The Hypocrites Of Congress: Who Voted Against Net Neutrality, But For SOPA/PIPA

from the just-checking dept

An interesting article by Grant Gross over at PC World notes the hypocrisy of many in Congress who screamed loudly about how net neutrality was a dangerous attempt by government to "regulate the internet," but are now the main supporters of SOPA. We already highlighted one of these, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who went so far as to create a video hysterically warning about the dangers of regulating the internet:
As we noted at the time, many of her arguments apply equally to SOPA's regulation of the internet, but she just doesn't seem to get it. Here are just a few of her arguments:
But some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy... the World Wide Web! This has never happened and there has never been a time that a consumer has needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene.... Here's what they want to do: Take the private internet and put it all under government control. Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application. And what would happen to your small business, if you had to depend on internet speeds that Uncle Sam says is going to be okay.... We want to keep [the internet] open, free and prosperous.
How that doesn't apply equally to SOPA... I don't know. But she's listed as a co-sponsor. Funny, that. Especially since SOPA is likely to have a much more direct impact on "the next Facebook innovator" than anything in the (yes, poorly designed) net neutrality rules put forth by the FCC.

Unfortunately, Gross's article only names a few names. But not all of them. So we thought we might as well do that. Below, for your viewing pleasure, the list of hypocritical Congressional Reps and Senators who claim to be against regulating the internet, but have no problem doing so when it comes to SOPA or PROTECT IP (PIPA):
  • Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
  • Rep. Mary Bono Mack, California
  • Rep. John Carter, Texas
  • Rep. Steven Chabot, Ohio
  • Rep. Elton Gallegly, California
  • Rep. Robert Goodlatte, Virginia
  • Rep. Tim Griffin, Arkansas
  • Rep. Peter King, New York
  • Rep. Thomas Marino, Pennsylvania
  • Rep. Alan Nunnelee, Mississippi
  • Rep. Dennis Ross, Florida
  • Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana
  • Rep. Lee Terry, Nebraska
  • Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
  • Sen. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire
  • Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri
  • Sen. John Boozman, Arkansas
  • Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
  • Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi
  • Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee
  • Sen. Michael Enzi, Wyoming
  • Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
  • Sen. Charles Grassley, Iowa
  • Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah
  • Sen. John Isakson, Georgia
  • Sen. James Risch, Idaho
  • Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida
  • Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana
Of course, the really amazing thing is that SOPA and PIPA are much more about regulating the internet than the FCC's "net neutrality" rules are. I already think the FCC's rules are pretty silly (designed more to protect a few big businesses), but they'll have little to no impact on everyday internet startups. That's not true of SOPA/PIPA. Those rules will have a massive impact on every day startups. So how can supporters of SOPA/PIPA claim to be against "regulating the internet" while signing on to a bill that is almost entirely about regulating the internet?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    SabreCat, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:45pm

    All well and good to call out the hypocrisy, but "hysterically" is a gender slur. Might do well to watch out for that.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

      Re:

      Pussy.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Nathan F (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:54pm

      Re:

      So what word in common usage in the English language would you suggest in its place?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        SabreCat, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:31pm

        Re: Re:

        It'd need some slight rephrasing, but the following jump to mind: alarmist (probably closest in meaning), overreacting, overblown, exaggerated, hyperbolic, etc. etc.

        Or you could remove it. The sentence and article as a whole work fine without.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:07pm

      Re:

      re: sabrecat,
      Mike used "hysterically" because the speaker in the video uses the same word (to describe the Obama Administration).

      Try R'ing TFA next time before you comment.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        SabreCat, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:32pm

        Re: Re:

        Doesn't refute the criticism. One party's using problematic language doesn't justify somebody else using it back--it's stooping to her level, at best.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          FuzzyDuck, Nov 30th, 2011 @ 8:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If you think "hysterical" only applies to women, then maybe it's you who harbors certain prejudicial views on women? Just sayin'

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:33pm

      Re:

      All well and good to call out the hypocrisy, but "hysterically" is a gender slur. Might do well to watch out for that.


      Wait what? Since when is "hysterical" gender specific? I've never heard it used that way *at all*.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        :Lobo Santo (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:36pm

        Re: Re: "Hyster"

        'Hyster' being the Latin word for a woman's uterus. Thus, the word 'hysterical' specifically refers to when a woman's actions/emotions are entirely under the sway of her uterus.

        Hence, it could by some be considered a gender slur.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: "Hyster"

          While I'm aware of the origin of the word (SAT root words FTW), I'm with Mike on this. I have never heard any modern usage of the word that was specifically gender based.

           

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

      •  
        icon
        sks (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

        Re: Re:

        It is very much a gender slur, used quite often to undermine women when they express empathy instead of just reason.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          BobVila, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Most women get hysterical when a gender slur is used.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 4:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It is very much a gender slur, used quite often to undermine women when they express empathy instead of just reason.

          I have always heard it applied equally to men and women. I've never heard it used as gender specific.

