Rep. Darrell Issa Joins Rep. Lofgren In Saying That SOPA Is A Bad Idea

from the bipartisan dept

Supporters of SOPA and PROTECT IP love to claim that their bills are "bipartisan," but it appears that there's also some pretty serious bipartisan agreement that those bills are dangerous over-regulation of the internet. We'd already mentioned Rep. Michele Bachmann coming out against the SOPA/PROTECT IP approach to regulating the internet, and now Rep. Darrell Issa, head of the powerful Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has joined with Rep. Lofgren to express their concerns about SOPA. The two sent a "bipartisan" letter to their colleagues in the house, pointing to the LA Times article about many of the problems with SOPA, and argued that this is exactly the wrong approach at the wrong time:
H.R. 3261 unfortunately does not follow a consensus-based approach. It would give the government sweeping new powers to order Internet Service Providers to implement various filtering technologies on their networks. It would also create new forms of private legal action against websitesócutting them off from payment and advertising providers by default, without any court review, upon a complaint from any copyright owner, even one whose work is not necessarily being infringed.

Online innovation and commerce were responsible for 15 percent of U.S. GDP growth from 2004 to 2009, according to the McKinsey Global Institute. Before we impose a sprawling new regulatory regime on the Internet, we must carefully consider the risks that it could pose for this vital engine of our economy.
Nice to see more folks in Congress realizing that just because one industry wants to regulate the internet heavily, it doesn't mean it's actually a good thing for the rest of the economy -- and especially for the sector of the economy that's actually creating jobs and economic growth.

Filed Under: copyright, darrell issa, innovation, sopa, zoe lofgren

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 6:34pm

    Re: Re: Just because one industry does NOT want to regulate...

    I believe the word you were looking for to describe the citizens of a country using violence to dismantle a dysfunctional or oppressive government was "revolution".

    Civil war implies two parties (not necessarily reflective of the total population or will of the people) with some kind of organizational structure akin to a government vying for control of a state or for autonomy.

    This is why when we threw out the British it was a "revolution" but when the Federal Government waged a war against the Southern states that wanted to leave the federation it was a "civil war".

    But what do you think would be wrong with another revolution if things truly do get bad enough? What signify a few lives lost over a century?

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
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.