Jon Stewart Promises To Study Up On SOPA
from the internet-has-asked... dept
Well, this is kind of cool. A Reddit user got some VIP passes to go see the taping of The Daily Show on Wednesday evening... and asked Reddit what he should ask Jon Stewart about SOPA/PIPA if he could. And... at the pre-show Q&A, he was able to say:"the internet sent me to ask you what you think of SOPA and why you haven't mentioned it on the show."Stewart basically admitted he hadn't heard of it, asked if it had anything to do with net neutrality, and then admitted that they all "had their heads up their asses" due to focusing on election stuff. However, he apparently also looked at one of the show's writers, and promised to research the issue.
And then... in the opening to the show Stewart actually cracked a joke about it (video below), where he joked that the next night's guest would be "the internet" and then said "we'll be all SOPA what?!?" and then noted:
Here's all I'll say about that: I've got some reading to catch up on...Please do, Jon. Please do.
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: communities, jon stewart, pipa, politics, protect ip, sopa, the daily show
Companies: reddit, viacom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Viacom, which owns Comedy Central is very strongly pro-SOPA. But, I'm not sure if they can gag Stewart...
[ 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:
Ah ha! I've been spending a better part of my time recently trying to figure out what the difference between tasteful exclusion and censorship is, and thankfully you've come along to provide me a worthy answer. Apparently, that answer amounts to: if some of us think we're going to stop some others of us from being offended, then it magically doesn't count as censorship.
What Comedy Central did in censoring Parker/Stone in that episode was a travesty of cowardice. Censorship doesn't stop being censorship just because it appeases folks who believe in one invisible friend or the other, and that goes for ALL religions, not just Islam....
BTW, as an aside, while I try to be understanding of people's faith in general, if you're prophet or diety somehow loses power or respect by being depicted in ANY way, then either your diety sucks and you should find a new, more photogenic God, or your religion is horribly mis-prioritized, in which case your God probably hates you more then any infidel you can dream up....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The ████████ █████ of █████ █████ ████ █████ the █████ is ██████████ █████ for █████ ██████████. ████████ 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 ████ "de ███████ ███████ et ███████" by ██████ are ████ ██████████ in █████ █████ ████████ ████, ███████████ by ███████ ████████ ████ the ████ ███████████ by H. ███████!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe that's the bait-and-switch! Martyrs get 70 virgins in heaven...but that can't touch them. A special Tantalus-style torture for blowing other people up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Has it ever been specified that those 70 virgins are of the opposite sex?
Could turn out to be a rather uncomfortable eternity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mispelled "super fabulous"....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That does at least make some sense even if I do not agree with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They've probably seen what's happened to Jesus as depicted by Christians such as "Jesus, CEO" or even parodies like "Buddy Christ."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
I might not agree with what someone does or says but I am not going to censor them. A prime example would be that I personally hate the westborro baptist church and what they do, BUT I would fight for their right to go out and do what they do.
That is what freedom of speech is. The right to go out and say whatever you want no matter who it upsets. I will fight for peoples right to do just that even if I don't agree with what they have to say. I just hope others will stand with me and fight for my right to say whatever the hell I want as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is not **Censorship**, South Park had the freedom to release the show unedited, just not on their propriety privately owned network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that morally okay, or must I allow all speech on my property to be righteous in the zegota universe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chris, c'mon, that comparison is just wrong. Viacom is a company putting its product out there for public consumption. Guests in your home are putting anything out there for public anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Said differently, there is nothing ethically wrong with choosing not to air/offer certain content, because I as a consumer, can choose to not consume their other content or frequent their business. I have no recourse with the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's unfortunate you don't believe that, but in order to have a rational discussion about this, one pretty much has use the universally accepted definition of words.
You believing that "censorship" only equates to "censorship by the government" doesn't really change the definitions of the words themselves. Censorship by a corporation or an individual is still censorship, it just doesn't go against the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is true. This is also still censorship. That is why you can "censor yourself" and not say **** or **** in front of small children or in public web fora. It's still censorship. Whether you think it's wrong or whether it should be allowed may be a topic of debate, but it's censorship no matter how you slice it.
