Oregon Senator Stops Internet Censorship Bill 315
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."
The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oregon (Score:5, Insightful)
The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oregon. Senator Stephen Conroy of Australia, take note.
WTF? The Story Link is to an Open Source Blog? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Other Half of the Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?
Revolution.
Re:The Other Half of the Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
"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)
bleh... (Score:0, Insightful)
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!
Re:Anbody want to (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Other Half of the Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Anbody want to (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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!
Tell him Thank You yourself. (Score:1, Insightful)
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/
Re:The Other Half of the Problem (Score:1, Insightful)
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...
Re:Anbody want to (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Anbody want to (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Other Half of the Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Anbody want to (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Anbody want to (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Anbody want to (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anbody want to (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Anbody want to (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
That's not democracy. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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."
Re:Anbody want to (Score:1, Insightful)
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)
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.