Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill

from the why? dept

I know everyone is focused on Trump’s attempt to take away Section 230 in the NDAA, but an equally important issue is that members of Congress have been trying to do Hollywood’s bidding and sneak massive copyright reform into a must-pass government appropriations bill. The CASE Act has many problems that we’ve discussed, including the fact that it would unleash a wave of copyright trolling for people accidentally or innocently sharing works they don’t realize are covered by copyright. There are also significant Constitutional problems with it, in that it routes around the Title III courts by handing disputes about private rights to the executive branch. That’s not allowed.

But rather than actually discussing and debating those issues, and fixing the bill to make sure it is constitutional and protects the public, we’ve heard from three different sources that Nancy Pelosi has given the go-ahead in the House to include the CASE Act in the spending bill. As we said earlier this week, if you’re trying to ram through a bill by adding them to an appropriations bill, it’s because you know it has problems and will cause major issues and you just don’t care because the politics of pleasing donors is too important. Hollywood has been screaming for this bill, and Pelosi has agreed to put it in.

If you’re a constituent of Pelosi, I would highly recommend reaching out to her office and making it clear that you absolutely oppose any effort to attach the CASE Act to any appropriations bill. To ignore the many concerns that have been raised about the bill and what it will do to people across the country (especially in the middle of a pandemic) is a travesty. There is no need to pass this bill now, and there is certainly no need to do it in this way. Even if you’re not a Pelosi constituent, it’s worth reaching out to your Congressional Representatives. The good folks over at EFF have a handy dandy form under the accurate headline: “Don’t let a quasi-court bankrupt internet users.”

Many people have raised thoughtful critiques of the CASE Act, and there are many suggestions out there for how the bill can be fixed. To date, Congress has ignored those fixes. This is a bill that is highly controversial and should not be put into law through a sneaky, underhanded move like this. Make sure that Congress understands this.

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 “Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
102 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

That goes for all the more-politician, less-statesperson types who "know how things work" inside the Beltway. Clear them all out and that system of lobbying, deal-making, and trading is interrupted. Then continue to interrupt it on a regular basis. Like with term limits maybe.

It will never end the shadier side of pols "listening to their constituents", but it would dial back the safely hidden and entrenched ease-of-use, and network effects of that system. Don’t vote for groomed successors initiated to Ye Olde Corps and Orgs Network, make every new Congresscritter indeed a new quantity for the Lobbies to deal with.

I hear some people were all about draining a swamp, maybe they would vote that way too.

And then i woke up. What a nightmare.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Agreed, perhaps a recall method then.
The people need a method to remove people like Mitch, voting has been compromised by gerrymandering to the point where the people have no voice. Eventually the only recourse available to them is protesting which turns into riots which devolves into random acts of retarded stupidity. We are seeing the beginning of this.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Stopping Senator McConnell

Don’t states choose their own system of how to elect a senator? I remember there was a recent SCOTUS ruling preventing a state from regulating districting, which seems only legit if gerrymandering affects federal elections.

The problem remains that one non-executive person can procedurally turn off the government at the federal level. A person that the rest of us didn’t vote for, which is effective disenfranchisement.

According to some of our (young, drunk, tired) Constitutional framers, it’s right and proper for the people to respond with cannon.

Something something taxation without representation.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Stopping Senator McConnell

Don’t states choose their own system of how to elect a senator?

No, amendment 17 specifies that the people of the state elect the senators.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xvii

I remember there was a recent SCOTUS ruling preventing a state from regulating districting, which seems only legit if gerrymandering affects federal elections.

It does, but only on the House side.

The problem remains that one non-executive person can procedurally turn off the government at the federal level.

Totally agree. I heard that that power McConnell exercises is only by tradition/convention, and that by rule the president of the Senate (the VP of the US) can call on whomever they wish to conduct business, bypassing the majority leader if desired. Hopefully Harris does this, and bills can get a vote whether McConnell wishes it or not. The Republicans can still vote the bills down, but they would have to actually do that, rather than relying on McConnell to shield them from having to take a stand.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 17th Amendment

I’m only reading elected by the people thereof which doesn’t specify the particulars of the election, such as FPTP, winner-take-all by district, Majority, Plurality or who counts as people. (Suddenly I wonder if corporate people get a vote.)

