstromforcongress.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nebraska Challenger
http://keepthewebopen.com/supporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nebraska Challenger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lee Anderson against John Barron (GA)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to Mike Masnick
While you may prefer to come across as non-partisan, the politicians' political affiliations are matters of fact and should be reported any time you list them. It is especially helpful in this case to demonstrate that not only is the support for SOPA and PIPA bipartisan but so is the opposition.
Also, it is possible to remove these people in the upcoming primaries for those up for re-election this year so that the parties in their local districts can actually boot out those copyright fascists and put up a more worthy candidates in the general elections.
Case in point: you have radio talk show host Erick Erickson who is a self-identified conservative is starting a campaign to unseat Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in the upcoming primaries.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/sopa-faces-growing-opposition-among-co nservatives.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to Mike Masnick
Why does it matter what affiliation a politician falls under?
The support may be bi-partisan. But the opposition is non-partisan. Meaning people on all sides of the political spectrum reject it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to Mike Masnick
Not scared. I've said it plenty of times before that I don't list political party unless it's directly relevant to the story. And there's a reason for that: as soon as you list political parties partisan idiots turn it into a partisan debate about how many Ds vs. Rs there are or focus on D talking points vs. R talking points.
Fact is this isn't a partisan issue.
While you may prefer to come across as non-partisan, the politicians' political affiliations are matters of fact and should be reported any time you list them.
They are factual, but there's lot of factual things I don't list when I talk about politicians. And, again, that's because it doesn't matter here.
Case in point: you have radio talk show host Erick Erickson who is a self-identified conservative is starting a campaign to unseat Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in the upcoming primaries.
Which we wrote about long before Ars ever touched it:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/02475917176/prominent-rightwing-blogger-promises-to -work-hard-to-defeat-any-rightwing-sopa-supporters-congress.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: to Mike Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Called my guys Reno and DC office
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Owens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
List of SOPA political opponents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berman & Sherman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Berman & Sherman
You are hereby nominated to head up the strategy and action committee for your district. Good luck. Godspeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]