Saturday marked a major victory for opponents of proposed anti-piracy legislation Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which would target foreign-based websites violating U.S. copyrights.
House of Representatives bill SOPA and its Senate counterpart PIPA are designed to punish websites that make available, for example, free movies and music without the permission of the U.S. rights holders. Opponents of the bills, however, worry that the proposed laws would grant the Department of Justice too much regulatory power. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has called the measures "draconian." Other Internet giants who oppose the bill include Facebook, eBay, Mozilla, Twitter, and Huffington Post parent company AOL.
The White House on Saturday officially responded to two online petitions, "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" and "Veto the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information," urging the President to reject SOPA and PIPA.
The statement was drawn up by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff. They made clear that the White House will not support legislation that disrupts the open standards of the Internet.
"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the statement read in part.
The White House statement went on to say, however, that the Obama Administration believes "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy" and that 2012 should see the passage of narrower legislation that targets the source of foreign copyright infringement.
The letter also highlighted the following four points:
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. [...] We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. [...] That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders [...] We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy. This is not the end of the debate, the White House statement emphasized. "Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation," the letter also read.
Following the release of the White House's statement, SOPA sponsor and House Judiciary Chairman (R-Texas) Lamar Smith issued a statement of his own.
“I welcome today’s announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America’s intellectual property," Smith said, according to The Hill. "That’s precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does."
On Friday, CNET reported that Smith said he will remove from the bill one of the most hotly contested provisions, Domain Name System requirements. Previously, SOPA had called for DNS blocking of infringing websites.
On Thursday, PIPA author Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said that "more study" was needed to asses the bill's DNS-blocking provision.
The White House's statement condemned DNS blocking in regulatory efforts and said that it "pose[s] a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk."
A House Oversight Committee hearing on SOPA's DNS-blocking provision had previously been scheduled for January 18. However, according to Tech Dirt, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) said that the hearing will be postponed for the time being and that the focus now should be placed on the Senate's PIPA bill, which Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has committed to moving forward in the next two weeks.
I'm sorry, is that the same dude that said he would oppose the NDAA, and then sign it on new years eve like it's a fucking movie or fairy tale or some crazy story ?
I'm sorry, would you rather him say "I LOVE THIS LAW AND WILL SUPPORT IT FULLY"?
I'm merely saying that his word means nothing, as history proves it.
That's nonsense. He has done the right thing here and he should be credited for that.
Actually he has Done nothing, he only said he would do something. Like he Said he would veto NDAA and actually signed it.
However, in his favor, the NDAA was not a single issue bill, he had to sign it to maintain military operations. (ie he objected to a Portion of the bill and threatened to veto it, but he buckled because he wanted the other parts of the bill.)
On the other hand, if you read the article, he says he is committed to signing some anti-piracy bill, just not this one because it goes to far.
Saturday marked a major victory for opponents of proposed anti-piracy legislation Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which would target foreign-based websites violating U.S. copyrights.
House of Representatives bill SOPA and its Senate counterpart PIPA are designed to punish websites that make available, for example, free movies and music without the permission of the U.S. rights holders. Opponents of the bills, however, worry that the proposed laws would grant the Department of Justice too much regulatory power. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has called the measures "draconian." Other Internet giants who oppose the bill include Facebook, eBay, Mozilla, Twitter, and Huffington Post parent company AOL.
The White House on Saturday officially responded to two online petitions, "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" and "Veto the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information," urging the President to reject SOPA and PIPA.
The statement was drawn up by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff. They made clear that the White House will not support legislation that disrupts the open standards of the Internet.
"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the statement read in part.
The White House statement went on to say, however, that the Obama Administration believes "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy" and that 2012 should see the passage of narrower legislation that targets the source of foreign copyright infringement.
The letter also highlighted the following four points:
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. [...] We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. [...] That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders [...] We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy. This is not the end of the debate, the White House statement emphasized. "Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation," the letter also read.