Even if it is a popular majority, there’s always good old fashioned voter suppression to assure McConnell cannot be ousted.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 17th Amendment

I’m only reading elected by the people thereof which doesn’t specify the particulars of the election, such as FPTP, winner-take-all by district, Majority, Plurality or who counts as people.

Correct, there are details not mentioned in the amendment. However I doubt a state could get away with electing by district. Who counts as people comes up from time to time. Any effort to allow corporations to vote I’m sure would fail instantly.

Even if it is a popular majority, there’s always good old fashioned voter suppression to assure McConnell cannot be ousted.

I’m not sure that has even been necessary – it’s Kentucky – but no doubt the option is available.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JasonC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"They need to earn an income over a long period of time before they get the financial freedom to do what’s right without risking their future."

Fuck that noise. Serving your country in Congress or any other political position was NEVER intended to be a career or a primary source of income.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That’s CRAP!
Given the current state of affairs with the state and federal politicians, ANYTHING WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT over what we currently are experiencing. These current fools are only in it for personal gain! They could give two shits about you or me!

termlimits #WalkAway #libsrfubar

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

JFC, we can’t get anything for citizens but no problem offering up yet another giant handout for copyright cartels.

They went on vacation instead of working to help us… perhaps they need new jobs. Lets vote them out when we can and try again.

Screw the whole red or blue, it doesn’t matter they don’t actually care about us. They care about huge dark dollar "donations" .

How many corporations died in this pandemic?

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Changing the system from within

The sooner we come to terms with breaking the system or replacing entirely, the sooner we can get on with it.

Or we can suffer for fear of the consequences of doing it.

Maybe if we create in advance a public-serving, like-the-US-Constitution-but-less-buggy charter so we know in advance what we’re changing it into…?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Nut job or someone seeing clearly what needs to be done?"

Suggesting the injection of chlorine into your body to combat a virus is seeing clearly what needs to be done?

Demanding the overturning of legitimate election results is considered seeing clearly what needs to be done?

Doing your best to ensure infection of the entire population is considered seeing clearly what needs to be done??

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

F. Foote Fracture says:

Oh, pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STARVE!

Disclaimer: for obvious purpose, this once I’m taking the COVID myth as Biden / you do, "we’re all gonna die unless wear a mask full time and get vaccinated with completely unproven new mRNA / polyethylene glycol".

Biden, who admits broke his foot while having at the dog’s tail in the shower, goes WAY beyond what you accuse Trump and Pelosi of, playing games with appropriations bill, to make an actual BLACKMAIL THREAT, and mainly against the poor:

Report: Joe Biden Exploring Ways to Tie Climate Change Legislation to Coronavirus Relief

https://www.breitbart.com/health/2020/12/04/report-joe-biden-exploring-ways-tie-climate-change-legislation-coronavirus-relief/

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Oh, pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR

Setting aside how biased Breitbart is, how is stopping climate change a bad thing?

Also, there are a bunch of studies into these COVID-19 vaccines, and there will have been more before the vaccines are actually approved for use in the US. That’s how the system works. So no, these vaccines are far from unproven.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 What if it's all a big hoax.

I can imagine it now, our descendants in a thousand years, having mastered interstellar travel, settled sixteen systems with interdependent colonies, a human population numbering in the tens of trillions, and as they gaze upon the first survey drops into an untapped jovian world, one of the frosh senators asks but the universe is so big and purposeless. What if all we have wrought has been for nothing?

To answer your question, birds and trees are nice.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Funny how you’re always ripping on corporations and corporatism and such…until the discussion turns to copyright.

Tell me, Brainy: How can a corporation control and enforce a copyright when you believe corporations have no legal rights, and how do you feel about corporations using copyright to censor speech?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

F. Foote Fracture says:

Re: Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STARVE!

