The Hypocrites Of Congress: Who Voted Against Net Neutrality, But For SOPA/PIPA
from the just-checking dept
An interesting article by Grant Gross over at PC World notes the hypocrisy of many in Congress who screamed loudly about how net neutrality was a dangerous attempt by government to “regulate the internet,” but are now the main supporters of SOPA. We already highlighted one of these, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who went so far as to create a video hysterically warning about the dangers of regulating the internet:
But some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy… the World Wide Web! This has never happened and there has never been a time that a consumer has needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene…. Here’s what they want to do: Take the private internet and put it all under government control. Think about it: what’s going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application. And what would happen to your small business, if you had to depend on internet speeds that Uncle Sam says is going to be okay…. We want to keep [the internet] open, free and prosperous.
How that doesn’t apply equally to SOPA… I don’t know. But she’s listed as a co-sponsor. Funny, that. Especially since SOPA is likely to have a much more direct impact on “the next Facebook innovator” than anything in the (yes, poorly designed) net neutrality rules put forth by the FCC.
Unfortunately, Gross’s article only names a few names. But not all of them. So we thought we might as well do that. Below, for your viewing pleasure, the list of hypocritical Congressional Reps and Senators who claim to be against regulating the internet, but have no problem doing so when it comes to SOPA or PROTECT IP (PIPA):
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
- Rep. Mary Bono Mack, California
- Rep. John Carter, Texas
- Rep. Steven Chabot, Ohio
- Rep. Elton Gallegly, California
- Rep. Robert Goodlatte, Virginia
- Rep. Tim Griffin, Arkansas
- Rep. Peter King, New York
- Rep. Thomas Marino, Pennsylvania
- Rep. Alan Nunnelee, Mississippi
- Rep. Dennis Ross, Florida
- Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana
- Rep. Lee Terry, Nebraska
- Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
- Sen. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire
- Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri
- Sen. John Boozman, Arkansas
- Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
- Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi
- Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee
- Sen. Michael Enzi, Wyoming
- Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
- Sen. Charles Grassley, Iowa
- Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah
- Sen. John Isakson, Georgia
- Sen. James Risch, Idaho
- Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida
- Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana
Of course, the really amazing thing is that SOPA and PIPA are much more about regulating the internet than the FCC’s “net neutrality” rules are. I already think the FCC’s rules are pretty silly (designed more to protect a few big businesses), but they’ll have little to no impact on everyday internet startups. That’s not true of SOPA/PIPA. Those rules will have a massive impact on every day startups. So how can supporters of SOPA/PIPA claim to be against “regulating the internet” while signing on to a bill that is almost entirely about regulating the internet?
Filed Under: copyright, internet, net neutrality, protect ip, regulations, sopa
Comments on “The Hypocrites Of Congress: Who Voted Against Net Neutrality, But For SOPA/PIPA”
All well and good to call out the hypocrisy, but “hysterically” is a gender slur. Might do well to watch out for that.
Re: Re:
Pussy.
Re: Re:
So what word in common usage in the English language would you suggest in its place?
Re: Re: Re:
It’d need some slight rephrasing, but the following jump to mind: alarmist (probably closest in meaning), overreacting, overblown, exaggerated, hyperbolic, etc. etc.
Or you could remove it. The sentence and article as a whole work fine without.
Re: Re:
re: sabrecat,
Mike used “hysterically” because the speaker in the video uses the same word (to describe the Obama Administration).
Try R’ing TFA next time before you comment.
Re: Re: Re:
Doesn’t refute the criticism. One party’s using problematic language doesn’t justify somebody else using it back–it’s stooping to her level, at best.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you think “hysterical” only applies to women, then maybe it’s you who harbors certain prejudicial views on women? Just sayin’
Re: Re:
All well and good to call out the hypocrisy, but “hysterically” is a gender slur. Might do well to watch out for that.
Wait what? Since when is “hysterical” gender specific? I’ve never heard it used that way *at all*.
Re: Re: "Hyster"
‘Hyster’ being the Latin word for a woman’s uterus. Thus, the word ‘hysterical’ specifically refers to when a woman’s actions/emotions are entirely under the sway of her uterus.
Hence, it could by some be considered a gender slur.
Re: Re: Re: "Hyster"
While I’m aware of the origin of the word (SAT root words FTW), I’m with Mike on this. I have never heard any modern usage of the word that was specifically gender based.
Re: Re: Re:
It is very much a gender slur, used quite often to undermine women when they express empathy instead of just reason.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most women get hysterical when a gender slur is used.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is very much a gender slur, used quite often to undermine women when they express empathy instead of just reason.