          I just looked it up on dictionary.com, and it makes no reference to gender at all:

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical

          hys·ter·i·cal 
           [hi-ster-i -kuhl] Show IPA
          adjective
          1.
          of, pertaining to, or characterized by hysteria.
          2.
          uncontrollably emotional.
          3.
          irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock.
          4.
          causing hysteria.
          5.
          suffering from or subject to hysteria.

          Ok. We can also look up hysteria:

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysteria

          hys·te·ri·a 
           [hi-ster- ee-uh, -steer-] Show IPA
          noun
          1.
          an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.
          2.
          Psychoanalysis . a psychoneurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks, disturbances of sensory and motor functions, and various abnormal effects due to autosuggestion.
          3.
          Psychiatry . conversion disorder.

          Again absolutely no reference to gender.

          It's not a gender slur.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2011 @ 1:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that I'm not even a native speaker.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:39pm

        Re: Re:

        "All well and good to call out the hypocrisy, but "hysterically" is a gender slur. Might do well to watch out for that."


        Wait what? Since when is "hysterical" gender specific? I've never heard it used that way *at all*.

        Have to agree with Masnick on this one. He should know, he's constantly in hysterics over the Chicken Little scenarios he invents for himself.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yep, along with the rest of the internet that agrees with him. Looks like the problems of SOPA and PIPA are being discussed and exposed through social media sites.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 6:40pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oooooooo..... I'm scared.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              rubberpants, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 6:58pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I bet you're a real force on the playground.

              *eyeroll*

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2011 @ 1:40am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Who cares?

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2011 @ 4:52am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              We know you are. Hence daily showing up on the site and trying to dismiss everything Mike and others say or denounce them and attack them with ad homs.

              If you weren't scared, you wouldn't feel the need to do any of that (unless you're just acting like a child or a troll that is).

              Your fear that people are waking up to what you just tried to have passed without their knowledge and are now responding in turn is evident to all. You are indeed scared. Poor AC. You were so close. You'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids.

               

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

        •  
          icon
          The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 3:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Have to agree with Masnick on this one"

          So you admit you agree with Mike?

          Freetard.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Noah C. (profile), Nov 30th, 2011 @ 6:16am

      Re: ...Hysterectimony?

      You might be thinking of Hysterectimony... (sp?)

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    ScytheNoire, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

    America, Land of the Free?

    As I have stated before, the motto of America has changed from Land of the Free to Land of Hypocrisy.

    Welcome to your Corporatocracy.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:54pm

    SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57332246-261/grooveshark-email-how-we-built-a-music-service-withou t-um-paying-for-music/

    '"The only thing that I want to add is this: we are achieving all this growth without paying a dime to any of the labels," wrote Sina Simantob, Grooveshark's chairman, in an e-mail on Dec. 1, 2009.'

    You can try some weenie legalism to excuse it, but this is EXACTLY the kind of grifting that Mike denies goes on, and why there's actual need for SOPA.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      But who says they have to pay them in the first place? Who says copyright is the right thing for the Internet?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Another AC, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:07pm

        Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

        Agreed, ootb seems to think that they have some kind of obligation to pay.

        btw, like you ootb I did not read the link, I already know what it says ;)

         

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

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:10pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      So, you're mention of a yet unresolved court case is proof of what?

      Oh, you've learned to use links! Very good!

      Feel free to use the court-set precedence of your linked court case when somebody's been proven guilty of something.

      Good try though.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:12pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      this is EXACTLY the kind of grifting that Mike denies goes on
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
      and why there's actual need for SOPA.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:44pm

        Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

        I almost never comment, though I come here to read the discussions. This, though, made me feel like I had to say something.

        Bravo. Powerful, pithy and precise. A perfect interweb argument.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Kevin H (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:14pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      Based on how GrooveShark operates they shouldn't need to pay a damn thing you reeb.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 6:47pm

        Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

        What is it about its operation that leads to your view re paying?

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      DCX2, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:14pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      There are already legal methods in place for dealing with Grooveshark. In fact, Grooveshark is already being sued by Universal.

      So, tell me...why do we need a new law? Why can't we just enforce the existing laws?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:32pm

        Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

        because lawsuits cost money, duh!

        this way we can just shut them down and ask questions later.

        no harm, no foul!

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 6:49pm

        Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

        What is it about its operation that leads to your view re paying?

         

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

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Nov 30th, 2011 @ 1:24am

        Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

        Because the current laws require pesky things like due process, evidence and the right to trial. These people want ultimate sanctions based on mere accusations, with the victim bearing any related costs.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      A Guy (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:31pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      I'm not going to defend Grooveshark. Grooveshark will fail in court because they paid employees to upload music. If the labels make the argument in court, Grooveshark will lose their safe harbor because of that. The DMCA is sufficient to deal with groovshark.

      SOPA goes beyond punishing bad actors. It provides tools that will be used to hurt legitimate businesses and public forums and will drive investment out of the United States. As written, it is bad public policy.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      sks (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:32pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      There's never a reason to allow censorship under the guise of piracy.
      A lot of people that do pirate software, movies, music, ect., some of those people actually do buy what they pirate if they enjoy using it that much, just to give money to the creators.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      rubberpants, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:33pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      This comment has nothing to do with this article. Please do try to stay on-topic. People might think you're a troll.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:34pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      You can try some weenie legalism to excuse it, but this is EXACTLY the kind of grifting that Mike denies goes on, and why there's actual need for SOPA.

