Jon Stewart Promises To Study Up On SOPA

from the internet-has-asked... dept

Well, this is kind of cool. A Reddit user got some VIP passes to go see the taping of The Daily Show on Wednesday evening... and asked Reddit what he should ask Jon Stewart about SOPA/PIPA if he could. And... at the pre-show Q&A, he was able to say:
"the internet sent me to ask you what you think of SOPA and why you haven't mentioned it on the show."
Stewart basically admitted he hadn't heard of it, asked if it had anything to do with net neutrality, and then admitted that they all "had their heads up their asses" due to focusing on election stuff. However, he apparently also looked at one of the show's writers, and promised to research the issue.

And then... in the opening to the show Stewart actually cracked a joke about it (video below), where he joked that the next night's guest would be "the internet" and then said "we'll be all SOPA what?!?" and then noted:
Here's all I'll say about that: I've got some reading to catch up on...
Please do, Jon. Please do.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 3:13am

    Conflict of interest might be, works for media company. Does comedy central support sopa on a ropa?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 3:15am

      Re:

      Conflict of interest might be, works for media company. Does comedy central support sopa on a ropa?


      Yes. Viacom, which owns Comedy Central is very strongly pro-SOPA. But, I'm not sure if they can gag Stewart...

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Spaceboy (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:02am

        Re: Re:

        They censored South Park when they tried to show Muhammad.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Jake, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Bad analogy. Drawing pictures of their religious leaders is a big no-no in Islam and I think a couple of other religions, and I mean really, burn-a-Bible-in-public big. Putting a stop to that wasn't censorship, it was common courtesy and good taste.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Putting a stop to that wasn't censorship, it was common courtesy and good taste."

            Ah ha! I've been spending a better part of my time recently trying to figure out what the difference between tasteful exclusion and censorship is, and thankfully you've come along to provide me a worthy answer. Apparently, that answer amounts to: if some of us think we're going to stop some others of us from being offended, then it magically doesn't count as censorship.

            What Comedy Central did in censoring Parker/Stone in that episode was a travesty of cowardice. Censorship doesn't stop being censorship just because it appeases folks who believe in one invisible friend or the other, and that goes for ALL religions, not just Islam....

            BTW, as an aside, while I try to be understanding of people's faith in general, if you're prophet or diety somehow loses power or respect by being depicted in ANY way, then either your diety sucks and you should find a new, more photogenic God, or your religion is horribly mis-prioritized, in which case your God probably hates you more then any infidel you can dream up....

             

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

            •  
              icon
              xenomancer (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:50am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I've been spending a better part of my time recently trying to figure out what the difference between tasteful exclusion and censorship is
              I find this highly offensive! Furthermore, ████████ to ███████ ██████, █████ █████ is not ██████ ██████ ████. It has █████ in a █████ of █████████ █████ ██████████ ████ 45 BC, ██████ it ████ ████ █████ old. ███████ ██████████, a █████ █████████ at ███████-██████ ███████ in ████████, ██████ up one of the ████ ███████ █████ █████, ███████████, ████ a █████ █████ ███████, and █████ ███████ the █████ of the ████ in █████████ ██████████, ██████████ the ███████████ ██████. █████ █████ █████ ████ ████████ 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de ███████ ███████ et ███████" (The ████████ of ████ and ████) by ██████, ███████ in 45 BC. ████ ████ is a ████████ on the ██████ of ██████, ████ ███████ ██████ the ███████████. The █████ ████ of █████ █████, "█████ █████ █████ sit ████..", █████ ████ a ████ in ███████ 1.10.32.

              The ████████ █████ of █████ █████ ████ █████ the █████ is ██████████ █████ for █████ ██████████. ████████ 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 ████ "de ███████ ███████ et ███████" by ██████ are ████ ██████████ in █████ █████ ████████ ████, ███████████ by ███████ ████████ ████ the ████ ███████████ by H. ███████!

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              If no one can show a picture of Muhammad, how do we know what he looks like? Maybe it was Muhammad in the bunny suit. Maybe he just so happens to look exactly like the Coca Cola style Santa Claus. How can we be offended by a picture of something if we don't know what that something looks like?