Following the release of the White House's statement, SOPA sponsor and House Judiciary Chairman (R-Texas) Lamar Smith issued a statement of his own.
“I welcome today’s announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America’s intellectual property," Smith said, according to The Hill. "That’s precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does."
On Friday, CNET reported that Smith said he will remove from the bill one of the most hotly contested provisions, Domain Name System requirements. Previously, SOPA had called for DNS blocking of infringing websites.
On Thursday, PIPA author Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said that "more study" was needed to asses the bill's DNS-blocking provision.
The White House's statement condemned DNS blocking in regulatory efforts and said that it "pose[s] a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk."
A House Oversight Committee hearing on SOPA's DNS-blocking provision had previously been scheduled for January 18. However, according to Tech Dirt, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) said that the hearing will be postponed for the time being and that the focus now should be placed on the Senate's PIPA bill, which Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has committed to moving forward in the next two weeks.
I'm sorry, is that the same dude that said he would oppose the NDAA, and then sign it on new years eve like it's a fucking movie or fairy tale or some crazy story ?
I'm sorry, would you rather him say "I LOVE THIS LAW AND WILL SUPPORT IT FULLY"?
I'm merely saying that his word means nothing, as history proves it.
That's nonsense. He has done the right thing here and he should be credited for that.
Actually he has Done nothing, he only said he would do something. Like he Said he would veto NDAA and actually signed it.
However, in his favor, the NDAA was not a single issue bill, he had to sign it to maintain military operations. (ie he objected to a Portion of the bill and threatened to veto it, but he buckled because he wanted the other parts of the bill.)
On the other hand, if you read the article, he says he is committed to signing some anti-piracy bill, just not this one because it goes to far.
It's still nonsense that his word means nothing. Simply saying he is going to veto could cause the bill to fail.
Saturday marked a major victory for opponents of proposed anti-piracy legislation Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which would target foreign-based websites violating U.S. copyrights.
House of Representatives bill SOPA and its Senate counterpart PIPA are designed to punish websites that make available, for example, free movies and music without the permission of the U.S. rights holders. Opponents of the bills, however, worry that the proposed laws would grant the Department of Justice too much regulatory power. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has called the measures "draconian." Other Internet giants who oppose the bill include Facebook, eBay, Mozilla, Twitter, and Huffington Post parent company AOL.
The White House on Saturday officially responded to two online petitions, "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" and "Veto the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information," urging the President to reject SOPA and PIPA.
The statement was drawn up by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff. They made clear that the White House will not support legislation that disrupts the open standards of the Internet.
"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the statement read in part.
The White House statement went on to say, however, that the Obama Administration believes "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy" and that 2012 should see the passage of narrower legislation that targets the source of foreign copyright infringement.
The letter also highlighted the following four points:
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. [...] We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. [...] That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders [...] We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy. This is not the end of the debate, the White House statement emphasized. "Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation," the letter also read.
Following the release of the White House's statement, SOPA sponsor and House Judiciary Chairman (R-Texas) Lamar Smith issued a statement of his own.
“I welcome today’s announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America’s intellectual property," Smith said, according to The Hill. "That’s precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does."
On Friday, CNET reported that Smith said he will remove from the bill one of the most hotly contested provisions, Domain Name System requirements. Previously, SOPA had called for DNS blocking of infringing websites.
On Thursday, PIPA author Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said that "more study" was needed to asses the bill's DNS-blocking provision.
The White House's statement condemned DNS blocking in regulatory efforts and said that it "pose[s] a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk."
A House Oversight Committee hearing on SOPA's DNS-blocking provision had previously been scheduled for January 18. However, according to Tech Dirt, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) said that the hearing will be postponed for the time being and that the focus now should be placed on the Senate's PIPA bill, which Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has committed to moving forward in the next two weeks.
I'm sorry, is that the same dude that said he would oppose the NDAA, and then sign it on new years eve like it's a fucking movie or fairy tale or some crazy story ?
