
While we are focusing on SOPA, we are being distracted from the Protect IP Act - rohit89
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/np5ee/while_we_are_focusing_on_sopa_we_are_being/
======
rbanffy
Today I had an idea that's so simple it could be useful.

We can send a message to the US legislative that things like SOPA, PIPA and
the more shady provisions of the NDAA are a step too far. While they will
laugh at our numbers, we can promise to volunteer our technical skills and
resources to the politicians who vote against laws like that and deny access
to the same resources to those who vote for them.

Our community is not large and writing our representatives telling them they
lost our vote does not carry enough weight (and it's probably the same
everywhere) but we carry mighty claws and teeth in form of our skills and
resources.

Any ideas on how to do it?

Note: I live in Brazil and one could say such things have no direct impact on
my life, but bad ideas and bad legislation are contagious. The same lobbies
that work in the US are busy at work everywhere. We cannot afford to concede
them a victory like this.

------
fragsworth
I get a dreadful sense that there's really no stopping this. The entertainment
industry has been around longer than the tech industry, their claws more
deeply embedded in our political system. They will not cease until they get
the controls they want. They'll stop at nothing - they will use every tactic
they can come up with to get their laws passed. Maybe SOPA won't pass, maybe
Protect IP won't pass, but later on it will be something else. The public gets
bored with issues as they drone on - can we maintain our vigilance forever?

~~~
alexqgb
Maintaining vigilance is one thing. Resisting a direct and perpetually
sustained assault is another. In answer to that question, no, the public can't
win. Like a body riddled with unchecked tumors, it will inevitably die -
prematurely and horribly.

Make no mistake: private election finance is a cancer upon the Nation. We end
it, or it ends us.

~~~
tomjen3
You believe in freedom of speech right? (lets ignore things like shouting fire
in crowded theater right now).

So you agree that I have the right to say that the current president is an
oath-breaker, a war monger and a criminal (these opinions are biased, clearly,
but they are also not completely impossible to argue)?

So you agree that I have the right to tell that to somebody who wants to hear
that, right?

So I also have the right to tell that to two people who wants to hear it
right?

So what about 200? What if I convince somebody else to say that to ten people,
200 people? If I convince ten people to tell 2000, and pay them what they
would have earned if they had worked a job that day, then I should also be
allowed to do that, right?

Remember I could have hired them to paint my fence instead, which would have
been allowed.

What if instead of sending people around, I started sending letters around?
And to write them fast enough brought an expensive printer? And the advice
from expensive (but) great ad men from Madison? And instead of using letters I
brought time on the radio or the television or on various sites online?

If you allow me to do these things (and remember I could do it if, rather than
getting some particular policy past the House, I wanted to sell blue cheese)
then how will it matter whether I can give money to a particular candidate or
not?

You can have either free speech or banned campaign founding but not both.

~~~
slowpoke
_> You can have either free speech or banned campaign founding but not both._

You could have something else: complete and total accountability, and full
transparency of WHO is paying HOW MUCH to WHOM for WHAT purpose. Publicly
available. In addition, we could require all politicians to wear their
sponsors' logos (just like a motorsport driver) when they appear in public.

Representative democracy is an abstraction that tries to hide what's going on
behind the scenes. Let's rip off the hood and make the abstraction leak
wherever possible.

Also, I don't necessarily think spreading outright lies should be considered
free speech, just as much as I don't consider propaganda or hate speech to be
free speech. I don't think we should forbid it but I refuse to categorize it
as "worthy of protection".

~~~
jerf
If you believe in free speech, except for the speech you don't agree with, you
don't believe in free speech. "Propaganda" and "hate speech" are just ways of
trying to avoid making it obvious you mean "speech I don't agree with",
_especially_ the word "propaganda", which in practice simply straight-up means
"speech I don't agree with".

~~~
slowpoke
_> If you believe in free speech, except for the speech you don't agree with,
you don't believe in free speech._

Except that's not what I was saying. You have an opinion that differs from
mine? You are free to state it and I will gladly fight for your right to say
that. I just don't believe that outright lies (propaganda) and mere hate are a
valid opinion.

I also said we shouldn't explicitly forbid it. It's just not worthy of
extended protection and respect. I don't see how this means I don't believe in
free speech.

~~~
jerf
The probability of at least one of your supposed "outright lies" being
factually true approaches 1. Propaganda isn't a descriptive term, it's a slur.

------
russell
I thought these were essentially the same bill; killing it in one house killed
it. The depth of the analysis of the two bills in Wikipedia is so different
that I cant tell. It appears that whether Protect IP is voted on is up to
Harry Reid, but I find Senate rules nearly impenetrable. Enlightenment would
be welcome..

~~~
gojomo
It seems they are variants of the same idea, which if passed separately would
likely have their language reconciled in 'conference committee' (where members
of the House and Senate merge the language). If both reach that point, passing
the merged version is almost certain.

Right now neither has been 'killed'. They're due in January for more action:
either continuing House hearings (SOPA) or a Senate floor vote (Protect-IP, if
Harry Reid gets his way).