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 7:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It is my understanding that they do not want Muhammad depicted out of fear that some people will worship the image(idol) rather than Muhammad himself.

              That does at least make some sense even if I do not agree with them.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Machin Shin (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 8:06am

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

                The not wanting someone to worship a depiction of him does indeed make sense. I don't really think you can use that argument for getting upset about South Park though. I mean really, do you see a confused Muslim worshiping South Parks depiction?

                 

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

          •  
            icon
            Machin Shin (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You know I really hate to come up and pop your little utopia bubble, BUT that was still censorship. Just because what was censored was offensive to some people does not turn censorship into "courtesy and good taste".

            I might not agree with what someone does or says but I am not going to censor them. A prime example would be that I personally hate the westborro baptist church and what they do, BUT I would fight for their right to go out and do what they do.

            That is what freedom of speech is. The right to go out and say whatever you want no matter who it upsets. I will fight for peoples right to do just that even if I don't agree with what they have to say. I just hope others will stand with me and fight for my right to say whatever the hell I want as well.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:15am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes it was "Censorship", but by a private company over a their own network. Comedy Central could have aired it, the government was not stopping them. They made a choice about what content they wanted to air. Now given their decision, the creators of South Park COULD have dissolved their exclusive contract with Comedy Central and gone to another private network that was willing to air it, created their own startup network and aired it themselves or turned to the internet.

              This is not **Censorship**, South Park had the freedom to release the show unedited, just not on their propriety privately owned network.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                zegota (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:34am

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

                You really don't understand the meaning of the word "censorship." Censorship isn't morally okay just because it's done by a private company and not the government.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Chris Rhodes (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 7:08am

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

                  I don't let guests in my house scream obscenities at or insult me or my other guests.

                  Is that morally okay, or must I allow all speech on my property to be righteous in the zegota universe?

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 7:38am

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

                    "I don't let guests in my house scream obscenities at or insult me or my other guests."

                    Chris, c'mon, that comparison is just wrong. Viacom is a company putting its product out there for public consumption. Guests in your home are putting anything out there for public anything.

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 8:06am

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

                      Every time I visit Chris' house I put SOMETHING out for public consumption.....

                       

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 8:26am

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

                      I respect you greatly DH, but this is where I believe many others have it wrong. I don't believe the tag "censorship" applies if it is not enabled by the government. I believe that businesses and individuals can do whatever they want with their property or commercial endeavors, including choosing not to air/offer/whatever certain content no matter how ignorant or foolish.

                      Said differently, there is nothing ethically wrong with choosing not to air/offer certain content, because I as a consumer, can choose to not consume their other content or frequent their business. I have no recourse with the government.

                       

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

                      •  
                        icon
                        Gwiz (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 10:00am

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

                        I don't believe the tag "censorship" applies if it is not enabled by the government.

                        It's unfortunate you don't believe that, but in order to have a rational discussion about this, one pretty much has use the universally accepted definition of words.

                        You believing that "censorship" only equates to "censorship by the government" doesn't really change the definitions of the words themselves. Censorship by a corporation or an individual is still censorship, it just doesn't go against the Constitution.

                         

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

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 10:48am

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

                        I believe that businesses and individuals can do whatever they want with their property or commercial endeavors, including choosing not to air/offer/whatever certain content no matter how ignorant or foolish.

                        This is true. This is also still censorship. That is why you can "censor yourself" and not say **** or **** in front of small children or in public web fora. It's still censorship. Whether you think it's wrong or whether it should be allowed may be a topic of debate, but it's censorship no matter how you slice it.

                        Almost everyone is against Government censorship. Unless it's nipples at a football game halftime show or a shapely butt on a police drama.

                         

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

              •  
                icon
                Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:45am

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

                "Yes it was "Censorship", but by a private company over a their own network"

                Yes, and that's why no one said it was illegal, just cowardly. It's still censorship, just not censorship that violates the first amendment.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 8:31am

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

                  I can live with that, but I really think it clouds the issue. In my mind, censorship only applies if there was an ethical obligation to not censor or otherwise restrict the material. Commercial businesses and individuals have no such ethical obligation.

                  However, as you said, it may be extremely ignorant or cowardly or both.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 10:54am

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

                    In my mind, censorship only applies if there was an ethical obligation to not censor or otherwise restrict the material. Commercial businesses and individuals have no such ethical obligation.

