Senator Wyden Promises To Read Out The Names Of Those Who Oppose PROTECT IP

from the sign-up-now dept

As stories begin to circulate that the Senate is about to make a big push to get PROTECT IP (aka PIPA) through while everyone’s been focused on SOPA over in the House, Senator Ron Wyden has reiterated his commitment to being against the bill, and promising to actually use his allotted time to filibuster on the bill if he has to. Too often these days, Senators have been able to get away with a sort of fake filibustering, where they say they will and everyone just assumes it’s as if they did stand up and talk for days on end. However, Senator Wyden has said that he’ll really filibuster if the Senate really does try to move forward by standing on the floor and talking. While, in the past, the “standard” is to do something like read names from the phonebook, Wyden is promising to read the names of people who signed petitions against PIPA. So if you’d like your name to go into the official record of the US Senate as being against PIPA, here’s your chance… You can sign at that link.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Senator Wyden Promises To Read Out The Names Of Those Who Oppose PROTECT IP”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
99 Comments
Call me Al says:

The Filibuster: Good or Bad

The filibuster is something I’m of two minds about. I kind of object on principle to the idea that one person can block legislation that the majority agree with.

That being said, if someone does it for something like this and as stylishly as Wyden seems to be planning then I find myself supporting it.

Maybe I’m just a hypocrite and think its wrong when I don’t agree with it and right when I do.

pixelpusher220 (profile) says:

Re: The Filibuster: Good or Bad

The ‘filibuster’ as currently implemented is not good. The ‘Mr. Smith goes to Washington’ filibuster is a good thing.

When someone finsd something so obnoxious that they are willing to stand up and shut down the Senate over it, they should have that ability…provided they are standing on the floor and talking non-stop. Nothing else gets done until that issue is resolved.

Unfortunately the Senate has changed the rules so that things can run in ‘parallel tracks’ so that while a filibuster is being conducted, other business can be taken care of. It makes it toothless.

The filibuster is a good idea, but it needs to ‘hurt’ to use it. You need to be the poster child for holding up the Senate while you are doing it.

Instead you have Harry Reid being completely ineffective as leader by simply not holding votes if the GOP merely threaten to filibuster.

To that end, the filibuster doesn’t even exist in the original Senate rules. It only came into existence basically by accident when they removed a procedure from the rules in the early 1800s (“to move the previous question”).

People should be allow to gum up the works. However, there shouldn’t be ways to ‘ease’ the pain of that gumming up of the works. And of course, ways for the majority to override that stand so progress can be made once enough people agree.

It gives power to the individual Senator, but not unlimited power.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.

Remember, when it comes time for our corrupt and greedy politicians to run for re-election, voting against every single one of them, no matter how much the court and woo you, is the only recourse we have.
And take the time to tell your family and friends why they should vote against these politicians too.
Spread the word and the insight.

Because we all know, those very same politicians are going to do there very level best to make themselves look like they are your very best friend!

pixelpusher220 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.

Yep, same here. I take pride in that Sen. Webb of Virgina announced he wasn’t running for re-election a month or so after I told him that.

Of course, that means we may end up with George ‘Macaca’ Allen in his place…

wheee.

But you are correct, we need to start voting people out on principles so that their replacements start adhering to principles instead of campaign contributions.

gorehound (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.

I am trying to make peole aware that the PIPA/SOPA are really bad forms of Censorship that goies against the 1ST Amendment of our Great Country and it is even more than that it is this Government’s Way of getting complete and utter control of the Internet just like in the China System.
Any who votes for this should never be voted for in office again.And for all who say nothing then if it happens it will be partly your fault as well.Took Hitler a little at a time until he became the dictator and it will take 1984 a little time before you wake up with o freedom.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.

Just removing them from office will do nobody no good, you see congress doesn’t get those crazy ideas from the vacuum of space it comes about by the other government branches the ones that have lifers in there and don’t change that much is from there those crazy ideas keep getting seeded in each new congress that is elected.

To counter that the political discourse needs to move to a public space where we have access to it and we can decide things like in a true democracy and until we do that, we are not going to get anything from the farting politicians.

Everyone should have a copy of the laws and have the ability to edit it and submit that to a review somewhere and we all should vote to choose which laws we want, that would make lobbying difficult, after that it is just a matter of electing the necessary people to go to congress to enact those laws.

Then maybe something new happens instead of government agencies trying convince congress they would have to try and convince the joe’s and mary’s on the streets as why such proposals are necessary, they would need to explain in no uncertain terms what it means and why we should chose that and not other options.

