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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Prisoner 201, 22 Nov 2011 @ 3:41am

    Silly man. Being against IP enforcement is soon going to be illegal. Why on earth would I want to leave a paper trail!?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:05am

      Re:

      Son, "being against" something isn't illegal.
      Actually breaking the law, if and when it's passed is another matter entirely.
      During Prohibition, many people spoke openly against it in newspapers and on radio. (There was no TV or Internet, as hard to believe as it is...)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    A Guy (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 4:06am

    I signed up.

    It will probably pass anyway. If they overcame his hold, they will probably have the votes to pass the bill.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crashsuit (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 12:00pm

      Re: Signing up

      Now, I'm not saying I *condone* this, but *apparently* the "name" field on that signup form is pretty long, and will easily accept a huge fake name that will take longer to read. Also the "email" field *supposedly* will accept any old made-up email address when you submit your info.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Call me Al, 22 Nov 2011 @ 4:09am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Spaceboy (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 4:46am

      Re: The Filibuster: Good or Bad

      The majority of who? Evil corporations that buy political influence for their own greed or actual citizens?

      Filibuster is a double-edges sword that cuts both ways.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 4:47am

      Re: The Filibuster: Good or Bad

      The majority don't have to agree a bill is good to have a filibuster. The people saying this bill is good are a extremely well-lobbied, vocal minority.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:49am

        Re: Re: 2 + 2 = 5

        haha at freetards that don't understand how a law is made.

        karma.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Spaceboy (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:55am

          Re: Re: Re: 2 + 2 = 5

          I don't think you understand how Karma works. Wyden is going to filibuster this bill that is being proposed by a small but powerful minority. If this bill were put to a national referendum it would fail by a huge margin.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bjupton (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:41am

          Re: Re: Re: 2 + 2 = 5

          heh...we understand how laws are made.

          The process by which they are made is sub-optimal and not working properly.

          We're just hacking.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:18am

      Re: The Filibuster: Good or Bad

      It only takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. Those 60 votes don't even have to be for it, they could just be 60 Senators who just want to vote on it.

      Filibusters only work if you can't get 60 Senators to break it or who want to move on to the next bill.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      pixelpusher220 (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 9:01am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    A Guy (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 4:09am

    If the bill passes, all we can do is vote with our wallets and not patronize those whom sponsored the bill as it makes its way through the courts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 4:58am

      I thought that the Repblicans are against over regulation.

      Don't forget to vote against the senators who voted for it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:13am

        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!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:20am

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

          I have already promised my Congressman and both Senators they will be getting just such a response from me based on their PATRIOT Act votes. I have reminded them of that when I wrote them about SOPA/PROTECT-IP

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            pixelpusher220 (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:36am

            Re: Re: Re: 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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          gorehound (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:32am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 12:45pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 12:38pm

      Re:

      I have been doing that for more than a decade now and somehow I feel all warm inside when I see news like "EMI to be sold", there are now 3 little piggies that need to have their houses blown away LoL

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Siam, 22 Nov 2011 @ 4:21am

    This bill would probably pass.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Wiggs (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:10am

    Can we also have Senator Wyden read the names of the Senators who are FOR the bill so I know who I need to vote against the next time they come up?

    Elsewise, is there a list somewhere?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:15am

      Re:

      That would be awesome. Naming names in front of all to hear. I'll bet he gets some threats from those politicians that would like to fade back in to the wood work after this vote.

      I say, name all persons involved.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:03am

      Re:

      I'll make it easy for you:

      Senators opposing: Wyden, Cantwell, Moran, Paul

      Senators for: The other 96

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 8:55am

        Re: Re:

        Bullshit, Hollywood didn't yet buy that many of them, that would be a waste of money for them.