Almost everyone is against Government censorship. Unless it's nipples at a football game halftime show or a shapely butt on a police drama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and that's why no one said it was illegal, just cowardly. It's still censorship, just not censorship that violates the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, as you said, it may be extremely ignorant or cowardly or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I don't think that's true. I think the ethics of a thing extends beyond Government vs Corporate, or even Public vs Private, and transcends discussions of legal vs illegal. Something can be ethical and illegal -- just make a bad law. And in the same way something can be unethical and legal! Philosophers have been talking about what is and is not ethical for millenia, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not compelled by your dismissal that ethics doesn't play into it because it was a corporate entity doing so.
By your line, we should have no problem at all with the fact that none of them are discussing SOPA. Unless you think that newscasters should be held to a higher standard of ethics than satirists.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S mith_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_ Treason
There are limits to free speech, including yelling Fire in a crowded theater and overthrow of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So I can sit here and say that I would like to get together a group of people and go have a peaceful march on Washington where we are going to take over.
Sadly we all know that it would just end with a peaceful march nothing would change though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not quite.
My take from the decision on Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) is that such speech is protected by the Constitution unless it is "...directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action"
Advocating the overthrow of the government in general is protected speech, but, when you start getting into specifics of such an action, not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does this mean that election campaigns are illegal too? I'm pretty sure all opposition parties talk of overthrowing the current government, don't they?
This could mean that voting for the losing party (or just the party that's not in power) is also illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why, with the NDAA signed into law, the next president could even detain all the people who (stupidly admit they) voted against him and could be the first president since Washington to be asked to accept the crown as the first king of the USA.
/obvious-dry-hyperbolic-fun-while-bored
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So I'm sorry, but your thin facade of 'it was a common courtesy b/c someone would have been offended' is complete and other nonsense. B/c if someone being offended is all it takes to block something in "good taste", then the entire South Park series would be blocked.
Stop feeling good about censorship b/c it makes you feel better and more comfortable when people aren't allowed to say something that might offend. One day, you might find yourself on the receiving end of such censorship, and you will only have yourself to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Essentially, we should have no problem with Censorship if it's done by private entities regarding their property or services. I'm not sure how much I can agree with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This may not reflect modern Islam, but I'm pretty sure that was the original writings/law.
There is LOTS of old scripts that depict Muhammad and were not unlawful hundreds of years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lots of things are against lots of religions. If the religion of peace can't take criticism without issuing fatwa's then you know, maybe they deserve that criticism.
Comedy Central didn't want to deal with whatever backlash may or may not have happened as a result of Muhammad being drawn.
Viacom and Comedy Central also don't want to deal with the anti-SOPA crowd. They are now in a tough spot because they know that once informed, Jon Stewart's audience will be 99% against SOPA.
It is no longer business as usual. The Internet is an incredible place and if people are allowed to express themselves freely then regimes can fall, countries might change and power will be given back to the people regardless of where they live. Is it any wonder that the only support SOPA can get is from astroturf campaigns, corporations or industry?
SOPA is a step backwards for America. It will give more power to the government and corporate America.
This is what Viacom and the government want. They want to do the thinking for us and tell us what is good and bad, funny and not funny and right and wrong.
They want to make everything doubleplus good.
It will be interesting to see how Jon handles SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
IMO, any law is censorship, and the fact that people are censored at all offends me. If I were to found a religion where paws were at the same level of offense as burning the religion's holy text, I'd be mocked mercilessly.
So "good taste" doesn't wash for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yours is a bad analogy as well.
Burning a bible in public sparks harsh words and maybe a protest if it's known about in advance.
Depicting Muhammad results in riots and death threats from wackjob islamic fanatics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Didn't raise much controversy(for a South Park episode).
[ 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:
That, and this could finally result in TV air time for SOPA concerns, which has been somewhat lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This video is not available in your country
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This video is not available in your country
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep in mind
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403465/december-01-2011/stop-onlin e-piracy-act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keep in mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Keep in mind
Cheers, mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Keep in mind
http://proxy.org/cgi_proxies.shtml
US Proxies are available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Keep in mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep in mind
Damn! I'm trying to help. From here I can't tell, and can't find a transcript.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep in mind
Yes .
Damn! I'm trying to help. From here I can't tell, and can't find a transcript.
Thanks for you efforts - I guess - I'd have to go through them one by one.
Some of those shows are broadcast over here (by Ch4 I think) and would be available here by the catch up service. However finding a specific clip is likely to be very time consuming.