U-boot says:

Re: Re: Re:

> Senators opposing: Wyden, Cantwell, Moran, Paul
> Senators for: The other 96
So, you nuts have elected those who would f…k up your lawful rights in favor of big bucks, yea? Sounds unlucky enough for citizens. USA democracy is such a funny thing. You have so many freedoms… to get jailed, censored and prosecuted, lol. This idiocy is laughable. And let’s say, even if you will sentence those unlucky persons to death penalty, THIS WILL NEVER STOP PIRACY. You can’t forbid the freedom. And for most people piracy simply does not appears as serious offense at all. So, at very most, you can torture or kill some people who will be considered innocent and repressed by others most of time. So what? F…k the RIAA. F…k MPAA. F…k BSA. F…k those business mafia & E-PARASITES. It’s THEM who should be sued for such a blatant f…kups of freedom just to earn some extra dollars. That’s E-PARASITES who should be considered criminals, not citizens. Enforcing artificial business models, eliminating competition on market, racketing those who disagrees to pay unfair prices, bribing politics and so on. Isn’t it looks like a serious crime, huh?

Prisoner 201 says:

Re: Re:

I agree, a year or two will probably be enough. This serves a double purpose, as it allows proper contemplation and study of PROTECT IP and SOPA.

I think we all agree that delaying SOPA and PROTECT IP a few years is a small price to pay to make sure that these laws are constitutional and serve the publics best interest.

JaDe says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You keep saying this is in every single comment thread about SOPA. How there are 40 cosponsors and they only need 60 for cloture. Well guess what, 40 < 60 so they don’t automatically have cloture. You are obviously implying that they will be able to drum up the last 20 votes with little to no trouble. However if you look at S.J. Resolution 6, the resolution trying to block the FCC’s weak attempt at Net Neutrality, you’ll see it had 42 cosponsors. When it came time to vote on it only 4 other senators voted yes for it, thus it didn’t pass.

So there, I’ve done the math. And it shows that Protect IP is by no means a sure deal in the Senate.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

A vote for cloture is simply a vote to move on with the business of the Senate. It’s not necessarily a vote for the bill. It follows that the co-sponsors would want to se their bill move on to the floor for debate and a vote. It also follows that the uncommitted Senators have other bills that they’re interested in getting to the floor and will vote to shut Wyden up. Then it’s a matter of getting another 11 votes. By then there will likely be 3 more co-sponsors. So first, understand the process- then do the math.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I understand the process perfectly fine and my point still stands. Even if they can convince enough senators to vote for cloture just to move things along, and they get your supposed 3 extra cosponsors, they still have no guarantee of passing the bill as proved by the links in my first post.

Care to place a small wager?

JaDe says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

No I do not in fact care to make a wager however small it may be. I am one of the 91% of Americans who have no faith in Congress right now. You keep going on in thread after thread about how this bill will pass so easily due to the number of cosponsors it has. I just pointed out that it was by no means a forgone conclusion. However I know that there is a real possibility that enough senators are bought and paid for (much like our lovely Vice President Joe Biden), for it to pass.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

No I do not in fact care to make a wager however small it may be. I am one of the 91% of Americans who have no faith in Congress right now. You keep going on in thread after thread about how this bill will pass so easily due to the number of cosponsors it has. I just pointed out that it was by no means a forgone conclusion. However I know that there is a real possibility that enough senators are bought and paid for (much like our lovely Vice President Joe Biden), for it to pass.

Why do you think Wyden put a hold on it? He knows it’s a slam-dunk and that a hold was the only way to slow it down. He also knows his hold is on life support, that’s why he is frantic trying to negotiate some face-saving (and meaningless) changes to the bill.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You wouldn’t say that (or even be here) unless you were concerned about something. Maybe you are afraid that there might be a lot more opponents than it is generally thought?

Take also notice that the BSA (one of the strongest copyright supporters around) has already come forth to oppose SOPA. I know, SOPA != PROTECT IP, but still, it sends across the message that this kind of legislation is not wanted. Even by those that, theoretically, depend on copyright.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Actually, that’s the only reason him and a few others are here. They claim to not be concerned at all, “it’s a sure thing, so just deal with reality, wre wre wre” is what they say to all the rest of us opposed to such things. But the truth is, they’re scared. They have serious doubts about such a “sure thing”, which is why they’re here. Not to put any of us in our place (because they can’t, at least not with actual facts or reasonable discussions), but to try and make themselves feel better. To try and discourage any opposition. The more people who take notice such things, the more people who’ll oppose them. Thus they come here and try and just get people to forget about it and give up and what have you, so they can hope to eek it by.

Oh well, reality will be a real slap in the face soon enough.

The worst thing is, they love to say things like “well, once it’s passed you all will shut up and blah blah blah”. But you know, if the shoe’s on the other foot, and it doesn’t pass, we’ll never hear the end of it from the supporters. They’ll come here day in and day out, heck even if it did pass, same thing. Some people.

hmm (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

4 senators opposed to SOPA/PIPA….oh yeah and 312 MILLION citizens.