Funny how you’re always ripping on corporations and corporatism and such…until the discussion turns to copyright.

As usual, A. Stephen Stone, you confound and accuse wrongly.

Corporations are not persons. But they are PERMITTED (by The Public) to collectively own property including copyrighted works.

Corporatism is the political philosophy of Adolf Hilter, Benito Mussolini, and Imperial Japan. You and Maz are for corporatism as way to gain political power and crush opposition.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

F. Foote Fracture says:

Re: Re: Re:2 RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR

I think you might want to go hide under a blanket, possibly with a ice pack. Otherwise the embarrassment might just give you heatstroke

GOSH, "AC" who’s no doubt a regular too chicken to use his account, you sure think wrong.

Try stating some specific, though, IF you can.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change

GOSH, "AC" who’s no doubt a regular too chicken to use his account, you sure think wrong.

Try stating some specific, though, IF you can.

Is … is this supposed to be some sort of provocation? I’m not really sure what direction it’s trying to be provocative in. Can you try paraphrasing? when people don’t understand each other that’s a good way to work towards getting your point across

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

How can a corporation own anything when, as you have asserted countless times in the past, you don’t believe corporations have any rights — which would obviously include property rights? After all, one of your primary arguments against Twitter is that Twitter admins have no right to moderate speech on Twitter property because the Twitter corporation lacks the right to “censor” speech.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR

They are also permitted to have other rights, like free speech and freedom of association.

Also, Imperial Japan was not corporatist. Plus, both Maznick and Stone have been critical of corporate influence in government.

As for not being “persons”, the law explicitly says otherwise.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR

Oh, also the right to sue/be sued or file for bankruptcy or enter into contracts or have an attorney of their choosing. Basically, a lot more than just the right to own property.

But let’s just stick with property rights for a second. The 1A doesn’t trump private-property rights, which includes the right to exclude people from your property for what they do or say. Additionally, the right to own property is meaningless if there is no right to control that property. In other words, the right to own property—which you explicitly say corporations have—directly gives them the right to moderate speech on platforms that they own. The 1A right to publish, not publish, or retract something they previously published as well as the 1A right to associate or not associate with someone just strengthens that.

You don’t have the right to come onto my lawn and put whatever signs you want without me taking them down and/or kicking you off of my lawn. Heck, I can kick you off my property for just about any reason. Similarly, you don’t have the right to put a sign in the window of a restaurant you don’t own or run without the owner(s)/manager(s)/employee(s) removing that sign, and they can kick you out for any reason that isn’t based on immutable traits like race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or religion. That, again, is a right all private-property owners have.

The same applies to online platforms. They are technically places that offer public accommodations, so they are bound to treat people equally based on immutable characteristics, but other than that and any restrictions explicitly mentioned in their ToS’s, they have the right to kick people off for any reason and remove from or refuse to publish on their privately owned platforms anything they want without legal repercussions. That is their right not only under the 1A but also as private-property owners. Otherwise, their right to own property is meaningless.

And remember, the 1A only restricts the government or state actors working on behalf of the government from restraining speech or publishing, not private property owners from doing so on or using privately-owned property that they themselves own. And, as we have told you repeatedly, the right to speak doesn’t mean the right to be heard on any platform of your choosing or by any particular audience. As long as you can say it somewhere, and it’s not the government or one of its agents telling you what to say or where to say it, it cannot be censorship, and therefore it cannot be an infringement of the 1A. That’s the difference between moderation and censorship. Moderation says, “You can’t say that here on my private platform,” “You can say that here on my private platform but with some restrictions,” or, “You can’t come here to my private platform to speak anymore.” Censorship says, “You can’t say that anywhere under penalty of law,” “The government says you can’t say that anywhere,” or, “You can’t say that on your own platform or on someone else’s platform that I don’t own.”