I'm sorry, would you rather him say "I LOVE THIS LAW AND WILL SUPPORT IT FULLY"?
I'm merely saying that his word means nothing, as history proves it.
That's nonsense. He has done the right thing here and he should be credited for that.
Actually he has Done nothing, he only said he would do something. Like he Said he would veto NDAA and actually signed it.
However, in his favor, the NDAA was not a single issue bill, he had to sign it to maintain military operations. (ie he objected to a Portion of the bill and threatened to veto it, but he buckled because he wanted the other parts of the bill.)
On the other hand, if you read the article, he says he is committed to signing some anti-piracy bill, just not this one because it goes to far.
It's still nonsense that his word means nothing. Simply saying he is going to veto could cause the bill to fail.
And what would be so terribly wrong with that? Presuming you're talking about the SOPA bill here..
On January 14 2012 17:47 DarkViator wrote: This is why the American Government is a joke to me.
In any case, hopefully the old man who understands little of the internet pushing this, will sit down and shut up for once with both bills being killed. Piracy will always exist, I do not condone it, but it's going to be there. "Criminals" will always find ways to circumvent laws no matter how severe a law you enact (short of death but even then, criminals still find ways and still evade the law). To hurt the law abiding citizens (globally in this case) and halting innovation in favor of attempting to stop piracy, which is nigh impossible, to lose jobs in the United States (And Globally to a lesser extent) in the Tech sector. Does the United States really need to stifle profits and lose jobs in the only industry it has that is constantly growing and the ONLY reason it's economy is still afloat?
You do realize a similarly sweeping bill in the EU (ACTA) is currently being debated in the House of Parliament... please keep the unneccesary regional snipes out because this is a global issue. SOPA/PIPA is the focus of RIAA/MPAA/Sony lobbyists in America because treaties don't hold the same teeth of enforcement as a treaty would in the European Union, which is why EU must remain vigilant themselves and support the opposition Parliament leaders against ACTA.
If anything the American public has had its first victory, hopefully not its last in this fight.
I've highlighted the ACTA bill a few times in this and the other "Blackout" thread, and nobody replied so I wouldn't pay too much attention to people attempting to pull chunks from Europe.
ugh this is exactly the sort of thing I'm worried about; that more watered down versions of bills will slip through without enough protest to stop them.
Thats what many have been saying the point of this original, outrageous bill was
Saturday marked a major victory for opponents of proposed anti-piracy legislation Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which would target foreign-based websites violating U.S. copyrights.
House of Representatives bill SOPA and its Senate counterpart PIPA are designed to punish websites that make available, for example, free movies and music without the permission of the U.S. rights holders. Opponents of the bills, however, worry that the proposed laws would grant the Department of Justice too much regulatory power. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has called the measures "draconian." Other Internet giants who oppose the bill include Facebook, eBay, Mozilla, Twitter, and Huffington Post parent company AOL.
The White House on Saturday officially responded to two online petitions, "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" and "Veto the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information," urging the President to reject SOPA and PIPA.
The statement was drawn up by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff. They made clear that the White House will not support legislation that disrupts the open standards of the Internet.
"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the statement read in part.
The White House statement went on to say, however, that the Obama Administration believes "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy" and that 2012 should see the passage of narrower legislation that targets the source of foreign copyright infringement.
The letter also highlighted the following four points:
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. [...] We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. [...] That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders [...] We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy. This is not the end of the debate, the White House statement emphasized. "Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation," the letter also read.
Following the release of the White House's statement, SOPA sponsor and House Judiciary Chairman (R-Texas) Lamar Smith issued a statement of his own.
“I welcome today’s announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America’s intellectual property," Smith said, according to The Hill. "That’s precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does."
On Friday, CNET reported that Smith said he will remove from the bill one of the most hotly contested provisions, Domain Name System requirements. Previously, SOPA had called for DNS blocking of infringing websites.
On Thursday, PIPA author Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said that "more study" was needed to asses the bill's DNS-blocking provision.