Even if SOPA passes, unless they quickly whip up an amendment saying you can’t announce who voted for it then those politicians are going to lose their jobs come the next election (possibly sooner if the public decides to take up its 2nd amendment right to overturn an unjust government that no longer represents the people)

out_of_the_blue says:

"use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?

If it’s only “allotted time”, then big deal. I’m not going to look up how long that is as it’s just silly. — Not like standing and talking for three DAYS or more as some Texan is said to have done in the Texas legislature, without ANY breaks.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "use his allotted time to filibuster" -- Instead of arguing the case?

“If it’s only “allotted time”, then big deal. I’m not going to look up how long that is as it’s just silly”

Look, I’m not American, but even I took my time to read a bit about what Filibustering is.

As I understand it, in the senate, your “allotted time” is infinity. You can speak continuously as long as you stay on topic, or until “three-fifths” (60 or so) members of the senate vote to shut you up (so to speak).

Relevant link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Senate

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 &quot;use his allotted time to filibuster&quot; -- Instead of arguing the case?

You didn’t fail to grasp anything. The shit is obvious and has been posted before.

There will be no filibuster or hold on the bill because it only takes 60 Senators to move forward.

The bill already has over 40 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.

Anonymous Coward says:

He doesn’t really want to read his name. I just tried to sign up at his web site and it’s bull. They throw all kinds of crap at you to make you register and then it won’t register. Wyden talks a good game, how else do you think a straight frak like gets elected in Oregon. He’s a big joke and full of the stuff that makes you light headed. Har.
Here’s the link maybe you’ll have more luck than I did.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3261863

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Great idea, but...

I wonder if he’ll actually read the names of the trolls who sign as “Poop Butt McPeePants”

I hope so. I also signed as “Mike Hunt” “Ahjeet M’Drrorz” “Hassan Bin Sobaar” “Hooben Pharteen” and “Suk Mediq”. Rumor has it that “Harry Tuell” “Alec Yerklett” and “Ben Dover” are on as supporters as well. I guess he’ll look like a bigger fool than he does already.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Question about the process

In the event they invoke cloture and the senate votes and passes the bill, is it not sent to the house of representatives where it is also voted on? Can someone lay out the steps it would take to become a law, I am not sure of the full process. Thanks for your help.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Question about the process

Before a bill becomes a law, it starts in the House, then goes to the Senate, and then goes to the President to sign.

It was so obvious that the current landscape was rife with illegality, that the Senate drafted their own bill without the House. They’ll vote to pass it and send it directly to the President to become a law.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Question about the process

Before a bill becomes a law, it starts in the House, then goes to the Senate, and then goes to the President to sign.

It was so obvious that the current landscape was rife with illegality, that the Senate drafted their own bill without the House. They’ll vote to pass it and send it directly to the President to become a law.

Um. You might want to bone up on your knowledge of how the federal government works. The Senate can’t just send a bill to the President w/o approval of the same bill from the House. Try again.

brandon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Question about the process

Forgive my ignorance, so there is another chance to stop this bill? It requires another vote by the house of representatives before its sent to the president? Or it needs sopa to pass then the bills are merged? Canada is in the process of passing its own copyright bill that people are unhappy about, our government has majority so it will pass regardless of protest.

hmm (profile) says:

well

In the event they invoke cloture then Wyden becomes a symbol and Martyr against repression and censorship, the US public goes apeshit (think OWS but in every city).

Someone wasn’t paying attention in history class.
The US has a history of standing up to evil dictatorships that try to grab too much power, RIAA etc will be just the latest in a long line of vanquished scum.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: well

In the event they invoke cloture then Wyden becomes a symbol and Martyr against repression and censorship, the US public goes apeshit (think OWS but in every city).

+1 funny. The homeless, unemployed, disaffected and malcontents are far more concerned about getting a job. They have more important things to be concerned about than freeloading content. Like feeding themselves. Odd that outraged rabble from Techdirt hasn’t sought to bring the message to the movement. But perhaps expected as it would require effort, sacrifice and personal integrity – which runs counter to the underlying sense of entitlement that has you freeloading in the first place.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: well

+2 funny. Those that have a vested interest in passing this joke of legislation have more important things to be concerned about, like ethics and morals. Maybe if they look hard enough, they will rediscover their long-since-discarded moral compass.

Even if it passes, one of 2 things will happen:

1) it will thrown out as unconstitutional through judicial review
2) it will be completely disregarded and circumvented by the international community

Either way, this whole process has been a waste of money and lost reputation by the parties that are currently pushing this, which I feel is richly deserved.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...