Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Democrats Government The Internet United States Your Rights Online Politics

Oregon Senator Stops Internet Censorship Bill 315

Posted by timothy
from the west-coast-style dept.
comforteagle writes "Senator Wyden of Oregon has objected to a bill in committee that if passed would have given the government the ability to censor the Internet. His objection effectively stop its current passing, forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is to continue — which it may not. Oregonians, please send this man pats on the back."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oregon Senator Stops Internet Censorship Bill

Comments Filter:
  • by kaptink (699820) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @12:40PM (#34291640) Homepage

    The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oregon. Senator Stephen Conroy of Australia, take note.

  • by RobotRunAmok (595286) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @12:51PM (#34291704)

    Dude, I appreciate that you may want the pageviews, but consider linking to the source next time. It's how it's done in the Big Leagues.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2010 @12:53PM (#34291722)

    What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?

    Revolution.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2010 @12:57PM (#34291744)

    "After a generation or two people will grow up knowing no other status quo." - Exactly. I have seen that happen in my own lifetime, on multiple fronts, and I am only 52.

    Sooner or later, we end up where Mr. Orwell predicted. It's only a matter of when.

  • second that. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:03PM (#34291784) Homepage Journal
    it took a revolution in 1774, and then another in 1789, and then a few more others in 1848s to establish the fundamentals of the modern liberties and freedoms, and all human rights we take granted now. apparently, we need a few more in order to get one step further.
  • bleh... (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:08PM (#34291814)

    now you can go back to stealing your music & movies kids, it's your right! If you want you can pay for it by going to russian sites and the like that charge, but don't pay the content creators! Thank god this bill was defeated so people can keep paying others for stealing content for them!

  • by DarkKnightRadick (268025) <the_spoon.geo@yahoo.com> on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:10PM (#34291826) Homepage Journal

    The fillibuster is an essential mechanism in Congress to keep the government gridlocked. That's a much better scenario than a government that's free to do as it pleases.

  • by laughingcoyote (762272) <{moc.eticxe} {ta} {lwohtsehgrab}> on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:11PM (#34291828) Journal

    Some sort of national initiative/referendum process, perhaps? Many states have it, and while imperfect in its own ways, it does tend to keep in check the worst abuses. Of course, sometimes people pass spectacularly popular but spectacularly stupid laws, too.

    But the main thing to that is to get corporate cash the hell out of politics. Amend the Constitution to specify that corporations are not "persons" with the same rights as real people, including the right to participation in the political process. Then stop allowing candidates for office to take brib-erm, excuse me, "campaign contributions". Each viable candidate gets to speak using the same platform in the same manner. One person one vote, not one dollar one vote.

  • by Cwix (1671282) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:15PM (#34291858)

    That is the first time Ive seen anyone ever explain that. Thanks, I think anything that removes political contributions to elected officials is a good thing.

  • I commend you sir! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by digitalPhant0m (1424687) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:16PM (#34291866)

    I usually sway to the Red, however I must say that this Senator has earned my respect by standing up for what do you call it? You know, that thing this country was supposedly built upon and champions, oh yeah Freedom!

    Thank you!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:19PM (#34291878)

    I believe in positive reinforcement. So few politicians take the right stance on these technology, copyright and censorship issues, and when one does they should be told how much it is appreciated.

    You can write a quick 2 line note to that effect on his website here:

    http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:20PM (#34291890)

    What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?

    Repeated capaigns of political assasination?? Until finally the ones left are willing to be swayed by the arguments of their constituents rather than their corporate overlords. This guy from Oregon would obviously get a pass...

  • by Reziac (43301) * on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:24PM (#34291904) Homepage Journal

    The bigger question is, how the hell do we get rid of the elected-senator system and go back to how it was before?? I can't see much chance of repealing the relevant Amendment. You'd hear all manner of propaganda wailing about how those evil pro-appointed-senator freaks wanted to take away your right to vote and to thereby "control" the gov't.

    Remember too that the Founders *designed* the system to promote gridlock, under the excellent and well-demonstrated theory that gov't rushing into ANY action was a Bad Thing. Having the entire system dependent on campaign strategies and contributions defeats that all by itself (everything is pulling in the same basic direction: getting re-elected).

  • by hedwards (940851) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:35PM (#34291944)
    But, the congress isn't free to do as it pleases, the President can veto anything he wants, and the courts can set aside things as unconstitutional. It's only in recent times that the filibuster has become such a significant factor in the legislative process, and I doubt very much that using it to prevent much needed healthcare reform is really what it was intended for.
  • by DarkOx (621550) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:54PM (#34292052) Journal

    Well me and a number of other people would like a Constitutional Amendment requiring all future laws in the US code to have a sunset date. Congress would have to than re debate every law periodically to determine if it should be renewed. There are varying opinions about how far out the maximum sunset can be. I personally think 30 years makes sense, that is four senate terms plus one to cover the other thirds not up for election at the end of term 1. This way most of the original people who debate the law will be gone from the senate, and folks with a fresh perspective would be able to consider it on its merits. Also having to take an issue up once every thirty years should not be two burdensome. The vast majority of expiring codes probably won't be controversial at all and could get taken care of with a quick up or down direct to floor vote in the first days of each congressional session.

  • Re:So confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by N0Man74 (1620447) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @02:16PM (#34292182)

    Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

    I can't speak for every Slashdotter, but...

    Net Neutrality isn't about the government controlling the internet, it's about preventing corporations using leverage to control the internet and/or hold bandwidth hostage for competitive advantage or to inhibit the flow of free information.