This really does underline the stupidity going on here - the video is available - it's just that getting it will take around an hour of my time - which just kills the utility of the whole thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep in mind
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403466/december-01-2011/stop-onlin e-piracy-act---danny-goldberg---jonathan-zittrain
or watch for the 12-01-11 episode with Richard Branson as featured guest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keep in mind
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403466/december-01-2011/stop-online-pi racy-act---danny-goldberg---jonathan-zittrain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stewart on SOPA
The only problem is that he's employed by a company that supports SOPA, and I'm sure that he likes his job, money, and perks.
I wonder if he'll be that courageous-and will actually speak up about/against it.
Who knows? But I'm betting he will not only 'read up on it' but will deliver the worthy diatribe he's capable of.
After all, he hates stupid politicians with a passion and this should be right up his alley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stewart on SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stewart on SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stewart on SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stewart on SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Place your bets...
Who will get more time and attention... Dolly or "the internet"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Place your bets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Place your bets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Place your bets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, but why?
I've proposed a public choice theory explanation. Other commenters here at Techdirt (thanks) propose that it's because of an “entitlement culture.”
Why is copyright a one-way ratchet? Always tightening, never loosening. Why is, say, repealing the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act a complete —laughable— political impossibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it isn't?
Just because it hasn't happened so far doesn't mean it can't - although I admit that the international dimension is a big problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because the majority of politicians are corrupt and will do whatever the corporations with the biggest wallets tell them to do. The media corporations don't want copyright reduced, so the politicians that they bribe don't want copyright reduced.
Until you can find a way to completely end "lobbying", you won't see a reduction in copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mystery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Political motivation, is copyright lenghts precieved to be a major issues for the general public at large. (Nope). This might change in the future as younger generations have access to the internet with changing habits.
Other reasons might come to me if i have a further think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LMAO @ you pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LMAO @ you pirates.
I guess Average_Joe is still on his drinking binge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shock-Jock-esque?
Most of the latter are paid to appear to be against 'the machine/industry/rich'; the problem being, they're still paid by 'the machine/industry/rich' and you can bet your bottom dollar that there's only certain levels they can go to.
I'm not sure what annoys me more, the fact that the bosses of these Shock-Jock types think Mr & Mrs Public are stupid enough to believe they're against their own industry; or the fact that a lot of the listeners actually are...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shock-Jock-esque?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shock-Jock-esque?
I'd say "He should have a field day...". If he doesn't then that would raise questions about his status as a source of relatively unbiased news as far as I'm concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shock-Jock-esque?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shock-Jock-esque?
He's not a shock jock, he's a satirist (I'm assuming you've never seen the show, perhaps because you're in some non-Daily Show-enabled country).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shock-Jock-esque?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stewart talking to audience??
I've had VIP passes to 2 tapings ( once each 2009, 2010) - and in both cases, Jon did not deal with the audience at all.
Maybe the poster had VIP-er passes than mine, but all I got was front-of-the line, seated to Jon's right just off camera.
echo: Yes - Colbert has brought up SOPA and Protect-IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would like to know! I hope he provides a stance!
The clips used on the avatars were done by purchasing the show from iTunes, and then using software to crop and reduce to make a functional avatar.
In my eyes, fair use.
In SOPA's eyes, I could totally get lambasted for it.
http://tdsrefugeepub.phpbb3now.com/users/11/43/34/smilies/watchi10.gif
I wanna know.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave it to the comedy news guy to bring up such a important issue...im ashamed at all the other news media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow.
Jon Stewart for president!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks to Jon Stewart, CBS even mentioned SOPA
Of course they are the only majors to do so :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Tomorrow night our guest will be.."
Though funny, as it was picking on Newt, it didn't include SOPA and I doubt we'll see anything on Monday or anytime.
Very likely he forgot, or slightly less likely, he was threatened by Viacom's lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Tomorrow night our guest will be.."
No only does he have to find out about the subject, but also has to create jokes about it...and do it in a way in which he's not hung out to dry by either 'the internet' or 'the lawyers'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Tomorrow night our guest will be.."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then Jon could say something like "You are so passionate about piracy because for you it is a moral issue. So, if John Gilfeather never gave permission to grow (or copy) these rutabagas, is it wrong to sell them and eat them? Why?" It gets a little hard to imagine how the conversation will proceed at this point, but I think you can see where we're headed now.
In my dreams, we can turn Leahy, in my dreams...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]