So, try again: How can you say that corporations have the right to sue over copyrights they own (as they have the right to own property and the right to sue) but not the right to moderate speech on their (privately owned but publicly accessible) platforms? Also, if corporations don’t have 1A rights to free speech, why are newspapers owned by corporations able to assert 1A rights in a US (federal or state) court of law, both as a plaintiff and as a defendant? The right to free speech does include the right to publish, after all.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

F. Foote Fracture says:

Re: Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STARVE!

In particular, you and Maz advocate that corporations have TOTAL ARBITRARY CONTROL over what "natural" persons can Publish on mere HOSTS.

You and Maz claim that the First Amendment, the essential guarantor to persons, actually licenses corporations to control all speech on the very Section 230 sites that are supposed to be "Free Speech" outlets for The Public.

You have inverted the purpose of the First Amendment, and then accuse ME of contradiction? — You’re a contemptible little idiot.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR

Pro tip for you: hosting your own content is actually fairly easy. Or using your own service on a rented host (cloud) is also really easy.

Just like how I won’t (and am not legally required to) let you spout your stupid drivel in my home, so other people who host stuff… even if it’s accessed electronically instead of physically, are not legally required to let you put your drivel on their private properly.

But don’t worry! getting your OWN property to host your drivel on is fairly easy, and then facebook/twitter or what ever corporation you feel like raving about, will be unable to do anything about it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change

You’re still dependent on DNS services, search engines, Certificate Authorities, and your ISP. All of which can decide to blacklist your server.

Good luck trying to reach others when they have to:

  1. Edit their hosts file to "resolve" your IP address.
  2. Install your self-signed CA and get many nasty warnings while doing so. (Android makes such warnings permanent.)
  3. Still have to hope that your ISP doesn’t shut down your site for whatever reason they can come up with. (Unless you want to also say that people wanting to communicate must also be willing to cough up the money to build and maintain their own physical network lines. At which point it ceases to be a part of the internet.)

Assuming you avoid 3, yeah sure. It’s faster and cheaper than ever to start hosting your own site. Emphasis on start. Assuming you get more than that Hosts guy willing to do 1 and 2, and can keep growing that population, eventually you’ll need better equipment & people to maintain the site and handle the traffic. Assuming you can get volunteers from the site’s user-base to work for free, you’ll still need donations for hardware, and ISP costs. (Again, assuming you’ve avoided 3.) After all, being an "undesirable" web site means you’re cut off from ad revenue. The primary means of web site support in the modern day.

All of this means that even if you can start the website, you’re still very much dependent on what others are willing to just give you. As you are completely cut off from any other source of funding or support. Meanwhile all of the "approved" web sites have as much access to capital and people as they could ever want. A very unbalanced playing field.

Notice I didn’t say what was being hosted in this example. The simple facts are that any site could find itself in this situation at any time. The current attacks by Trump on social media are the ultimate proof of that. The only reason the likes of Twitter and Facebook haven’t fully gone this way yet is because of their pre-established userbase and funding that they obtained prior to being "blacklisted" by the powerful. Had they not been in such a position, they would have already scummed, not having the resources to fight back.

Even Facebook and Twitter cannot keep this up for long. Eventually they’ll either have to comply with the demands of the powerful (and as such no longer host content they want to) or go out of business when the powerful pass the laws needed to dispose of them.

In short, it’s not a simple case of "just set up your own server" here. The internet is a network of networks. I.e. It requires cooperation of all involved to make things work. When a "provider" on a lower rung decides to not play ball because they dislike the other players and how they play the game, everyone suffers as a result.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

In particular, you and Maz advocate that corporations have TOTAL ARBITRARY CONTROL over what "natural" persons can Publish on mere HOSTS.

Yes, Twitter has control over what people can publish.

On Twitter.

And only on Twitter.

Do you really not understand that Twitter is not the only social media service on the Internet, or do you just not care because you’d rather be angry at me, Mike, and whoever else the voices in your head tell you to hate instead of being someone who gets the facts right?

You and Maz claim that the First Amendment, the essential guarantor to persons, actually licenses corporations to control all speech on the very Section 230 sites that are supposed to be "Free Speech" outlets for The Public.

