The 19 Senators Who Voted to Censor the Internet

<snip>
This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill -- despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:
</snip>

Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
Dianne Feinstein -- California
Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
Jon Kyl -- Arizona
Chuck Schumer -- New York
Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
Dick Durbin -- Illinois
John Cornyn -- Texas
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
Al Franken -- Minnesota
Chris Coons -- Delaware

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml

How sad. :(

That's hard to believe.

Perhaps there is some aspect of this that explains their vote that isn't noted in the article.

I'll side with Feingold and Franken.

Here is his Op/Ed from August.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-05/opinion/franken.net.neutrality_1_net-neutrality-television-networks-cable?_s=PM:OPINION

(I guess cracking down on Internet fraud is censorship too)

Thanks for link :thumbsup:

And are taking the next slippery step down the slope of censorship...

Read the article...

Read the bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804

Camel's nose under the tent...

Leaves WAY too much up to the 'discresion' of the A.G.

It's another step on the path of censoring the net...

Read the bill.

Adding Techdirt and author, Mike Masnik, on my full-o-shit list.

OP and source have never read COICA and have no idea what it's about, or they would be aware it has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. :eyes:

gee where should I start, so much to steal, so little time.

This makes little sense. Senator Franken is a staunch defender of http://www.alfranken.com/index.php/splash/netneutrality">Net Neutrality, so i finding it hard to believe that he would be for the "censorship" of the Internet. I'm calling BS on this article.

Let's try to put this discussion on a factual basis, shall we? Inform yourselves before you react based on what you think of some politician.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/LawProfCOICA.pdf

Law Professors’ COICA Letter
Page 1
November 16, 2010
Law Professors’ Letter in Opposition to S. 3804
(Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act)
The Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to consider a bill that, if enacted, will
have dangerous consequences for free expression online and the integrity of the
Internet's domain name system, and will undermine United States foreign policy and
strong support of Internet freedom abroad.
Summary of the Bill
The current version of the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits
Act (“COICA,” or “the Act”), S. 3804, would authorize the Attorney General to obtain,
upon application to a federal court, injunctions in rem “against the domain name” of
any Internet site “dedicated to infringing activities.” An Internet site will be deemed
“dedicated to infringing activities” if (a) it is “primarily designed,” has “no
demonstrable commercially significant purpose or use other than,” or is “marketed by
its operator,” to offer goods and services in violation of the Copyright Act and/or the
Lanham Act, and (b) the site “engages in” such infringing activities, and those activities,
“taken together,” are “central to the activity” of the site.
These injunctions can issue against entities which are not in any way responsible
for the unlawful content, but which participate in the global Domain Name System
(DNS):
(a) the domain name registrar where the target site’s domain name was
registered;
(b) the domain name registry responsible for maintaining the authoritative
database of names for the target site’s top-level domain; and
(c) any of the thousands of “service providers” (i.e., entities “offering the
transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications”)
or “operator of a nonauthoritative domain name server” (a category that includes
virtually all service providers, and any operator of network linked to the Internet).
Registrars and registries subject to the injunction will be required to “suspend
operation of,” or “lock,” the specified domain name. Service providers or domain
name server operators will be required to “take technically feasible and reasonable
steps designed to prevent domain name from resolving to that domain name’s
Internet protocol address.”

SNIP

"Our ability to defend the principle of the single global Internet... will be deeply compromised by enactment of S. 3804, which would enshrine in U.S. law for the first time the contrary principle: that all countries have a right to insist on the removal of content, wherever located, from the global Internet in service of the exigencies of local law."

First time, you say? Post some pedophilic material online and see how fast your content is removed "from the global Internet in service of the exigencies of local law".

to the point where you compare it to pedophilia and would give the government the right not just to go after Web sites but the service providers and the domain registrars.

Copyright holders are free to file suit against suspected infringements, as one did against DU recently. Would you prefer to give the government the right to threaten DU's service provider and registrars into shutting down the site?

The government can take action against the "name" only.

DU's primary purpose has nothing to do with peddling pirated material, so that's a big straw man.

It will be very easy for copyright holders to claim infringements, and this law would allow them to shoot first and ask questions after a site is offline and ruined. That's already programmed into the business plans of Murdoch and others who intend to defend their pay walls.

Here - read the bill, it's only a few pages. Then we'll have an intelligent discussion (I already know that's what you want).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804

How is it determined that a site is "primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer" materials in infringement of copyright? Appears to be AG's call.

Did you notice this part?

"a service that serves contextual or display advertisements to Internet sites shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent its network from serving advertisements to an Internet site accessed through such domain name."

That would be pretty much everyone. It's the old madness of pretending not to understand how links work. And do you see a search-site exception?

This bill may be the product of well-intentioned ignorance. But it opens the door to summary shut downs of Web sites by the AG on grounds that allow for expansive interpretations.

and there is a wealth of precedent on outlawing advertising to fraudulent activities. As a check the law includes the words "reasonable" and "practical".

A site can't be closed down based on an "AG's call" - he still must get a court order.

Advertising is not the same as linking, or are you pretending not to understand how links work?

http://www.limewire.com/

Define advertising. Please give us a clear distinction between a link and advertising.

Is this post in violation?

If you follow the link, you'll see the site is currently shut down by an injunction of Oct. 26, by the way.

So if that injunction was already possible, please explain the need for this new law with its vague, expansion-friendly language.

Unreccing for misinforming...

would NEVER do anything for political purposes...

Or control or censor any group the Empire doesn't like! :sarcasm:

so either all three branches of government are conspiring against you, or you have a paranoia issue to deal with.

You mutha f*cking hypocrite asscarrots!

