

Prof. of Constitutional Law at Harvard says that SOPA violates First Amendment - chown
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75153093/Tribe-Legis-Memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1

======
cperciva
Reminder: Reasonable people often disagree. The Consumer Electronics
Association has found an expert who thinks that SOPA is unconstitutional; I'm
sure the MPAA can find an equally reputable expert who thinks that SOPA is not
unconstitutional.

Unless you interview a random sample of experts ("80% of constitutional law
professors say...") or find some privileged experts ("the Supreme Court
says...") relying on expert opinions really doesn't get you anywhere useful.

~~~
jacobolus
Laurence Tribe isn’t just some “reasonable guy” or even “reputable expert”.
He’s one of the most famous and respected constitutional scholars and
professors in the nation: he taught constitutional law to two sitting Supreme
Court Justices and the current President.

~~~
olalonde
I hate to sound pessimist but as far as I know, many current US laws are
unconstitutional. <http://www.krusch.com/real/unconstitutional.html>

~~~
rayiner
That doesn't really show any laws being unconstitutional. Yes, there are lots
of things we have that aren't in the Constitution, but not even the most
adherent textualist thinks you can find everything you need to structure a
government within the four corners of a 10-page document. It incorporates by
reference hundreds of years of English law and history. The site you linked to
mostly just notes examples of that.

~~~
olalonde
Sorry, I was a bit quick with the reference. I just wanted to point out that a
law being unconstitutional doesn't seem to be such a deal breaker.
[https://www.google.com/?q=unconstitutional%20laws#sclient=ps...](https://www.google.com/?q=unconstitutional%20laws#sclient=psy-
ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=unconstitutional+laws&pbx=1&oq=unconstitutional+laws&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=0l0l0l2919l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=13f6e01bbb40cac9&biw=1600&bih=750)

~~~
rayiner
Not saying that there aren't unconstitutional laws on the books, but going to
one of the top links in your search isn't very illustrative of the point:
<http://www.krusch.com/real/unconstitutional.html>

E.g. 18 U.S.C. §1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters.

He says: "Consequently, Congress explicitly indicated its intent to leave in
force all the pre-existing provisions of 18 U.S.C. §1462.

In other words, giving out abortion information over the Internet, as of 1996,
is illegal. Wow!"

Except when the Communications Decency Act was challenged in 1996, the
government didn't even attempt to defend the enforceability of 1462(c), which
prohibited the exchange of "obscene" materials over the internet. While not
deleted from the code, it effectively can't be enforced because the government
acquiesced on its obvious unconstitutionality. And the other parts of the CDA
that they did try to defend were struck down by the Supreme Court.

You have to remember that "the law" in the U.S. isn't just what's in the
statutes, it's what's in the statues + court decisions. There's a lot of
garbage in the U.S. Code that can't be enforced because of court decisions
like that.

------
ORioN63
SOPA is just plain ridiculous. It just makes sense to those who still didn't
understand, that the Internet is probably the most important human invention,
since written communication.

I'm not from the United States, but it will be ridiculous, if that law passes.

Apparently common sense, these days, is actually pretty rare...

~~~
kiba
If you have the mindset that everything that is copyrighted should be
controlled by you, than you would see the internet as a threat, because it is
the ultimate copying machine.

I think the RIAA would lose 10 dollars and make 1 dollars back in order to
stop piracy. They don't have this concept of working with the internet to make
even more money. It's either the highway or their way.

Frankly, I don't care much about the whole creative industry going away or not
going away. Actually it's getting bigger. I wouldn't notice, because there's
so much games out there and people who are willing to produce arts, musics,
and games for free just because. Even if they stop producing games, I wouldn't
notice. I would never be able to enjoy all these things in my lifetime anyway.

What people should be doing is finding good old stuff to read or improve on
existing works, which is kinda prohibited by copyright laws in the first
place.

It seems that we are too biased to "new stuff" even though there are a bunch
of old stuff we missed.

I mean, WW2 shooters are just the same old, same old. Yet we buy them years
after years. Now it's modern wartime. I am sure in 30 years time, it will be
WW2 again.

~~~
retrogradeorbit
"...than you would see the internet as a threat, because it is the ultimate
copying machine."

Not so. The Internet copies nothing. It's the ultimate (and not centrally
controlled) _distribution_ machine.

Piracy was going on well before the Internet came along. And distribution too,
but then it was via BBS's, not the Internet. Passing this law will do
absolutely nothing to stop copying, or distribution. It will just have a huge
chilling effect.

~~~
billswift
>Not so. The Internet copies nothing. It's the ultimate (and not centrally
controlled) _distribution_ machine.

It is the ultimate copy machine as much as distribution. _Every_ time it
distributes something it does so by _making another copy_.

------
biesnecker
Oh, whew, thank Jeebus, because we all know that Congress would never do
anything that would violate the Bill of Rights. :-|

~~~
eekfuh
I think you meant constitution.

~~~
sparky
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights.

~~~
blhack
I think that Dennis was implying that congress will break laws that go beyond
just the bill of rights.

------
ThePinion
So... Would this make any difference if it was presented to Congress? Isn't it
their duty to protect the Constitution?

~~~
pavpanchekha
Actually, that's the Judicial's role --- foremost the Supreme Court's. So if
SOPA passes, there's a reasonable chance that we'll strike it down in a
decade. But that'd be a scary decade.

~~~
xer0
It's every federal employee's role, including the TSA and Congress, by the
oath they take to protect and defend the constitution. The military, as well
as some state employees, all take similar oaths. It's job number one.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#United_States>

------
rayiner
Bullet 3 is extremely insightful. How much of this do you think is really
about little Timmy "stealing music" and how much is about getting a powerful
tool to fight Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Remember, MTV used to be, in
many ways, like the Twitter of the 1980's.

------
yummyfajitas
I'm curious - many people here often express the belief that corporations
should not have "free speech rights" [1].

Will those individuals now come out and apply the same reasoning in defense of
a SOPA-like law, but one which only applies to corporate websites? I doubt I'd
agree with such arguments, but they would certainly be intellectually
interesting.

[1] Courts have not ruled that corporations have free speech rights, but that
the owners of corporations have the right to use their property in the
furtherance of speech. But regardless, there is a certain set of rights that
many here oppose.

~~~
mithaler
What would a "SOPA-like law that only applies to corporate websites" be? SOPA
gives rights holders a process for removing content from websites that they
own rights to. What would the equivalent be for a corporate website?

~~~
yummyfajitas
The process for removing content could only be used against websites owned by
a corporation.

I.e., rights holders could remove stuff from youtube, but not from
yummyfajitas.com.

------
codemac
New goal, troll reddit, post with better titles.