Yes. That is the law. What makes you think saying all that shit is some sort of “gotcha” when, as Mike has told you before, admitting to what the law says and does is all we’ve ever done in that regard?

You have inverted the purpose of the First Amendment, and then accuse ME of contradiction?

I haven’t inverted jack fucking shit, you used Easy Mac bowl. The First Amendment guarantees the right of association; corporations, having been extended certain rights via the law/the courts, can exercise that right on their property — cyber- or meatspace. Twitter has every right to toss you off the service or out of its corporate offices; saying otherwise makes you the one attempting to pervert the First Amendment.

You’re a contemptible little idiot.

Hey!

I am not little, goddammit.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I also feel it bears point out (again) that the First Amendment is a restriction on governmental powers. It is NOT actually a guarantee of individual rights.

To put it another way. The constitution is all about the government and it’s relationship with the governed. Blathering about interactions that don’t include the government falls outside the constitution.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR

TOTAL ARBITRARY CONTROL over what "natural" persons can Publish on mere HOSTS.

Just like newspapers decide which letters to the editor that they will place in their newspaper.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Ch

There was a magic DVD player that would download edit notes to reduce movies to the TV boobless / low violence / no swearing version.

I only saw the adverts on late night television, so I don’t know whatever became of it.

On a related note, modern media players still have fairly dumb shuffle codes which can’t be adjusted to forbid repeats over a set time window or regard two (or more) tracks as one set, always played together. (Sergeant Pepper’s intro and With A Little Help From My Friends comes to mind right off.)

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR

The First Amendment only protects persons (including corporations) from the government, not corporations. And “§230 sites” are not necessarily meant to be “Free Speech” outlets. But yeah, since those sites are also acting as publishers when they display speech from the public, that means they also get to control what speech they publish. You don’t hold a newspaper legally responsible for the content of letters to the editor, but the publisher has every right to control which letters get published. They are hosts, but the host still controls the show in the end.

And even if they were inverting the purpose of the FA (which they aren’t), that wouldn’t mean they were contradicting themselves.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR

In particular, [Stone] and Maz advocate that corporations have TOTAL ARBITRARY CONTROL over what "natural" persons can Publish on mere HOSTS.

As long as those corporations own or are those hosts, then yes. They own those platforms the same way that McDonald’s owns a number of restaurants and Amazon owns The Washington Post. As such, they get to decide what does or doesn’t get said/published there, even if those decisions are completely arbitrary. That’s their legal right as private property owners.

[Stone] and Maz claim that the First Amendment, the essential guarantor to persons, actually licenses corporations to control all speech on the very Section 230 sites […]

Under the law, corporations are also persons. And the 1A guarantees the right to say/publish what you want, choose not to say/publish what you want, remove/retract anything you’ve previously published from your platform, associate with whomever you want, or not associate with whomever you want without the government coming in and stopping it. It doesn’t trump private-property rights, which you admit corporations have, and corporations—as legal persons—also have those rights.

That’s why the Washington Post can choose to publish, not publish, or retract anything it wants from its newspaper and/or website without fear of government interference (1A free speech and property rights). That’s why McDonald’s can kick you out for swearing or pretty much any other reason (outside of immutable traits) that they want without fear of legal repercussions (1A free association and property rights).

[…] the very Section 230 sites that are supposed to be "Free Speech" outlets for The Public.

First, Twitter and Facebook (along with many other social media sites or similar online platforms) don’t claim to be “Free Speech” sites, nor does §230, private property laws, or the 1A require them to be. And they are only open to the public to the extent Twitter and Facebook each want them to be. They are also outlets for other corporations or organizations as well as various governments and government agencies, so they’re not just for “The Public”.

But let’s say they did claim to be “Free Speech” sites. Courts have ruled multiple times that such claims are “mere puffery” and thus cannot form the basis of a claim of any sort, including breach of contract. Otherwise, Parler—which does claim to be a free speech site—would be in trouble for banning trolls and spammers (are those not also free speech?).

