State Department Can't Take An Official Stance On SOPA Yet, So There Isn't One
from the okay,-let's-kill-this-off dept
An article by Carl Franzen over at TPM notes, correctly, that contrary to what many SOPA supporters have been insisting, the State Department has taken no official stance on SOPA. This is not a surprise. SOPA supporters lean heavily on that letter that Hillary Clinton sent to Rep. Howard Berman saying that IP enforcement and free speech were compatible goals. However, that letter was written before SOPA came out, and makes no reference to SOPA itself. As we noted at the time, what Clinton says is pretty meaningless as well. It's quite easy to see how IP enforcement can conflict with free speech rights -- it just depends on how it's done. To take an extreme example: if a law was created that shut down all blogs to stop copyright infringement, I think everyone (even SOPA supporters!) would agree that's a form of IP enforcement that also violates free speech. So the devil is very much in the details. And Clinton's letter doesn't discuss the details.And there's a really good reason for this: it would be a massive breach of protocol for a federal agency to speak out about a bill prior to the White House taking an official stance on the bill. I mean, a huge breach. This is not something that federal agency bosses do if they want to keep their jobs. They likely do have internal positions, and will express their opinion to the White House (and to some in Congress), but they simply won't make a public statement until the White House has made its own position clear. And, in fact, as we've reported, we've heard from multiple sources that many, many people within the State Department aren't against the bill, and have put some pressure on other parts of the government over the bill. But that's different than having an official, public position.
So it seemed odd for Franzen to note that the State Department continues to have no official position... and then use that to suggest that my reporting was incorrect on the subject:
�The Department of State does not provide comment on pending legislation. The Administration is in continual contact with Congress on a broad spectrum of issues, including those related to the Internet and the protection of Intellectual Property. �I don't see how the two things are at odds. The State Department simply can't (as it notes!) make a public statement on pending legislation. But that doesn't mean that many people (and people in power) within the State Department are very much against the bill, and recognize that it would harm their "Internet Freedom" programs abroad. There isn't a public statement in either direction, not because the State Department's position are "at odds," with either view, but because the State Department won't make a statement on any pending legislation publicly, at least until the White House has made its position clear.
The news is likely to come as a frustration to the increasing number of those Web companies, writers and users who have criticized SOPA for being a broad overreach that would �break the Internet� from a technical and user standpoint and severely erode innovation, economic growth and Free Speech.
It�s also at odds with what avid SOPA critic and knowledgable IP writer Mike Masnick of Techdirt reported in late December 2011, writing: �Much of the State Department is strenuously opposed to the bill, knowing darn well that it would do significant harm to their efforts to push internet freedom and openness around the globe.�
But having lots of people internally at State not happy with SOPA/PIPA is not "at odds" with the State Department not saying anything publicly beyond broad platitudes about the importance of both free speech and intellectual property.
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: internet freedom, pipa, protect ip, sopa, state department
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
From the sense of the overall paragraph shouldn't that be
But that doesn't mean that many people (and people in power) within the State Department aren't very much against the bill, and recognize that it would harm their "Internet Freedom" programs abroad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hehe, sorry Mike, I just thought it was pretty funny that you actually did make the same mistake twice (either that, or updated the wrong sentence that Richard pointed out, since I didn't see this article at 4am).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PIPA / SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PIPA / SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at the bright side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at the bright side
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At this point I could care less about protocol. How's about instead of more pomp and circumstance, we put a little INTEGRITY back into government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypercritical Hilary
Since this was done by the US Embassy in Madrid then this falls under the State Department of which Hilary Clinton is the supreme boss of foreign policy.
The irony here is that Ms. Clinton has also said much about a free, fair and uncensored Internet. She part of a group promoting this in other countries including that humorous time when Joe Biden gave her speech because she was ill.
I believe it untrue to say that the State Department has said nothing on SOPA when the last official word I heard was that they were very concerned about SOPA. This was all about other countries could crack down on the free speech and public protest under the excuse of "copyright enforcement"
So Hilary Clinton lives in Hypercritical House of say one thing and do another. You can only wonder who is pulling her strings and very few can do that. Can you not feel the waves of lobbying money being cast at the Whitehouse here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypercritical Hilary
If they worked toward the implementation of companion legislation overseas at the behest of the entertainment industry and against the will of the people, what could possibly suggest that they'd be against implementing the same thing at home?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but the Protect IP Act was. So does that mean State doesn't necessarily support SOPA but does support Protect IP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again, know-nothings making the choices.
And they simply don't care.
It's just a bad idea, its big name dinosaurs trying to stay relevant in the face of something innovative and they can't keep up to keep their investors happy, so they claim copyright infringement woes and toss money at D.C. so they can get laws passed that allow them to sink their claws into the internet and bring it down with them back to the stone age, in the hopes that this will some how lead to more profit. Free speech, DNSSEC, and the extra pain in the ass it will be to their current paying customers are all just casualties in a war to get more money, perfectly acceptable in their book.
Greed is a powerful thing, powerful enough to not only stop innovation, but completely reverse it if we allow it to happen. If the big music labels got their way we'd just turn the internet off completely because it 'infringes on copyright because someone downloaded a song somewhere' and would have to drive to the store to buy a circular piece of plastic if we wanted any music at all, instead of being able to buy the one song we like for a buck online. And the truth behind it is they want you to buy that entire album for that one song so they get more money, even if everything else on the disc is crap. That isn't how the world works any more dinosaurs, so either get with the program or go extinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And while some people might argue that putting internal divisions between various branches of government into the public domain makes the curent administration look ineffectual, I'd argue it actually makes them look stronger, by proving to the world that the President is prepared to appoint people who'll stand up to him when they think he's making a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I first read this, I read this as "it's = The State Department", being that they very well may be at odds with Mike reporting their honest feelings and not a prewashed prepared statement of their feelings that was given to them.
Then again, reporting (even if it is a significant number) that anyone in an agency do not agree with legislation before they are told what their decision and feelings are, is a little presumptious mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]