No danger of abuse by politically-motivated regulators. :sarcasm:

from creating another site called "Democratic Underground" and manipulating your post to say something completely different from what you intended.

Copyright protects free speech.

It is illegal to post anything on the Internet that is, well, illegal. You can't have, for example, a child pornography site.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30237

Senator Threatens to Block Online Copyright Bill

By Grant Gross, IDG News

A U.S. senator has vowed to fight attempts to pass a controversial copyright protection bill that would allow the U.S. government to shut down websites suspected of hosting infringing materials.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said late Thursday that he would seek to block the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, or COICA, from passing through the full Senate, unless the legislation is changed. Earlier Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 19-0 to approve the bill and send it to the full Senate.

Wyden called the bill the "wrong medicine" for dealing with online copyright infringement. The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to seek expedited court orders requiring U.S. domain-name registrars to shut down domestic websites suspected of hosting infringing materials. The bill would also allow the DOJ, through court orders, to order U.S. ISPs to redirect customer traffic away from infringing foreign websites.

"Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile," Wyden said during a hearing on digital trade issues. "If you don't think this thing through carefully, the collateral damage would be American innovation, American jobs, and a secure Internet."

Wyden's opposition means the bill is likely dead this year. Individual senators can place holds on legislation, and there are only a few working days left in the congressional session this year. Sponsors of the legislation, including fellow Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would have to reintroduce the bill if it doesn't pass this year.

Big Unrec.

if they suspect a copyright infringement.

Please point that part of the bill out to me. :shrug:

would authorize the Attorney General to obtain, upon application to a federal court, injunctions in rem “against the domain name” of
any Internet site “dedicated to infringing activities.” An Internet site will be deemed “dedicated to infringing activities” if (a) it is “primarily designed,” has “no demonstrable commercially significant purpose or use other than,” or is “marketed by its operator,” to offer goods and services in violation of the Copyright Act and/or the Lanham Act, and (b) the site “engages in” such infringing activities, and those activities, “taken together,” are “central to the activity” of the site.

Translation: The Attorney General suspects or asserts...

And we all know the Attorney General of the Corporate States of America always has the People's good at heart, right? :sarcasm:

It's called "judicial review". Civics 101.

Are you lost as to how things really work in real life???

Real Life in the Empire 101...

(when the revolution starts, let me know)

:smoke:

a sustainable future...

When we need "government", we'll create one that works...

When you get ready to face reality and tired of being an apologist for your corporate capitalist masters who are destroying the Earth, let me know...

Franken, Feingold, Whitehouse did the right thing. I'd include my senator Kyl in that but he probably did it for the wrong reasons.

This is a VERY bad precedent...

Or do you REALLY just expect us to take the word of an anonymous someone on the internet?

"The sentiment is not universal: Since its introduction in September, COICA has alarmed engineers and civil liberties groups, who say that it could balkanize the Internet, jeopardize free speech rights, and endanger even some legitimate Web sites. Its wording says that any domain name "dedicated to infringing activities" could find itself in the U.S. Department of Justice's prosecutorial crosshairs.

"Peter Eckersley, a technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote earlier this week that the bill will create a 1950-style Hollywood blacklist with the government deciding which Web sites are legitimate or not. The federal government will be forced "into the swamp of trying to decide which websites should be blacklisted and which ones shouldn't," Eckersley said. "And they're going to discover that the line between copyright infringement and free political speech can be awfully murky."

At the same time, a group of law professors wrote an open letter (PDF) to the Senate saying the law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and "would set a dangerous precedent with potentially serious consequences for free expression and global Internet freedom."

It's the camel's nose under the tent. The same "technology" that would implement this law can also, like China, be easily jiggered to censor anything the USAmerikan Empire doesn't want YOU to see or hear...and WILL be...

Of course, if you know the numeric I/P address, you can get there anyway... So save those addresses...

Much obliged.

I guess Senators don't always read what their staff tells them to sign.

They are from the ruling class, the members of the Millionaire's Club have NO conception of the lives us peons live...

They can't even conceive of the damage they do in the pay of their corporate capitalist masters...

Yelling fire in a crowded theater was supposed to be the camel's nose under the tent too. Yet somehow free speech survived.

try to protest the "Permanent War Economy(tm)" here in the Corporate States of America...

Or global capitalism...

They'll put you in a "free speech" pen far away from any notice...

You've now compared suspicion of copyright infringement (under a no doubt expansive definition) to pedophiles and yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Why did you leave out terrorism?

And he wants to run for prez in 2012, too. Sigh.

Wyden called the bill the "wrong medicine" for dealing with online copyright infringement. The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to seek expedited court orders requiring U.S. domain-name registrars to shut down domestic websites suspected of hosting infringing materials. The bill would also allow the DOJ, through court orders, to order U.S. ISPs to redirect customer traffic away from infringing foreign websites.

"Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile," Wyden said during a hearing on digital trade issues. "If you don't think this thing through carefully, the collateral damage would be American innovation, American jobs, and a secure Internet."

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/211162/senator_threatens_to_block_online_copyright_bill.html

If Ron Wyden doesn't think jobs are already being lost because of international piracy, he's even more naive than I thought.

are CREATED by "international piracy" than the mythical number of jobs that USAmerican corporations would "create"...

The difference is that USAmerican corporate leeches don't get the profits...

For fucking sure, most artists in USAmerica don't make shit off of "copyrights"...

Talk to the thousands of workers at American duplication houses like Cinram which have been laid off because of international piracy.

You really don't know WTF you're talking about.

:shrug:

As a musician for the last 50+ years and a student and victim of vampire capitalism, I know what I'm talking about...

I guess you were laid off too, eh?

(I like your avatar)

How can Chris Coons vote on anything yet? He hasn't been sworn in has he?

(mistaken post)