~~~
izend
Ingenious tactic by the supporters of the bills, killing one might not kill
both.

~~~
gojomo
Nonsense. That's just how it works. Any final bill would still have to pass
both (though there can sometimes be shananigans in the conference committee).
And nothing is ever really 'killed' – any bill can be reintroduced at any
time, the issue is whether the leaders who control the agenda want to give it
time/votes.

------
joshuahedlund
PIPA is farther along than SOPA. It cleared its committe with no resistance in
mere minutes and while Senator Wyden has apparently been delaying it through
arcane Senate procedural rules I do not understand, there was news last week
that it would be the first thing Reid brings before the Senate floor when they
reconvene January 24. It has 40 co-sponsors (40% of the Senate!) so the odds
are not good.

The general consensus I've seen on the net is that PIPA is less horrible than
SOPA but still unacceptably bad. We've dealt the worse bill some serious blows
in the last week, and now we need to turn out democratic/capitalist firepower
on PIPA. Full blast.

~~~
mayneack
Most things in the senate require a vote of 60 votes to accomplish, however,
this usually doesn't happen and Harry Reid (or whoever is standing in for him
on a given day) just asks for unanimous consent. If no one objects, then they
proceed as if everyone voted for it. What Ron Wyden did was object to bringing
the bill to the floor. Thus, it will require him to give consent or a vote of
60 Senators to bring the bill to the floor (which they wouldn't try to do
unless they were sure it would work).

Most of the time, there are only a few people actually in the senate chamber.
The person standing in for Reid, one Republican Senator, the person giving
some sort of speech/statement into the record and for cspan, and whoever is
next to do the same. Within each party, any Senator can (publicly or secretly)
ask their representative in the chamber to object on their behalf. Ron Wyden
did so publicly, in the past people have gotten riled up about "secret holds"
where the leadership of the objecting side doesn't expose who objected. If
Harry Reid really wanted to push for the bill, he could call a vote, which
would put everyone on the record voting in favor or opposition on bringing it
to the floor, but Senators hate being officially on one side or the other of a
bill, so they usually wait until they can convince whoever has a hold to drop
it (usually through giving them some sort of favor, etc).

------
rgrieselhuber
We are also being distracted from the NDAA.

~~~
wwweston
Agree this needs more attention. Don't slacken on SOPA/Protect-IP pressure,
though, just also think about how to support things like this:

[http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10230-feinstei...](http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10230-feinstein-
introduces-due-process-guarantee-act)

------
polyfractal
I think a bigger threat is that while every techie is sperging (rightfully)
over SOPA/Protect, everyone is ignoring the NDAA sliding quietly through
Congress.

I appreciate all the SOPA coverage and am glad to see people getting upset
about it, but there are a lot of other issues that are just as scary which
people are just glossing over.

~~~
Zirro
It would help if you gave a short explanation of what the NDAA is. I realize
it may be something I don't know about since I'm not American, but still, I'm
interested.

~~~
polyfractal
Sorry about that. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a bill that
is passed every year and appropriates funding for military expenditures.

This year, there are clauses that legislatively codify the President's
authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American
citizens, without trial.

The govt. has been claiming that capability under the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) already, but Congress has always been
vague and handwavy about supporting it. This codifies and effectively rubber-
stamps the process, saying "We approve"

You can read a sane and reasonable explanation without FUD here:
[http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-
the-...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-
perplexed/)

~~~
Peaker
It sounds clearly unconstitutional. How can it be taken to the supreme court
to test that?

~~~
ams6110
It would have to pass first. The supreme court is not going to hear arguments
on something that _might_ become law.

------
platainbrain
Contact information for all senators: <http://www.contactsenators.com/>

------
wtvanhest
Most of the organizations made sense on the list (in the sense that they think
they have something to gain) but there were a few I just couldn't figure out:

-National Fraternal Order of Police

-National District Attorneys Association

-National Criminal Justice Association

Why would these 3 organizations be supporting this bill?

If anyone knows, I am curious.

------
blueprint
While we are focusing on SOPA and the Protect IP Act, we are being distracted
from the social problems that lie at the cause of these kinds of bills even
being able to see the light of day.

------
chjj
I'm so sick of this.

...I wish I could make everyone in congress get an education or something.
Make them study some history before they're allowed to propose any more
decisions.

------
chrischen
Seems like Microsoft is on the list of supporters of Protect IP. Didn't they
come out against SOPA? Is SOPA slightly worse than Protect IP?

------
JWLong
I thought we just had to focus on one or the other to kill the bill? And if
so, I think it'd be better to focus our efforts on the House.

------
firefoxman1
Last time I checked Protect IP didn't have nearly the same support as SOPA. I
guess that's changed?

------
dextorious
OT, but amusing:

SOPA means "Shut up" in Greek (σώπα), while PIPA (πίπα) means "blow job".

Is the legislator telling us "shut up and blow me"?

~~~
jdhopeunique
Wouldn't it be better to leave these obscene comments for websites like reddit
or slashdot? I come to HN to get away from the numerous attempts at humor.
When everyone is doing it, it grows tiresome.

~~~
epo
You might have observed that it wasn't all that funny or witty and I might
have agreed with you.

But commenting on what you wrote: obscene doesn't mean what you want it to
mean. Perhaps you should take your prudery, your censorship, your sense of
entitlement and your geeky elitism elsewhere.

------
lucian303
Yeah, I think SOPA might be the decoy.