Furthermore, what you’re trying to do is force all online platforms to be “Free Speech” sites in the way that you mean even if they very much don’t want to be and/or explicitly disclaim (like a family-friendly social media site, pro-LGBTQ platform, or a pro-Trump message board). The size is irrelevant. Do you believe that, if an explicitly and obviously biased or heavily moderated platform that doesn’t claim to be pro-free speech (like the ones I mentioned earlier) amasses a sufficiently large audience, then they should have to host all legal speech even if they don’t want to? Why should every online platform (or every sufficiently large online platform) have to be a “free speech” platform? Again, neither §230 nor the 1A require any such thing.

Also, every site that provides some sort of interactive service to users is a “Section 230” site, and §230 also protects users from liability.

You have inverted the purpose of the First Amendment, […]

The purpose of the 1A is to prevent government interference with or retribution against speech, the press, religion, and association by anyone, to allow persons (natural or not) the right to assemble, protest peacefully, and petition the government without fear of government interference or retribution, and to prevent the establishment of any state religion and otherwise prevent the mixing of church and state. That includes not only keeping the government from preventing speech or association (along with religion, peaceful protests and assemblies, and petition) but also from forcing speech or association (along with the other stuff) where unwanted. It does not include the right to a specific platform irrespective of that platform’s wishes, nor does it include a guarantee to an audience (in general or of a specific size or in particular).

The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled in Citizens United (among other cases) that corporations have the same 1A rights to free speech as any US citizen. It has also explicitly ruled that online platforms like Facebook or Twitter are not the government or state actors or an equivalent for the purposes of the First Amendment, meaning that the 1A rights of other persons (“natural” or not) don’t restrain platform holders from moderating others’ free speech from their online platforms.

So no, this isn’t a case of Stephen or Masnick “inverting the purpose of the First Amendment”; they’re just explaining what the law is under current US jurisprudence. Whether you like it or not does not change what the law actually does. You may not like that corporations have 1A rights, but they do. You may not like that corporations aren’t restricted by the 1A, but they aren’t. You may not like that being private private-property owners entitle corporations arbitrary control over what speech does or does not get to be published and/or remain on their privately-owned platforms or other websites, but it does. You may not like the way that platform holders exercise their rights over speech on and/or users of their platforms (perhaps justifiably), but that doesn’t change the fact that they have those rights under the 1A and as the private owners of those platforms.

[…] and then accuse ME of contradiction?

Well, first of all, what they have been doing has neither been inverting the purpose of the 1A nor involved any sort of contradictory beliefs or claims. Even if they had been “inverting the purpose” of the 1A, that wouldn’t necessarily involve holding contradictory beliefs or claims. Either way, they have been consistent.

Second, even if that had been contradictory, that doesn’t mean you’re not contradicting yourself, and thus you are not absolved of having to explain your way out of the apparent contradiction in your beliefs. For one thing, the contradiction they’re alleging is in your claims stands with or without the 1A being involved, thus making the contradiction you’re trying to allege is in their claims immaterial to the apparent contradiction in your claims.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Oh, pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR

WOW,
you have a great IDEA.
Lets say it this way.
Only 15% of the people in 2 groups, total of 30%. decided WHO YOU COULD VOTE FOR.
The other 70% of this nation didnt have much of a choice WHO to elect.
Besides these 2 idiots, WHO would you vote for? There were at least 1000 other people running to be president. and each state had a small selection of those, to look ASIF it was balanced.

PICK ONE.

Now as to Covid, a smart person KNOWS, that its to slow it down, so the Corp controlled hospitals can Help, as they couldnt help if 1,000,000 people HIT the doors in 1 day, 1 week or 1 month in time.
As to trump and the repubs, Every other nation has given MORE to the people to keep things going, monthly payments to Keep things paid up, INCLUDING CANADA, giving more per month then the US DID, and that Money tends to go UP HILL as we pay bills and rent, that THOSE economies will do ALLOT BETTER, then the ones int he USA, because the corps have to keep fighting to GET THAT MONEY, rather then just PAYING THEM OFF with 2/3 of the reserve given.