                    But I don't think that's true. I think the ethics of a thing extends beyond Government vs Corporate, or even Public vs Private, and transcends discussions of legal vs illegal. Something can be ethical and illegal -- just make a bad law. And in the same way something can be unethical and legal! Philosophers have been talking about what is and is not ethical for millenia, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not compelled by your dismissal that ethics doesn't play into it because it was a corporate entity doing so.

                    By your line, we should have no problem at all with the fact that none of them are discussing SOPA. Unless you think that newscasters should be held to a higher standard of ethics than satirists.

                     

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

          •  
            icon
            xenomancer (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Remember, just prior to its occurrence, speaking of revolution in the 13 American colonies was considered treason, punishable by death. The most abhorrent of speech is still protected specifically to allow the common person to share their beliefs, no matter how distasteful or revolutionary they may be. This includes stick/paper/animated figures with an arrow/label/shirt/dialogue pointing out "muhammad."

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You do realize that talk of overthrowing the government is still illegal and considered treason, right?

               

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

              •  
                icon
                xenomancer (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:36am

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

                Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
                There's a reason this one came first.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Gwiz (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 8:31am

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

                You do realize that talk of overthrowing the government is still illegal and considered treason, right?

                Not quite.

                My take from the decision on Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) is that such speech is protected by the Constitution unless it is "...directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action"

                Advocating the overthrow of the government in general is protected speech, but, when you start getting into specifics of such an action, not so much.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Butcherer79 (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 8:51am

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

                You do realize that talk of overthrowing the government is still illegal and considered treason, right?

                Does this mean that election campaigns are illegal too? I'm pretty sure all opposition parties talk of overthrowing the current government, don't they?
                This could mean that voting for the losing party (or just the party that's not in power) is also illegal.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  xenomancer (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 10:45am

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

                  (Fair warning, all links are to lmgtfy searches... I was bored)

                  Why, with the NDAA signed into law, the next president could even detain all the people who (stupidly admit they) voted against him and could be the first president since Washington to be asked to accept the crown as the first king of the USA.

                  /obvious-dry-hyperbolic-fun-while-bored

                   

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

          •  
            identicon
            Cowardly Anon, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Ok, have you seen South Park? Good taste isn't what they are selling with that show. They make fun of EVERYTHING in a tasteless way. It is crude, offensive humor, and I have a feeling that people who would have been offended by the that one episode probably are offended by ALL their episodes and were not fans or the target audience that the show is aimed at.

            So I'm sorry, but your thin facade of 'it was a common courtesy b/c someone would have been offended' is complete and other nonsense. B/c if someone being offended is all it takes to block something in "good taste", then the entire South Park series would be blocked.

            Stop feeling good about censorship b/c it makes you feel better and more comfortable when people aren't allowed to say something that might offend. One day, you might find yourself on the receiving end of such censorship, and you will only have yourself to blame.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 10:59am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              His argument is that Viacom/Comedy Central acted in good taste, not South Park, and that makes it OK because it was Viacom/Comedy Central's network.

              Essentially, we should have no problem with Censorship if it's done by private entities regarding their property or services. I'm not sure how much I can agree with that.

               

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

          •  
            identicon
            Bengie, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It's been a long while since History class, but I think the issue with Islam isn't that you can't ever depict Muhammad, but not to do so in an idolized way. They didn't want his image being worshiped.

            This may not reflect modern Islam, but I'm pretty sure that was the original writings/law.

            There is LOTS of old scripts that depict Muhammad and were not unlawful hundreds of years ago.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            Spaceboy (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Doesn't matter what the reason is. It's still censorship. And, I would like to point out, that the FIRST time they put Muhammad in South Park no one said anything and Comedy Central aired it in its entirety. No one was killed or hurt or threatened.

            Lots of things are against lots of religions. If the religion of peace can't take criticism without issuing fatwa's then you know, maybe they deserve that criticism.

            Comedy Central didn't want to deal with whatever backlash may or may not have happened as a result of Muhammad being drawn.

            Viacom and Comedy Central also don't want to deal with the anti-SOPA crowd. They are now in a tough spot because they know that once informed, Jon Stewart's audience will be 99% against SOPA.