The White House's statement condemned DNS blocking in regulatory efforts and said that it "pose[s] a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk."
A House Oversight Committee hearing on SOPA's DNS-blocking provision had previously been scheduled for January 18. However, according to Tech Dirt, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) said that the hearing will be postponed for the time being and that the focus now should be placed on the Senate's PIPA bill, which Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has committed to moving forward in the next two weeks.
I'm sorry, is that the same dude that said he would oppose the NDAA, and then sign it on new years eve like it's a fucking movie or fairy tale or some crazy story ?
I'm sorry, would you rather him say "I LOVE THIS LAW AND WILL SUPPORT IT FULLY"?
I'm merely saying that his word means nothing, as history proves it.
The infinite detention portion of the NDAA was bundled into the yearly defense spending bill packed in right before Congress went into recess in the middle of a key tax-cut fight. Obama would have had to veto the entire thing and engaged in a lengthy fight with Congress to eliminate the infinite detention portion, which had been the precedent for years anyways and still wouldn't address what the US does with the people released from infinite detention. For all the flack going around Obama for this, it was the Senate which voted 95-0 to not let released detention-mates anywhere on US soil. That question would need to be answered before detention is ever seriously addressed. Not even a President Ron Paul could overcome that kind of Senate unanimity without a major Congressional shuffle.
What Obama said about NDAA was that he would not support it unless it was made explicitly clear that the infinite detention did not apply to US citizens. That is what his veto threat contained. The bill was reworded to unambiguously not apply to US citizens. I think what ended up going through was still detestable, but Obama followed through on his word. You just had to parse what he said carefully.
The President has not said that he would veto SOPA. His spokesmen have only said that the final bill passed must contain certain elements protecting the open internet. But SOPA is not being bundled into a yearly defense bill or anything of the like, so you can rest a little easier that this veto threat contains a few more teeth.
Saturday marked a major victory for opponents of proposed anti-piracy legislation Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which would target foreign-based websites violating U.S. copyrights.
House of Representatives bill SOPA and its Senate counterpart PIPA are designed to punish websites that make available, for example, free movies and music without the permission of the U.S. rights holders. Opponents of the bills, however, worry that the proposed laws would grant the Department of Justice too much regulatory power. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has called the measures "draconian." Other Internet giants who oppose the bill include Facebook, eBay, Mozilla, Twitter, and Huffington Post parent company AOL.
The White House on Saturday officially responded to two online petitions, "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" and "Veto the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information," urging the President to reject SOPA and PIPA.
The statement was drawn up by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff. They made clear that the White House will not support legislation that disrupts the open standards of the Internet.
"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the statement read in part.
The White House statement went on to say, however, that the Obama Administration believes "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy" and that 2012 should see the passage of narrower legislation that targets the source of foreign copyright infringement.
The letter also highlighted the following four points:
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. [...] We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. [...] That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders [...] We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy. This is not the end of the debate, the White House statement emphasized. "Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation," the letter also read.
Following the release of the White House's statement, SOPA sponsor and House Judiciary Chairman (R-Texas) Lamar Smith issued a statement of his own.
“I welcome today’s announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America’s intellectual property," Smith said, according to The Hill. "That’s precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does."
On Friday, CNET reported that Smith said he will remove from the bill one of the most hotly contested provisions, Domain Name System requirements. Previously, SOPA had called for DNS blocking of infringing websites.
On Thursday, PIPA author Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said that "more study" was needed to asses the bill's DNS-blocking provision.
The White House's statement condemned DNS blocking in regulatory efforts and said that it "pose[s] a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk."
A House Oversight Committee hearing on SOPA's DNS-blocking provision had previously been scheduled for January 18. However, according to Tech Dirt, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) said that the hearing will be postponed for the time being and that the focus now should be placed on the Senate's PIPA bill, which Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has committed to moving forward in the next two weeks.
I'm sorry, is that the same dude that said he would oppose the NDAA, and then sign it on new years eve like it's a fucking movie or fairy tale or some crazy story ?
