Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?

from the ah,-law-making-in-action dept

This is hardly a surprise, but despite folks like Senator Ron Wyden pointing out the massive problems with Senator Patrick Leahy's COICA bill, Leahy intends to push forward with it. What's amazing is that he even seems to admit that there's no real evidence that it's needed. In his remarks pushing COICA, Senator Leahy noted:
"Copyright piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods are reported to cost the American economy billions of dollars annually and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. That is why inaction is not an option, and we must pass online infringement legislation in this Congress before rogue websites harm more businesses, and result in more lost jobs."
"Are reported?" By whom? Not the US government, who a year ago noted that all of the studies making those sorts of claims were bogus, and the various studies discussing these claims of "losses" to both jobs and the American economy have been thoroughly debunked. The only people still claiming that such things are factual are lobbyists and legacy industry insiders, who clearly stand to benefit from such laws that can be used to stifle innovation.

If Leahy is going to insist that these numbers are factual, shouldn't he at least have to say where he got those numbers from -- and also avoid relying on numbers from the very industries this law is designed to help?

So, what are the chances that Senator Leahy will put forth the details that prove why he needs to censor the internet to protect a few companies who don't want to adapt to a changing market? Anyone a constituent of Leahy's and willing to ask for specific references to such evidence?

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Hephaestus (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I say we let them have this law ...

    Your comment, made no sense at all. "But in the case of illegal commercial speech, the 1st amendment does not apply. You only have free speech rights for legal speech, not for illegal speech. So 1st amendment issues would go out the window."

    To quote myself ..."On the content side it will all be obfuscated nonsense like we have seen over an over recently." were you trying to be funny??

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.