Climate change. Forget the Whole idea, lets ask. Would it be nice NOT to live in your OWN filth? Plastics everywhere. Sending East coast Garbage to other nations ISNT HELPING US. Sending our OLD TECH GARBAGE ISNT HELPING EITHER, its stopping allot of recyclers from making MONEY IN THE USA on rare metals. Ask if there are BETTER ways to do things, even if its abit more expensive to do, rather then creating MORE pollution that will kill off your grand kids. Yep, kill a couple Big corps that are taking advantage of everything, but create a Bunch of Small companies thet HIRE MORE PEOPLE.

Worse? Worse then what? Myself I would look at the other 500+ people that are MORE responsible then what the president is doing, EITHER OF THEM. Let alone That trump is LOADING THE DECK against the next president. AND that tax saving he gave you ENDS in 2021. then its a TAX PAYBACK. but who will you blame for that?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

F. Foote Fracture says:

Oh, right. Directly on topic: HOORAY!

And it’s NOT handing to executive branch, Maz, it’s Administrative Law because are too many too small of cases, LIKE "Small Claims".

You don’t get full criminal procedure to protect you for stealing a buck or two of value, which you pirates used to claim was reason for it to be ignored. You’ll get process in PROPORTION to the small crime. ENJOY. It’s coming.

And GOOGLE will provide the information to target you for very small fee.

And/or ISPs might help by providing info, splitting the profits.

TOLD YA that rampant piracy would bring new laws, but you kept on pirating!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STARVE!

I’ll just repeat from above:

As usual, A. Stephen Stone, you confound and accuse wrongly.

Corporations are not persons. But they are PERMITTED (by The Public) to collectively own property including copyrighted works.

Corporatism is the political philosophy of Adolf Hilter, Benito Mussolini, and Imperial Japan. You and Maz are for corporatism as way to gain political power and crush opposition.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Oh, right. Directly on topic: HOORAY!

FFF.
Why not go back to when CR was 20 years from origination. NOT 70 years AFTER a person death. The only people making the money tend to be the corps. Unless the Contract had a clause on his deathbed to return to his family.
BUT THEN you create a family dependent on 1 persons Livelihood NOT their own.
You might as well be a famous painter, and get PAid for everyday someone OWNS your paintings. Then even your grandkids could live off your Money.

CR is getting so bad, the Words ‘Sounds like’ can get a person in trouble.
If I could create 5 things in my life and get Paid for 90 years after my death, I wouldnt need to make much of anything else. And not my Kids, or Their kids or the NEXT KIDS, upto 6-8 generations, depending on the Age I have kids.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Priorities. Get them

Because if anything needs to be made even easier during a pandemic where people are struggling to survive and keep food on the table and a roof above their heads it’s being able to be sued over imaginary property used in ways that people don’t even put a second thought to.

This is a grossly disgusting and dishonest ploy and leaves her and anyone else involved looking all sorts of corrupt and terrible.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Never hand your enemy the gun needed to shoot you

Nothing, which just highlights another problem with the stunt she just pulled in that it utterly guts any standing she or anyone else doing this might have had in opposing his tantrum-driven demands to remove 230, since clearly they are willing to put unrelated items into the bill just not what he wants, giving him the perfect opportunity to claim that the opposition to his demand is not because it’s a terrible idea(it is) but because of purely partisan reasons.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Never hand your enemy the gun needed to shoot you

I envy your optimism but no. As we’ve seen with the flurry of anti-Section 230 bills introduced this Congress she has no qualms with burning down the internet. It’s the same old game that’s been played. If Trump was for something then they’d be against it purely out of spite even if it’s something they agree on purely because he is the "opposition".

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Hollywood Money [wa ]

None of those legal efforts are going the way Trump wants,

But they are getting Republicans worried about voter turnout in the Georgia Senate runoff on Jan 5.