I'm sorry, would you rather him say "I LOVE THIS LAW AND WILL SUPPORT IT FULLY"?
I'm merely saying that his word means nothing, as history proves it.
The infinite detention portion of the NDAA was bundled into the yearly defense spending bill packed in right before Congress went into recess in the middle of a key tax-cut fight. Obama would have had to veto the entire thing and engaged in a lengthy fight with Congress to eliminate the infinite detention portion, which had been the precedent for years anyways and still wouldn't address what the US does with the people released from infinite detention. For all the flack going around Obama for this, it was the Senate which voted 95-0 to not let released detention-mates anywhere on US soil. That question would need to be answered before detention is ever seriously addressed. Not even a President Ron Paul could overcome that kind of Senate unanimity without a major Congressional shuffle.
What Obama said about NDAA was that he would not support it unless it was made explicitly clear that the infinite detention did not apply to US citizens. That is what his veto threat contained. The bill was reworded to unambiguously not apply to US citizens. I think what ended up going through was still detestable, but Obama followed through on his word. You just had to parse what he said carefully.
The President has not said that he would veto SOPA. His spokesmen have only said that the final bill passed must contain certain elements protecting the open internet. But SOPA is not being bundled into a yearly defense bill or anything of the like, so you can rest a little easier that this veto threat contains a few more teeth.
When you have 60% of the legislative branch fighting you on every issue, compromise is necessary. That's why Obama signed NDAA. Not because he doesn't give a damn about habeas corpus, but because there were dozens of other elements of the bill that were necessary to pass before the winter recess. It was the opposition playing politics to get what they wanted. Yes, indefinite detention is despicable, but it's not much worse than the appalling excuse for a human rights policy we used to have. If you want healthcare, you have to come to the middle on security. If you want education, you have to make concessions on immigration. With filibuster power in the Senate and the majority in the House, the opposition will always have power, as it should (except the filibuster, that's just frigging stupid), and you can count on politicians to resort to despicable means to pass the stuff that the guys who voted for them want. That's why Obama passed NDAA, and that's why he'll sign an amendment repealing the detention clause in a heartbeat should he win reelection and the Dems win back the House.
The difference with SOPA is that it does not advance a partisan agenda. Vetoing it doesn't lose him points with the right OR the left, nor does hurt him with moderate Republicans in Vermont or conservative Democrats from some district in Utah. The vast majority of people who know WTF SOPA is despise it for what it is. Vetoing a non-partisan bill like SOPA will not lose Obama votes in the legislature, and it will make at least 200,000 people more likely to vote for him in the general, especially if/when it turns out a young moderate Republican in West Virginia who streams BF3 finds out that he can trust Barack Obama with protecting the First Amendment more than he can trust his own party's House majority. Obama has some of the best political minds in the Democratic Party (that's not a sarcastic remark this time around ) telling him exactly that.
I hope Obama isn't joking with that quote in the picture. Obama always struck me as less of a shill than most other federal politicians, but this is really surprising. Then again, he did say he opposed the NDAA and signed it anyways. Gah, Barack is like the kid who wants to be the big man, and then when the bullies (lobby groups and corporations) come and talk to him, he backs down and sits in the corner.
On January 15 2012 13:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I hope Obama isn't joking with that quote in the picture. Obama always struck me as less of a shill than most other federal politicians, but this is really surprising. Then again, he did say he opposed the NDAA and signed it anyways. Gah, Barack is like the kid who wants to be the big man, and then when the bullies (lobby groups and corporations) come and talk to him, he backs down and sits in the corner.
I'm so tired of people who don't understand politics saying that.
Even Ron Paul would have signed the NDAA, and if he didn't, he would have been overriden anyway considering there were absolutely massive (90%ish) majorities in both sections of Congress in favor of it.
You can't veto the federal defense bill that has veteran pay and other things attached to it. It is political suicide.
