Senator Lindsey Graham Must Be Desperate For Donations; Announces Terrible Bill That Mashes Up Bad 230 Reform With Bad Copyright Reform
from the it's-bad,-get-rid-of-it dept
Senator Lindsey Graham is in a tight re-election campaign that he might just lose. And he's doing what politicians desperate for campaign cash tend to do: releasing a lot of absolutely batshit crazy bills that will pressure big donors to donate to him to either support the bill, or to get him not to move forward on it. It's corrupt as hell, but is standard practice. And the best of these kinds of bills are ones that pit two large industries with lots of lobbyists and cash to throw around against one another. For many years the favorite such bill for this was a bill about performance rights royalties for radio play. This would pit radio broadcasters against the music industry, and the cash would flow. Every two years, as the election was coming, such a bill would be released that was unlikely to go anywhere, but the cash would flow in.
More recently, the goal has been to target the big internet companies. And, boy, Linsdey Graham's campaign must be struggling, because he's decided to take two horrible, awful bills that would harm the internet and mash them together into a single bill that is set for markup by the Senate Judiciary Committee next week. This new bill, entitled the "Online Content Policy Modernization Act" simply combines the terrible and unconstitutional CASE Act (to create a quasi-judicial court in the Copyright Office to review copyright claims) with some of the recently released (and also horrible and unconstitutional) "Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act" which would rewrite Section 230 to remove the ability to moderate "otherwise objectionable" content without liability, and would, instead, insert a limited list of what kinds of content could be moderated without liability.
Both of these are bad ideas, but both of them are specific threats to the open internet -- and the kinds of things that Senator Graham knows he can fundraise on. Both bills are garbage, and Senator Graham likely knows this -- but he's not in the Senate to actually legislate. He's there to stay in power, and there's a real chance he might lose this November. So I guess it's time to break out the really stupid bills.
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: case act, cda 230, copyright, dmca, lindsey graham, online content policy modernization act, section 230
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And now they have even more reason
On the plus side this just provides his political opponent even more ammo to use against him, and those that would see his corrupt ass out of office even more incentive to work even harder to make that happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
While some recent polls do show Graham and his challenger, Jaime Harrison, in a dead heat, I'm pretty skeptical that he's really in that much trouble. FiveThirtyEight gives Graham an 82% chance of being reelected.
I wouldn't read too much into Graham's motivations. He's a spineless sycophant. If he's debasing himself to pander for donations, that's not a sign that he's in desperate need of cash. It's just who he is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The "Online Content Policy Modernization Act" link points to techdirt.com if read from the main page, or this article itself if read from single article / comments view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for this bill?
I do not understand. Does it not need majority vote to move from the dictatorship GOP? The Democrats sound like they favor this bill too from the political article stating that it is gaining steam. Again does anyone know in the senate judiciary committee if the Democrats favor this bill?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It helps for me to include the actual link, huh? Oops. Fixed now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And now they have even more reason
Tho how many Democrats support this new bill?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Are the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for this bill?
The Politico article on this really doesn’t explain the amount of traction. They are just saying that this bill is going to be reviewed. That’s what I take from it “gaining traction.” Keep in mind that this probably won’t make it that far, since it leans more to support Republican senators. This bill could potentially make it out of the senate, but it still needs to get out of the House. So far, it’s too early to tell how well this bill will do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Seconded.
Given that one of the administrations' reelection narratives is "big tech's bias against and silencing of the far right," this bill serves as disinformation they can point to in speeches, campaign ads, and press releases. If it passes it also allows them to control future political narratives, by classifying anything they don't agree with as illegal online speech, while promoting everything they do agree with as legal online speech that shouldn't be altered or taken down.
