[Creecher]

I for one know that Vermin Supreme doesn't support SOPA, so he'll be getting my vote.

[ishkabible]

So...today my grandmother sent my mom an email saying soothing to the effect of Y2K would occur on the 18th due to people "irresponsibly" protesting SOPA. I don't see how SOPA is getting passed really; there is just too much opposition to it. the only reason the patriot act got passed was becuase of 9/11; nothing like that has happened to convince the public that such freedoms need to be given up.

major blunders:
*lack of free speech during WW1. protesting the war could get you in trouble
*same thing in WW2
*Japanese internment camps; supreme court said they were justified
*cold war scare
*patriot act

SOPA will be right in there with them but those all had massive cultural backings regarding the national security. people were scared and were willing to give up freedoms(and in same cases others freedoms) to appease some faulty sense of security. that just isn't the case here; I don't see how this can be seen as constitutional. if brought to the supreme court I would think it would fail.

[r.stiltskin]

Where's the opposition? The opposition is here jokin' about porn. The ones in favor of it are giving multi-millions of $ to legislators & urging them to vote for it.

And as for the Supreme Court -- you mean the same Supreme Court that ruled that corporations are people and money is speech??

[ishkabible]

Quote

Where's the opposition? The opposition is here jokin' about porn. The ones in favor of it are giving multi-millions of $ to legislators & urging them to vote for it.

the jokes are about the protesting of it; I don't think many people here actually support the bill. opposition has be widely voiced. of course the support for, as you pointed out, is financially backed far more than the opposition.

Quote

And as for the Supreme Court -- you mean the same Supreme Court that ruled that corporations are people and money is speech??

ya, well I'm hopeful. I don't see a good case for it being constitutional as it gives the government power regulate speech not pertaining to national security. I think there are plenty of lawyers out there that would take the case. the commerce clause presents a pretty good argument for it being constitutional but I still don't fell that that justifies it; in fact i fell that the commerce clause is WAY over used and has been from the beginning.

edit:
I shouldn't say I don't see how it's getting passed but rather how it will last any time at all afterwards.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 15 January 2012 - 07:52 PM

[codeofc]

The opposition needs to become stronger. Sites that everyone (including government officials) use need to shut down. Not just reddit and a couple of game review sites.

[Utael]

You guy's are behind even if congress votes, Obama has said he is vetoing the bill...

[Craig328]

r.stiltskin, on 15 January 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

And as for the Supreme Court -- you mean the same Supreme Court that ruled that corporations are people and money is speech??

Careful there. Reddit and Facebook both are run by corporations. So are organizations like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, unions, the ACLU and so on. Corporations do indeed get tarnished by the actions of some but overall a corporation is the ability of people to collectively organize and use their collective funds to whatever common effect they choose. Exxon and such use theirs to do business in the petrochemical world and make a profit. Others do other things.

Banning their activities like free speech via campaign contributions means banning all of them...not just the odious ones.

[r.stiltskin]

Craig328, on 16 January 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

Careful there...

I didn't say, and never would say, that there's anything inherently wrong with the corporate form of organization. And I certainly didn't imply that there's anything wrong with profit. I just don't think that corporations are the same as people. Corporations are created by the government. The constitution doesn't require that, it simply doesn't forbid that. But as long as the government has the right to create corporations, it also has the right to enumerate and limit their rights and powers. All of them.

And anyway, I said nothing about "banning" free speech or campaign contributions. However, I don't believe that the constitution says that money == speech, which would imply that the constitution guarantees that he who has more money is entitled to "more speech".

[Craig328]

r.stiltskin, on 16 January 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I just don't think that corporations are the same as people. Corporations are created by the government. The constitution doesn't require that, it simply doesn't forbid that. But as long as the government has the right to create corporations, it also has the right to enumerate and limit their rights and powers. All of them.

And anyway, I said nothing about "banning" free speech or campaign contributions. However, I don't believe that the constitution says that money == speech, which would imply that the constitution guarantees that he who has more money is entitled to "more speech".

Insofar as "same as people" they are for speech rights. Corporations aren't created by the government though, per se. The laws of the land allow for the formation of corporations but that isn't the same as being created. Keep in mind that a corporation is always, at its foundation, made up of people. An association of individual persons. The constitution doesn't forbid it because forbidding a group of people a single collective voice would allow future courts to decide that other similar collections of people that form a singular entity (religions, political parties, etc) don't have a right to express their views either.

As to whether "money = speech", it's more like "lack of money = denial of speech". It's why there are equal time allotments for political airtime (airwaves being regulated by the FCC) and why you can find some pretty odious stuff on public access cable from time to time. Just because you cannot afford to buy up all the commercial airtime like your opponent does doesn't mean you're completely barred from access. It also helps to remember that when the Constitution was penned, it was in a setting of a capitalist economy. Money, like it or not, needed to be addressed (or, in this case, not addressed) as it was central to the economic foundation of the new country. Corporate money does indeed buy commercial airtime and does indeed demand the attention of politicians (normally via lobbyists) but there is nothing barring the creation of citizen groups to espouse their particular common beliefs (see: AARP, NRA, NAACP, etc).

It's not perfect in operation but sometimes there needs to be a recognition that perfection is a subjective assessment and one that cannot be attained at the expense of those who disagree with what "perfect" would be.

This post has been edited by Craig328: 16 January 2012 - 11:04 AM

[r.stiltskin]

First, where did I say "forbid"?

And you're wrong. Corporations are created by the government. A corporation is a legal entity that derives its "personhood" from the government -- usually a state but in a few instances by act of congress. The corporate charter spells out all of its rights and powers. The constitution doesn't mention corporations, so it's reasonable to conclude that the government that creates and empowers an entity can decide exactly what powers it confers on that entity.

Corporations are different from people. How many people do you know who live forever? How many people do you know who have boards of directors, and officers who are elected from time to time?

Limiting the powers of the corporate entity doesn't in any way infringe upon the rights of the individual shareholders. They are still free to enjoy individually and collectively all of the rights that the constitution guarantees to them.

This post has been edited by r.stiltskin: 16 January 2012 - 11:50 AM

[ishkabible]

Quote

You guy's are behind even if congress votes, Obama has said he is vetoing the bill...

could you provide a citation for that claim? I was unable to corroborate it.

[r.stiltskin]

I saw a report that the White House "will not support" the bill. That doesn't necessarily mean he will veto it.

[ishkabible]

ya, I found this article which cites this and states that...

Quote

...the White House technology policy team has come out against these bills.

but I was unable to find anything that said Obama was going to veto SOPA. 1 department(albeit the one handling policy on the matter) of the white house stating that it doesn't support SOPA doesn't mean the bill isn't getting passed.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 16 January 2012 - 12:21 PM

[modi123_1]

I am pretty certain if the White house... or The Obama Administration if you will... says they are against this as a whole then that is pretty inclusive of the president. Sure, these three "nobodys" could be rouge on the topic (and shortly fired), but never the less they are speaking on behalf of the White house per the Obama Administration stance. It juuuuuuuuuust might be pretty factual.

Quote

Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget

Aneesh Chopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff

Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet

[ishkabible]

yes, I agree. My point is that no one in the administration has said(particularly Obama himself) that Obama is going to veto the bill. only that they are opposed to it and are seeking alternatives.

edit:
I can see how my post did imply that 1 department didn't reflect the views of the entire administration. definitely could have been worded better.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 16 January 2012 - 01:02 PM