Some Trump supporters in this Georgia county say the election system is ‘rigged.’ That could hurt Republicans in January”, by Caroline Kenny, Kyung Lah and Kim Berryman, CNN, Dec 5, 2020

[T]he lack of faith in the election system could turn into a Republican nightmare in the upcoming Senate runoffs — GOP voters who choose to stay at home.

Democrats in Georgia may be worried about getting their voters to the polls on Jan 5, too.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Hollywood Money [wa ]

Talk about the ultimate in karma if that happens, and I dearly hope it does. Trump whines about how the system is rigged because he lost and to con a bunch of his cultists, and a side result of that is that the Trump GOP loses Georgia and the senate as well because his cultists decide what’s the point, and/or because they were basically double-dog dared not to vote in order to protest something else.

Of course there’s also the more widespread issue that if you’re claiming that the system is compromised that means you can’t trust any of the results, whether for or against you, but owning that would require honesty and consistency and both of those might as well be blasphemy for him and his cult.

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Hollywood Money [wa ]

There’s been plenty of rigging all through this millennium: gerrymandering, vote(r) suppression, notoriously insecure, non-auditable, electronic balloting devices, flat-out destruction of records to prevent recounts, even blatantly sabotaging the US Postal Service’s ability to deliver ballots, blatant violations of the Hatch Act, etc, etc…

But for the "Right" to now complain that the other guys might possibly be in some small way returning the favour, seems to be really stupid and counter-productive — won’t both Dem and GOP voters be anxious to see and demand that solid electoral security be implemented for future elections?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Tipping Georgia [was Re:]

… already been huge backlash from tech companies and civil liberties activists.

Let me know when the backlash gets big enough to throw the Georgia Senate runoffs to Mitch McConnell’s party.

Heck, Pelosi maybe won’t even really mind that. It’d give her a pretty convenient excuse for all the other ways she can disappoint over the next two years.

Anonymous Coward says:

Democrats get donations from old legacy media company’s, make laws that will allow ip holders to sue ransom citizens for maybe posting a link to a short video or a trailer or a remix
Laws like this are on attack on free speech and fair use
The law is will be held up for scorn and criticism of the average person does not understand, don’t make a meme, from a photo or a review using fair use clips
It’s like a full time job trying to keep up with the onslaught
Of usa or EU laws which will restrict the ways ordinary users use the Web
and the new EU laws re copyright filters are not even in force
Maybe websites will start moving to the UK
since it will be out of the EU and not covered by American
law

Blake C. Stacey (profile) says:

Well, I wrote to my representative and both my senators.

On Friday, a few specialist news outlets reported that copyright and trademark legislation would likely be included in a "must-pass" spending bill (*). Here, far from Capitol Hill, that sounds fairly absurd. What is copyright reform doing in a budget bill, and is wedging it into "must-pass" legislation anything other than an admission it could not succeed otherwise? We are supposed to be the party of good governance and evidence-based decision-making. But the gap between the deep policy wonkery a subject like copyright reform demands and the donor-driven, lobbyist fantasy of 11th-hour politicking that we are actually getting is, in a word, dispiriting.

As to the specifics of the legislation, many outstanding questions remain. According to the news, the copyright portion would implement the CASE Act, a bill that can be described as addressing a real problem in an incredibly controversial way. Concerns about it range from a serious separation-of-powers issue to the question of in what universe can a $30,000 charge be considered a "small claim". As an author myself, and the kind who knows he will always be too niche to have the legal department of a giant publisher at his back, I am naturally interested in laws that purport to look out for the proverbial "little guy". By the same token, however, I don’t want to risk all the ways that little guys like me will get hurt when the legislative equivalent of a Friday car loses its brakes.

Our country needs so many things — stimulus checks, a vaccine rollout plan, accountability for lies in high places — and it needs them far sooner than it requires a rejiggering of copyright law. I urge you to keep the spending bill a spending bill.

The footnote had a couple links to here and to the Protocol story.

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 »