            It is no longer business as usual. The Internet is an incredible place and if people are allowed to express themselves freely then regimes can fall, countries might change and power will be given back to the people regardless of where they live. Is it any wonder that the only support SOPA can get is from astroturf campaigns, corporations or industry?

            SOPA is a step backwards for America. It will give more power to the government and corporate America.

            This is what Viacom and the government want. They want to do the thinking for us and tell us what is good and bad, funny and not funny and right and wrong.

            They want to make everything doubleplus good.

            It will be interesting to see how Jon handles SOPA.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Then why allow depictions of people eating sausages? Or allow sex scenes? Where does it stop?

            IMO, any law is censorship, and the fact that people are censored at all offends me. If I were to found a religion where paws were at the same level of offense as burning the religion's holy text, I'd be mocked mercilessly.

            So "good taste" doesn't wash for me.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Rekrul, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 7:14am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Bad analogy. Drawing pictures of their religious leaders is a big no-no in Islam and I think a couple of other religions, and I mean really, burn-a-Bible-in-public big. Putting a stop to that wasn't censorship, it was common courtesy and good taste.

            And yours is a bad analogy as well.

            Burning a bible in public sparks harsh words and maybe a protest if it's known about in advance.

            Depicting Muhammad results in riots and death threats from wackjob islamic fanatics.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            Trails (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 8:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Pre-Danish-Cartoon-Fiasco, South Park aired an episode Super Best Friends that had depictions of Muhammad.

            Didn't raise much controversy(for a South Park episode).

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 10:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            it was fear of reprisal, nothing more

             

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

          •  
            icon
            bongo houzi (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 10:24am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            it was fear of reprisal, nothing more

             

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:19am

        Re: Re:

        The important point is that Stewart postures himself as somewhat independent from Viacom itself. While he obviously has obligations through his contract, I can't see him taking it very well if Comedy Central did attempt to censor him.

        That, and this could finally result in TV air time for SOPA concerns, which has been somewhat lacking.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Harry, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 8:57am

        Re: Re:

        Agreed. They didn't do a great job stopping Colbert from creating a Super-PAC. They won't stop Stewart either.

         

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

  •  
    icon
    Yeebok (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 3:17am

    This video is not available in your country

    Oh the irony, Mike :)

     

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

    •  
      icon
      SUNWARD (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:48am

      Re: This video is not available in your country

      firefox (using an older version) with x-forwarded-for-spoofer addon. Works for these videos but won't for hulu.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 3:18am

    Keep in mind

    He is Executive Producer of "The Colbert Report" who HAS talked about about SOPA...

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403465/december-01-2011/stop-onlin e-piracy-act

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    FM Hilton, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 3:32am

    Stewart on SOPA

    Could be a great thing-he's got the audience and the power to make it a real issue.
    The only problem is that he's employed by a company that supports SOPA, and I'm sure that he likes his job, money, and perks.

    I wonder if he'll be that courageous-and will actually speak up about/against it.

    Who knows? But I'm betting he will not only 'read up on it' but will deliver the worthy diatribe he's capable of.

    After all, he hates stupid politicians with a passion and this should be right up his alley.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 4:26am

      Re: Stewart on SOPA

      More to the point, without a general audience understanding it would be hard to be funny about it.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      bwp (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:05am

      Re: Stewart on SOPA

      Comedy Central needs Stewart more than Stewart needs Comedy Central. He has always said what he feels he needs to say on any issue. I'm sure he will have something ready and possibly even decide to devote more time to this issue after he reads up on it.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      D, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 8:09am

      Re: Stewart on SOPA

      only prob I see (with several posts) is the blatant assumption he will be against SOPA & not pro

       

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

      •  
        icon
        bongo houzi (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re: Stewart on SOPA

        I think most feel he has at least a modicum of intelligence about him and this will lead him to the right conclusion; censorship is bad, k?

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 4:39am

    yet another attempt by the industries to keep the information about what will happen to the 'net', how bad it will be for everyone from actually being given to everyone. when they have to employ such tactics, it's obvious how bad the bill is and how it will serve only those that are pushing it forward. i must admit that i am curious as to whether Stewart will be allowed to discuss the bill, be allowed to have anyone on the show other than those that support it, let alone tell the truth about it given who he works for

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 4:45am

    Place your bets...