        However, you'll eventually be right if these laws continue to fail.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        U-boot, 23 Nov 2011 @ 4:01am

        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?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:09am

      Re:

      Can we also have Senator Wyden

      Only if you sport the cash Google did when they bought his needy ass off.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 2:43pm

      Re:

      Link to co-sponsors of the bill (39 of them):
      http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00968:@@@P

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Scooters (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:25am

    Done.
    Now, to contact 200 million other Americans...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:43am

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

    Well that won't take long, will it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Prisoner 201, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:01am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:06am

        Re: Re:

        Sorry to disappoint but it takes 60 Senators to vote for cloture, thus ending the filibuster and then 51 to pass the bill. There are 40 co-sponsors plus a few more likely. You do the math.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          JaDe, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:37am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:47am

            Re: Re: Re: 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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              JaDe, 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 8:14am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Prisoner 201, 22 Nov 2011 @ 8:54am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Personally, I don't play when the game is rigged.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  JaDe, 22 Nov 2011 @ 9:23am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:29am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            hmm (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 2:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oh they'll TRY to get an extra 20..mainly by big fat cash bribes.......

            Be useful to keep an eye on who suddenly changes position during the filibuster.....

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Spaceboy (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:57am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeap and some will backpedal as more and more people come out against it. The only thing politicians covet more than money is votes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 12:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The math is that you are short 20 to end the fillibuster and 11 to pass it at the moment.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 1:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The math is that you are short 20 to end the fillibuster and 11 to pass it at the moment.

            And the math has four Senators opposing it. Let's just wait and see how this works out for you.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:40am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:46am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        hmm (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 2:25pm

        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)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:27am

    "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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:36am

      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

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:50am

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

        Congratulations on your reading comprehension.

        Expecting something?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:58am

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

          "Congratulations on your reading comprehension."

          What exactly did I fail to comprehend?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:41am

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

            no you got it right, he is just a douche

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 12:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: &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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 8:17am

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

          I think he is expecting people to take the minute or so it took him to educate himself on a topic before commenting on it. But you're right, he shouldn't expect dreams to come true.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      weneedhelp (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 9:04am

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

      Again ootb spews crap without knowing.

      "I'm not going to look up how long that is"
      Yeah, why bother with silly little fact thingies.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greg G (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 11:54am

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

      Leave it to OOTB to use the term "filibuster."

      The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" --

      It's those damn pirates again, them and their due process!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:34am

    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

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gordon (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:44am

    State by state......

    The names should all be read State by state so all the Senators can see just how many people from each are against the bill.
    Might give them some pause on an individual basis when they find out how many from their state are against this when they're thinking ahead to election time.


    Just a thought.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Overcast (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 8:57am

    signed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Overcast (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 8:59am

    Silly man. Being against IP enforcement is soon going to be illegal. Why on earth would I want to leave a paper trail!?

    Because - if we don't ALL put our foot down on these rights being taken from us and given the corporations - the corporations will end up being the only ones with rights.

    I'm not willing to live in chains.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Overcast (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 9:01am

    Yet.

    Do you honestly think they will stop after PROTECT IP and SOPA are purchased?


    No and if we fail to make a stand for our rights - we won't have any left.

    If you choose to sit and play the quiet game - remember this concept when it hits home - and it will, eventually.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    akp, 22 Nov 2011 @ 9:07am

    Great idea, but...

    I wonder if he'll actually read the names of the trolls who sign as "Poop Butt McPeePants"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:59am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mike allen (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 9:17am

    one question from a Brit what does the bills on hold mean?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:00am

    Signed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    brandon (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:33am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:49am

      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

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 12:20pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        brandon (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 2:19pm

        Re: Re: Question about the process

        Thanks for answering my question, It's not looking too good right now, I thought there was one more process it had to go through (I'm a Canadian who has lived in the US and may again).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 2:43am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          brandon (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 6:01am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    hmm (profile), 22 Nov 2011 @ 2:38pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 3:19pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:04pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 10:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: well

          There isn't anything unconstitutional in PIPA. Nothing.

          Sorry.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 2:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: well

            There isn't anything unconstitutional in PIPA. Nothing.


            Over 100 law professors say you're wrong.

            What are your legal credentials again?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2011 @ 8:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well

              How many of those law professors have actually pled a First Amendment case before the Supreme Court? I'd wager the total number of those 100 together is less than Floyd Abrams, who came to the conclusion that it was not unconstitutional.

              And what are your legal credentials, chubby?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2011 @ 6:26pm

    Has Suq Madeeq signed up, yet?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


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
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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