    As for being against policies that stop policies, it's not that I'm for piracy. It's just that legislation, policies, and industry practices to reduce piracy have been ineffective, will probably never be effective, hurt legitimate content consumers more than it hurts the pirates, and continuously erode what we can do under Fair Use. That's not to mention that they create ways for corporations to try to financially ruin individuals that are accused of infringing on a rather small scale, even if the evidence that they have done so is shaky. The people are abused, and even content providers of public domain works are often caught in the crossfire. And all of this is done in the name of stopping piracy (whose actual impact is really hard to know) of copyrighted (for way too damn long) works.

    I think that these views are entirely consistent. We don't want corporations and governments meddling with our legitimate access to content and information.

  • by lgw (121541) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @02:20PM (#34292206) Journal

    Using the fillibuster to prevent veyr much unneeded nationalization of our healthcare system by a bill that no one even bothered to read before voting on it was exactly what it was for. Sadly, it didn't happen. The Senate was supposed to allow cooler heads to prevail - to slow down the process enough to at least read a bill before voting on it (the healthcare bill accidentally removed all medical insurance for congress and their staffers unti 2014, which is about a clear as it can be that no on read it).

  • by lgw (121541) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @02:25PM (#34292234) Journal

    Individuals are powerless, and this is by design.

    Well, yeah, that's how democracy works. A system in which individuals are powerful is called a monarchy, or a dictatorship. Alwyas seems to be the wrong individuals, somehow. By design, you should have to wave around huge blocks of voters to have an effect within a democracy (even a representative democracy like our own).

  • Re:So confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ultranova (717540) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @02:45PM (#34292354)

    Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

    When the government makes regulation that censors the Internet, that's bad. When the government makes regulation that keeps corporations from censoring the Internet, that's good. Censorship is evil, freedom is good. It's that simple.

    A car analogy: If the government made a law that prevented you from driving to California, that would be very bad. If a toll road operator forced you to tell your destination and charged extra if it was California, and the government would bitchslap them for that, it would be very good.

    Good is good, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone, and evil is evil, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone. This is an entirely consistent position.

  • by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000&yahoo,com> on Saturday November 20, 2010 @03:13PM (#34292492)

    I think anything that removes political contributions to elected officials is a good thing.

    So you don't believe in the freedom of speech? Because that is what barring contributions is, silencing speech. As a low income individual I don't enjoy as many ways to spread my speech as others but if I can join others who feel or think the same then we can all contribute pooling our resources to get our message out.

    Falcon

  • by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @03:20PM (#34292534) Homepage Journal
    It's bribery, patrone. Please remember that as a self-described low-income individual you and any coalition will never be able to overcome the campaign contributions made by high-income individuals, coalitions, and organizations. Influencing your elected representatives should be a simple matter of writing a letter and nothing else.
  • by Cwix (1671282) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @03:35PM (#34292606)

    Money is not free speech as far as I'm concerned. I think that no one person/organization/corporation should not be allowed to give more then 50 dollars to a politician, and no more then 300 a year total.

    It would be even better if there was public financing for all politicians.

    How come you believe that I should have to give money to get my voice heard. Why should I bribe my politician?

    It turns the measure of my voice into the amount of money I have. Which means that corporations have a much louder voice then I do. Thats wrong

  • It's bribery (Score:3, Insightful)

    by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000&yahoo,com> on Saturday November 20, 2010 @04:26PM (#34292936)

    It is not bribery when one person helps another person get elected. And yes, a pool of low income individuals can help a candidate get elected. Obama was elected relying on many small donations.

    Influencing your elected representatives should be a simple matter of writing a letter and nothing else.

    And if they do a good job helping them get reelected. But if they don't then help get someone else elected instead of them, even if that someone else is "none of the above".

    Falcon

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2010 @04:58PM (#34293146)

    According to Press Freedom Index 2010 [wikipedia.org], Finland [wikipedia.org], Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Estonia, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Lithuania, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Germany, Australia and United Kingdom.

    Please name a single country without an elected legislature.

    Given that I know at least half of those countries do in fact have some form of elected legislatures, I'm going to call you on your lack of reading comprehension.

  • by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000&yahoo,com> on Saturday November 20, 2010 @06:45PM (#34293782)

    That is exactly what democracy is, people supporting what they like and opposing what they don't like.

    If you really believe that is not democracy I don't know what your definition of democracy [onelook.com] is.

    Falcon

  • Re:So confused (Score:4, Insightful)

    by srmalloy (263556) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @08:07PM (#34294376) Homepage

    Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

    When the government makes regulation that censors the Internet, that's bad. When the government makes regulation that keeps corporations from censoring the Internet, that's good. Censorship is evil, freedom is good. It's that simple.

    A car analogy: If the government made a law that prevented you from driving to California, that would be very bad. If a toll road operator forced you to tell your destination and charged extra if it was California, and the government would bitchslap them for that, it would be very good.

    Good is good, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone, and evil is evil, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone. This is an entirely consistent position.

    Your analogy for COICA isn't really on all fours; it's more as if the government were able to say "There have been reports that your car was seen to be speeding; no one has presented any proof of this, but just to make sure you aren't going to violate the speed limit, we're confiscating your car."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2010 @10:59PM (#34295308)

    A healthcare overhaul has been kicking around for decades. The one that passed was basically the one Dole counter-proposed to the Clinton bill in the early 90's. Cooler heads have not only considered the bill but died from old age. The notion that the health care law was some new unconsidered thing is a tired reactionary canard.

  • Re:So confused (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hokeyru (749540) on Sunday November 21, 2010 @02:15AM (#34296054)

    And that is exactly the crux of the issue. The internet wasn't designed for any particular purpose. It was designed for any purpose anyone could dream up. It is ridiculous for anyone to think they had enumerated all the uses of the internet, or believe anyone ought to 'justify' their consumption.

"Ahead warp factor 1" - Captain Kirk

Working...