      Grooveshark is being sued under current law. What would SOPA do other than give someone an end run around the law?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      duffmeister (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:41pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      So aren't there laws that already cover this? Aren't they being sued under those existing laws?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:42pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      Freeloading sacks of dogshit

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      JJB, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 3:35pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      Seriously? While I don't condone grooveshark because of it's copyright infringement, that does not mean we need SOPA. The RIAA already has the right to sue you into oblivion for a song playing in the background of a video on youtube. If anything we need underregulation.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      JJB, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 3:35pm

      Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

      Seriously? While I don't condone grooveshark because of it's copyright infringement, that does not mean we need SOPA. The RIAA already has the right to sue you into oblivion for a song playing in the background of a video on youtube. If anything we need underregulation.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:54pm

    Thank you for this list. Every time politicians vote for a bill against people's will, their names should be all over the Internet in Hall of Shame lists.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      PlagueSD (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:14pm

      Re:

      I really don't think there's enough room on the interwebs for that info. When was the last time politicians voted FOR the people's will? All of them support the wishes of whomever gives them the most money. That's why they all seem to "flip-flop" at a moments notice.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    They were against regulating the internet before they were for it.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Jeffhole (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    Yeah, we're look at you, the south.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Vic, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:18pm

    Oh, good! Not a single senator out of my state is on the list!

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:25pm

      Re:

      And yet, Florida is on this list. Come to think of it, some one was talking about him running for President. I guess it would be more of what I already am getting in that case...

      I had high hopes for him. Guess I fell for his "Change".

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:23pm

    LOL

    It's only hypocritical if they actually understand what they are legislating. The interwebs confuzzle them.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:48pm

    Government Regulation - the Perpetual Bogyman

    Blackburn simply regurgitates the too easy mindless blame government regulation mantra. --> "Take the private internet and put it all under government control." These proposals for so-called government control are being pushed by private industry for the benefit of companies that can "buy" our politicians.

    Blackburn goes on to say: "Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application." Again, it is private industry that is attempting to use regulations to quash competition.

    Blackburn should be demanding that the private refrain from manipulating the politicians and to let the free-market work.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    mickeywhite, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:53pm

    Why does Marsha Want Congress to Regulate the Internet? Why not just say NO FEDERAL branch (the FCC and congress and the federal courts included) has any authority to decide or rule on any aspect concerning the Internet?

    BUT Marsha Blackburn did Vote FOR: Patriot Act Reauthorization, Electronic Surveillance, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extension; and only NOW she is worried about free speech, privacy, and government take over of the internet?

    Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
    See her “blatantly unconstitutional” votes at :
    http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html
    Mickey

     

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

  •  
    icon
    ArkieGuy (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:14pm

    Tweet your congress critters!

    I just sent out a tweet naming my congressmen and mentioning this article. Probably won't help, but can't hurt!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:22pm

    because they have no clue about the internet, no clue about the impact the bill(s) will have on EVERYBODY, including them, that use the internet, because they are more concerned with their pockets than the people that put them where they are and are supposed to be representing and basically, because they dont give a flying f**k for anyone other than themselves, even though they are making themselves look like absolute twats!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    mibsfo, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:32pm

    Vote with your Twitter account

    If you believe in Net-Neutrality, go public by posting it on your Twitter account. Either go here: http://hashthevote.com/issue/net-neutrality and click "Vote Yes" or tweet with the hashtag: #NetNeutrality_YES (either way, we will pick up your vote).

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Erik (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:38pm

    Not surprised about Sen. Hatch, he's a big-time recording artist

    Just take a look at his portfolio on Amazon.com:
    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=or rin+hatch&x=12&y=14

    If PIPA doesn't pass, he may have to give up his dreams of being a performing artist! Then he'll be completely dependent upon whatever scraps his loyal lobbyists might deign to toss his way!

    Save his dream! Support PIPA!

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      rubberpants, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:54pm

      Re: Not surprised about Sen. Hatch, he's a big-time recording artist

      He's so in bed with the copyright lobby they're common-law at this point.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Lazuli, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 5:19pm

    Oh yup. Kelly Ayotte is on the list, no surprises there. I'm sorry on behalf of NH. :/

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    mimi, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 6:56pm

    Please sign this petition to stop congress from passing S.O.P.A:
    http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-do-not-pass-the-sopa-bill

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Noah C. (profile), Nov 30th, 2011 @ 6:13am

    The Representatives that voted for SOPA but spoke out against in the first place don't actually care about SOPA or PIPA or really anything else but their bank accounts.

    I think that's pretty obvious.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Meee, Nov 30th, 2011 @ 8:57am

    It seems the list of people have no particular order. Are they in ascending or descending order for how much money they have received?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2011 @ 12:31pm

    It is possible to be against "net neutrality" while being in favor of SOPA/Protect-IP. They are directed to different issues. To call those who may recognize the differences and support one but not the other "hypocrites" is quite misleading.

     

    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
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This