^This. Downsizing our defense budget, which is already 6 times as big as the 2nd biggest (China's), which in turn is nearly twice as big as the 3rd biggest, has become some kind of political hara-kiri.
Remember that the corporations backing SOPA are the same ones whose demographic is bluntly opposing it. A video game lobby has no power if it acts directly against the interests of gamers. Money doesn't win elections, contrary to popular belief, and you'd be an idiot to put >100k Democratic votes on the line for a couple million extra dollars in an incumbent campaign chest.
On January 15 2012 13:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I hope Obama isn't joking with that quote in the picture. Obama always struck me as less of a shill than most other federal politicians, but this is really surprising. Then again, he did say he opposed the NDAA and signed it anyways. Gah, Barack is like the kid who wants to be the big man, and then when the bullies (lobby groups and corporations) come and talk to him, he backs down and sits in the corner.
I'm so tired of people who don't understand politics saying that.
Even Ron Paul would have signed the NDAA, and if he didn't, he would have been overriden anyway considering there were absolutely massive (90%ish) majorities in both sections of Congress in favor of it.
You can't veto the federal defense bill that has veteran pay and other things attached to it. It is political suicide.
I see what they did there. Clever. Put some honorable things in with some crazy ass legislation to get it to pass, and dissenting politicians are labeled as evil because they would basically be seen as protesting the good things rather than the bad. Not bad.
On January 15 2012 13:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I hope Obama isn't joking with that quote in the picture. Obama always struck me as less of a shill than most other federal politicians, but this is really surprising. Then again, he did say he opposed the NDAA and signed it anyways. Gah, Barack is like the kid who wants to be the big man, and then when the bullies (lobby groups and corporations) come and talk to him, he backs down and sits in the corner.
I'm so tired of people who don't understand politics saying that.
Even Ron Paul would have signed the NDAA, and if he didn't, he would have been overriden anyway considering there were absolutely massive (90%ish) majorities in both sections of Congress in favor of it.
You can't veto the federal defense bill that has veteran pay and other things attached to it. It is political suicide.
I see what they did there. Clever. Put some honorable things in with some crazy ass legislation to get it to pass, and dissenting politicians are labeled as evil because they would basically be seen as protesting the good things rather than the bad. Not bad.
this is what they do all the time. infact they tend to "hide" certain things deep inside 50 pages of text that no one will read so it gets secretly passed by them. this is partially how online poker got banned, it was "hidden" within the "port defense" bill
its all such bullshit i dont know why people even bother
On January 15 2012 13:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I hope Obama isn't joking with that quote in the picture. Obama always struck me as less of a shill than most other federal politicians, but this is really surprising. Then again, he did say he opposed the NDAA and signed it anyways. Gah, Barack is like the kid who wants to be the big man, and then when the bullies (lobby groups and corporations) come and talk to him, he backs down and sits in the corner.
I'm so tired of people who don't understand politics saying that.
Even Ron Paul would have signed the NDAA, and if he didn't, he would have been overriden anyway considering there were absolutely massive (90%ish) majorities in both sections of Congress in favor of it.
You can't veto the federal defense bill that has veteran pay and other things attached to it. It is political suicide.
I see what they did there. Clever. Put some honorable things in with some crazy ass legislation to get it to pass, and dissenting politicians are labeled as evil because they would basically be seen as protesting the good things rather than the bad. Not bad.
That is exactly what they did. Support the Line Item Veto if you don't like it!
Good that Obama seems to be coming down on the side of sanity. Hopefully he stays that way or preferably the bill gets axed before it gets to his desk.
You blind fools if you think that obama is against sopa.
Read that article again. His backers are for it. So he is for it. His underlings write press releases that sound good but mean nothing. He is against piracy from "foreign websites". Who know who else doesn't like foreign websites? China. Guess what piracy can be stretched to.... anything they like. They make the laws and then they make them work how they want. And everyone gets squished under their heel.
I am so scared right now that basically america is going to be china mark II. And done democratically *cough lol cough*.