I have always heard it applied equally to men and women. I’ve never heard it used as gender specific.
I just looked it up on dictionary.com, and it makes no reference to gender at all:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical
hys?ter?i?cal
[hi-ster-i-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or characterized by hysteria.
2.
uncontrollably emotional.
3.
irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock.
4.
causing hysteria.
5.
suffering from or subject to hysteria.
Ok. We can also look up hysteria:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysteria
hys?te?ri?a
[hi-ster-ee-uh, -steer-] Show IPA
noun
1.
an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.
2.
Psychoanalysis . a psychoneurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks, disturbances of sensory and motor functions, and various abnormal effects due to autosuggestion.
3.
Psychiatry . conversion disorder.
Again absolutely no reference to gender.
It’s not a gender slur.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m gonna have to call bullshit on that I’m not even a native speaker.
Re: Re: Re:
“All well and good to call out the hypocrisy, but “hysterically” is a gender slur. Might do well to watch out for that.”
Wait what? Since when is “hysterical” gender specific? I’ve never heard it used that way *at all*.
Have to agree with Masnick on this one. He should know, he’s constantly in hysterics over the Chicken Little scenarios he invents for himself.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, along with the rest of the internet that agrees with him. Looks like the problems of SOPA and PIPA are being discussed and exposed through social media sites.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Oooooooo….. I’m scared.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I bet you’re a real force on the playground.
*eyeroll*
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Who cares?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
We know you are. Hence daily showing up on the site and trying to dismiss everything Mike and others say or denounce them and attack them with ad homs.
If you weren’t scared, you wouldn’t feel the need to do any of that (unless you’re just acting like a child or a troll that is).
Your fear that people are waking up to what you just tried to have passed without their knowledge and are now responding in turn is evident to all. You are indeed scared. Poor AC. You were so close. You’d have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those meddling kids.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Have to agree with Masnick on this one”
So you admit you agree with Mike?
Freetard.
Re: ...Hysterectimony?
You might be thinking of Hysterectimony… (sp?)
America, Land of the Free?
As I have stated before, the motto of America has changed from Land of the Free to Land of Hypocrisy.
Welcome to your Corporatocracy.
SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57332246-261/grooveshark-email-how-we-built-a-music-service-without-um-paying-for-music/
‘”The only thing that I want to add is this: we are achieving all this growth without paying a dime to any of the labels,” wrote Sina Simantob, Grooveshark’s chairman, in an e-mail on Dec. 1, 2009.’
You can try some weenie legalism to excuse it, but this is EXACTLY the kind of grifting that Mike denies goes on, and why there’s actual need for SOPA.
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
But who says they have to pay them in the first place? Who says copyright is the right thing for the Internet?
Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
Agreed, ootb seems to think that they have some kind of obligation to pay.
btw, like you ootb I did not read the link, I already know what it says 😉
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
So, you’re mention of a yet unresolved court case is proof of what?
Oh, you’ve learned to use links! Very good!
Feel free to use the court-set precedence of your linked court case when somebody’s been proven guilty of something.
Good try though.
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
I almost never comment, though I come here to read the discussions. This, though, made me feel like I had to say something.
Bravo. Powerful, pithy and precise. A perfect interweb argument.
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
Based on how GrooveShark operates they shouldn’t need to pay a damn thing you reeb.
Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
What is it about its operation that leads to your view re paying?
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
There are already legal methods in place for dealing with Grooveshark. In fact, Grooveshark is already being sued by Universal.
So, tell me…why do we need a new law? Why can’t we just enforce the existing laws?
Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
because lawsuits cost money, duh!
this way we can just shut them down and ask questions later.
no harm, no foul!
Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
What is it about its operation that leads to your view re paying?
Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
Because the current laws require pesky things like due process, evidence and the right to trial. These people want ultimate sanctions based on mere accusations, with the victim bearing any related costs.
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
I’m not going to defend Grooveshark. Grooveshark will fail in court because they paid employees to upload music. If the labels make the argument in court, Grooveshark will lose their safe harbor because of that. The DMCA is sufficient to deal with groovshark.
SOPA goes beyond punishing bad actors. It provides tools that will be used to hurt legitimate businesses and public forums and will drive investment out of the United States. As written, it is bad public policy.
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
There’s never a reason to allow censorship under the guise of piracy.
A lot of people that do pirate software, movies, music, ect., some of those people actually do buy what they pirate if they enjoy using it that much, just to give money to the creators.
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
This comment has nothing to do with this article. Please do try to stay on-topic. People might think you’re a troll.