Sounds exactly like Graham.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
you are right techdirt. Graham is losing to a real candidate
SUPPORT JAMIE HARRISON FOR SENATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. It’s tied according to real clear politics between Graham and Harris. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/senate/sc/south_carolina_senate_graham_vs_harrison-708 3.html
Harris is African American and understands systemic racism and with the population of SC African Americans growing. I think there is a strong possibility that this anti free speech on Republican loses. Let’s hope
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: And now they have even more reason
...depends on how much they get paid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: And now they have even more reason
Honestly I love how you take this article expressly showing how shitty, corrupt, and money-driven Graham is and then try to act like it's Dems who are all of the above. Honestly, it's kind of pathetic. I'd be angry if I didn't feel so bad for anyone that has to spend time around you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And now they have even more reason
Dems can be all of the above. Just because they are blue, not red, does not mean they aren't liable to be beholden to monied interests and lobbyists.
It's evident to anyone looking that the GOP as it stands has jumped, not slid, of the slope of corruption, but the Democrats are no angels, and I refuse to pretend they are.
In the present climate, they are simply the more honorable side of a broken system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The republican roaches sure love to do filthy corrupt things for power. They deserve to get screwed with the very bills they crap out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And now they have even more reason
"Honestly I love how you take this article expressly showing how shitty, corrupt, and money-driven Graham is and then try to act like it's Dems who are all of the above."
Because they are. Frankly speaking, the GOP went from merely "corrupt" to "fucking evil" early on. That doesn't mean the democrats stopped being corrupt. Lindsey Graham is on record as being an unapologetic lying-through-his-teeth windsock desperate to retain office by any means necessary and McConnell is what you'd get if you westernized and embalmed the evil vizier from some old middle-eastern fairy tale.
The current GOP resembles the villains of a third-rate novel; Evil just for the sheer hell of it, with no goal except, apparently, fuck liberals that can be seen.
That doesn't change Biden carrying water for the credit card industry and wall street in blatant opposition to his own party and his electorate, for instance.
This election comes down to the unlikely and unlikable prospect of standing between a coalition of actually evil people led by P.T. Barnum's spiritual successor - and a gang of "normally" corrupt crooks.
So when someone asks how many democrats support a given bill then my response will naturally be "Who pays them to do so?".
This is arguably a bit harder a question to answer than if it had been asked about republicans in which case the answer will be "Will the bill hurt anything liberals like?".
"I'd be angry if I didn't feel so bad for anyone that has to spend time around you."
That's pretty pathetic ad hom compared to what the alt-right trolls keep spreading. Meanwhile just on the off chance you didn't just swing around to upset people for no reason other than shitz'n'giggles, let me rephrase what I just stated; shitty, corrupt and money-driven IS the democrat way. That the republican way is fucking EVIL, just BECAUSE doesn't change that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: you are right techdirt. Graham is losing to a real candidate
"Harris is African American and understands systemic racism and with the population of SC African Americans growing. I think there is a strong possibility that this anti free speech on Republican loses. Let’s hope"
Today every republican launched out of office is a boon to the US citizenry. But that poll doesn't say what you appear to think it says - it only states that enough sane people in SC are inclined to vote against Mr. "I solemnly swear not to vote SCOTUS judges in in an election year. Use my words against me" Graham that if everyone went to vote, it'd be tied.
But SC is a traditionally red state, unless I'm mistaken, so the odds are good it's gerrymandered into favoring republicans to the point of absurdity and on top of that, a significant proportion of the black population is still disenfranchised - primarily over petty malfeasance in their youth.
SC has often been called the most "liberal" red state in the US. It doesn't bode well when a politician like Graham, who is on record for solemnly swearing, multiple times on open camera, to follow a principle he immediately jettisoned when it was convenient, is only tied for the election rather than to a rail after being tarred and feathered.
It's pretty obvious that to all too many americans it's still "My party, right or wrong".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: you are right techdirt. Graham is losing to a real candi
Perhaps true, but not relevant to a Senate election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: you are right techdirt. Graham is losing to a real c
"Perhaps true, but not relevant to a Senate election."
Mea Culpa, you're right. So only the disenfranchisement and other anti-ballot shenanigans from the republicans to expect, then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]