The people voting for the loss of their freedoms. <3 democracy.
Saturday marked a major victory for opponents of proposed anti-piracy legislation Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which would target foreign-based websites violating U.S. copyrights.
House of Representatives bill SOPA and its Senate counterpart PIPA are designed to punish websites that make available, for example, free movies and music without the permission of the U.S. rights holders. Opponents of the bills, however, worry that the proposed laws would grant the Department of Justice too much regulatory power. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has called the measures "draconian." Other Internet giants who oppose the bill include Facebook, eBay, Mozilla, Twitter, and Huffington Post parent company AOL.
The White House on Saturday officially responded to two online petitions, "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" and "Veto the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information," urging the President to reject SOPA and PIPA.
The statement was drawn up by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff. They made clear that the White House will not support legislation that disrupts the open standards of the Internet.
"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the statement read in part.
The White House statement went on to say, however, that the Obama Administration believes "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy" and that 2012 should see the passage of narrower legislation that targets the source of foreign copyright infringement.
The letter also highlighted the following four points:
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. [...] We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. [...] That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders [...] We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy. This is not the end of the debate, the White House statement emphasized. "Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation," the letter also read.
Following the release of the White House's statement, SOPA sponsor and House Judiciary Chairman (R-Texas) Lamar Smith issued a statement of his own.
“I welcome today’s announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America’s intellectual property," Smith said, according to The Hill. "That’s precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does."
On Friday, CNET reported that Smith said he will remove from the bill one of the most hotly contested provisions, Domain Name System requirements. Previously, SOPA had called for DNS blocking of infringing websites.
On Thursday, PIPA author Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said that "more study" was needed to asses the bill's DNS-blocking provision.
The White House's statement condemned DNS blocking in regulatory efforts and said that it "pose[s] a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk."
A House Oversight Committee hearing on SOPA's DNS-blocking provision had previously been scheduled for January 18. However, according to Tech Dirt, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) said that the hearing will be postponed for the time being and that the focus now should be placed on the Senate's PIPA bill, which Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has committed to moving forward in the next two weeks.
I'm sorry, is that the same dude that said he would oppose the NDAA, and then sign it on new years eve like it's a fucking movie or fairy tale or some crazy story ?
I'm sorry, would you rather him say "I LOVE THIS LAW AND WILL SUPPORT IT FULLY"?
I'm merely saying that his word means nothing, as history proves it.
That's nonsense. He has done the right thing here and he should be credited for that.
Actually he has Done nothing, he only said he would do something. Like he Said he would veto NDAA and actually signed it.
However, in his favor, the NDAA was not a single issue bill, he had to sign it to maintain military operations. (ie he objected to a Portion of the bill and threatened to veto it, but he buckled because he wanted the other parts of the bill.)
On the other hand, if you read the article, he says he is committed to signing some anti-piracy bill, just not this one because it goes to far.
The "however" in your post is not really a sidenote, it's the exact reason he signed it. You can't just brush it aside like it's nothing and these two bills are similar because they aren't. The NDAA is incredibly important and needs to pass regardless of what's in it. A president cannot reasonably veto it, especially during wartime.
SOPA on the other hand is completely different, not urgent, and has no important aspects to it in the sense that they're absolutely necessary for the country to continue it's day-to-day operations.
On January 16 2012 19:09 Bobgrimly wrote: You blind fools if you think that obama is against sopa.
Read that article again. His backers are for it. So he is for it. His underlings write press releases that sound good but mean nothing. He is against piracy from "foreign websites". Who know who else doesn't like foreign websites? China. Guess what piracy can be stretched to.... anything they like. They make the laws and then they make them work how they want. And everyone gets squished under their heel.
I am so scared right now that basically america is going to be china mark II. And done democratically *cough lol cough*.
The people voting for the loss of their freedoms. <3 democracy.
You just made all of that up... If you're going to interpret what someone says in your own way, don't pretend it's fact. Come on.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/3474/basedobama.png)
) telling him exactly that.