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
You can try some weenie legalism to excuse it, but this is EXACTLY the kind of grifting that Mike denies goes on, and why there’s actual need for SOPA.
Grooveshark is being sued under current law. What would SOPA do other than give someone an end run around the law?
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
So aren’t there laws that already cover this? Aren’t they being sued under those existing laws?
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
Freeloading sacks of dogshit
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
Seriously? While I don’t condone grooveshark because of it’s copyright infringement, that does not mean we need SOPA. The RIAA already has the right to sue you into oblivion for a song playing in the background of a video on youtube. If anything we need underregulation.
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
Seriously? While I don’t condone grooveshark because of it’s copyright infringement, that does not mean we need SOPA. The RIAA already has the right to sue you into oblivion for a song playing in the background of a video on youtube. If anything we need underregulation.
Thank you for this list. Every time politicians vote for a bill against people’s will, their names should be all over the Internet in Hall of Shame lists.
Re: Re:
I really don’t think there’s enough room on the interwebs for that info. When was the last time politicians voted FOR the people’s will? All of them support the wishes of whomever gives them the most money. That’s why they all seem to “flip-flop” at a moments notice.
They were against regulating the internet before they were for it.
Yeah, we’re look at you, the south.
Oh, good! Not a single senator out of my state is on the list!
Re: Re:
And yet, Florida is on this list. Come to think of it, some one was talking about him running for President. I guess it would be more of what I already am getting in that case…
I had high hopes for him. Guess I fell for his “Change”.
LOL
It’s only hypocritical if they actually understand what they are legislating. The interwebs confuzzle them.
Government Regulation - the Perpetual Bogyman
Blackburn simply regurgitates the too easy mindless blame government regulation mantra. –> “Take the private internet and put it all under government control.” These proposals for so-called government control are being pushed by private industry for the benefit of companies that can “buy” our politicians.
Blackburn goes on to say: “Think about it: what’s going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application.” Again, it is private industry that is attempting to use regulations to quash competition.
Blackburn should be demanding that the private refrain from manipulating the politicians and to let the free-market work.
Why does Marsha Want Congress to Regulate the Internet? Why not just say NO FEDERAL branch (the FCC and congress and the federal courts included) has any authority to decide or rule on any aspect concerning the Internet?
BUT Marsha Blackburn did Vote FOR: Patriot Act Reauthorization, Electronic Surveillance, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes ?Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extension; and only NOW she is worried about free speech, privacy, and government take over of the internet?
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her ?blatantly unconstitutional? votes at :
http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html
Mickey
Tweet your congress critters!
I just sent out a tweet naming my congressmen and mentioning this article. Probably won’t help, but can’t hurt!
because they have no clue about the internet, no clue about the impact the bill(s) will have on EVERYBODY, including them, that use the internet, because they are more concerned with their pockets than the people that put them where they are and are supposed to be representing and basically, because they dont give a flying f**k for anyone other than themselves, even though they are making themselves look like absolute twats!
Vote with your Twitter account
If you believe in Net-Neutrality, go public by posting it on your Twitter account. Either go here: http://hashthevote.com/issue/net-neutrality and click “Vote Yes” or tweet with the hashtag: #NetNeutrality_YES (either way, we will pick up your vote).
Not surprised about Sen. Hatch, he's a big-time recording artist
Just take a look at his portfolio on Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=orrin+hatch&x=12&y=14
If PIPA doesn’t pass, he may have to give up his dreams of being a performing artist! Then he’ll be completely dependent upon whatever scraps his loyal lobbyists might deign to toss his way!
Save his dream! Support PIPA!
Re: Not surprised about Sen. Hatch, he's a big-time recording artist
He’s so in bed with the copyright lobby they’re common-law at this point.
Oh yup. Kelly Ayotte is on the list, no surprises there. I’m sorry on behalf of NH. :/
Please sign this petition to stop congress from passing S.O.P.A:
http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-do-not-pass-the-sopa-bill
The Representatives that voted for SOPA but spoke out against in the first place don’t actually care about SOPA or PIPA or really anything else but their bank accounts.
I think that’s pretty obvious.
It seems the list of people have no particular order. Are they in ascending or descending order for how much money they have received?
It is possible to be against “net neutrality” while being in favor of SOPA/Protect-IP. They are directed to different issues. To call those who may recognize the differences and support one but not the other “hypocrites” is quite misleading.
Re: Re:
No, it’s not. That was explained above.
Re:
Fun fact,pussy isn’t a gender slur. It is a shortening of “pusillanimous”. Has nothing to do with vaginas.