    Tonight's scheduled guest is Dolly Parton.

    Who will get more time and attention... Dolly or "the internet"?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:25am

    I want a SOPA provision that retroactively reduces copy protection lengths to ten years!!!

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:29am

      Re:

      Not going to happen, copyright will forever be expanded, never reduced.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:46am

        Re: Re:

        copyright will forever be expanded, never reduced.


        Yeah, but why?

        I've proposed a public choice theory explanation. Other commenters here at Techdirt (thanks) propose that it's because of an “entitlement culture.”

        Why is copyright a one-way ratchet? Always tightening, never loosening. Why is, say, repealing the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act a complete —laughable— political impossibility.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:06am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Because politicians are bought and paid for.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:08am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Why is copyright a one-way ratchet? Always tightening, never loosening. Why is, say, repealing the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act a complete —laughable— political impossibility.

          Maybe it isn't?

          Just because it hasn't happened so far doesn't mean it can't - although I admit that the international dimension is a big problem.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Rekrul, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 7:19am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Why is copyright a one-way ratchet? Always tightening, never loosening. Why is, say, repealing the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act a complete —laughable— political impossibility.

          Because the majority of politicians are corrupt and will do whatever the corporations with the biggest wallets tell them to do. The media corporations don't want copyright reduced, so the politicians that they bribe don't want copyright reduced.

          Until you can find a way to completely end "lobbying", you won't see a reduction in copyright.

           

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

  •  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:37am

    Mystery

    No problem... SOPA does not know who Jon Stewart is either.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Arelas (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 5:49am

    Jon Stewart having a bunch of kittens that can't spell come on the show isn't going to help. Joking aside, it will be interesting how he responds once he's finished reading up.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:08am

    - Comes down to Money(Ie cash, bread, wonga, green). Big business who are reliant on long copyrights have a lot of cash to buy influence.
    - Political motivation, is copyright lenghts precieved to be a major issues for the general public at large. (Nope). This might change in the future as younger generations have access to the internet with changing habits.

    Other reasons might come to me if i have a further think.

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:28am

    OMG! OMG! Jon Stewart hadn't heard of SOPA, but then someone told him about it. And now he's going to find out what it is! OMG! OMG! OMG! Quick, write a blog entry about it! OMG! OMG!

    LMAO @ you pirates.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Butcherer79 (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 6:41am

    Shock-Jock-esque?

    Is this Jon Stewart fella really risque, or is he the same as most 'Shock-Jock' DJ's?
    Most of the latter are paid to appear to be against 'the machine/industry/rich'; the problem being, they're still paid by 'the machine/industry/rich' and you can bet your bottom dollar that there's only certain levels they can go to.
    I'm not sure what annoys me more, the fact that the bosses of these Shock-Jock types think Mr & Mrs Public are stupid enough to believe they're against their own industry; or the fact that a lot of the listeners actually are...

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      I-Blz, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 7:11am

      Re: Shock-Jock-esque?

      His cynicism and wit are genuine, for sure, and he calls out everyones idiocy, not just one party or another. He's gone against Viacom's wishes before, and, unlike Colbert, who is putting on a MASSIVE persona, he just, well, talks. He hates stupidity, and will seek it out and make you hurt for it. He will have a FIELD DAY with this, despite Viacom's support of the bill.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Call me Al, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 7:31am

        Re: Re: Shock-Jock-esque?

        "He will have a FIELD DAY with this, despite Viacom's support of the bill."

        I'd say "He should have a field day...". If he doesn't then that would raise questions about his status as a source of relatively unbiased news as far as I'm concerned.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          I-Blz, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 7:37am

          Re: Re: Re: Shock-Jock-esque?

          What I'm saying is that there is no doubt in my mind that he will have a 10 minute diatribe prepared to blow away everyone in the audience, in the studio or through the TV, and leave us all more educated on the bill, as well as doubled over on the floor in laugh spasms.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 11:26am

      Re: Shock-Jock-esque?

      Is this Jon Stewart fella really risque, or is he the same as most 'Shock-Jock' DJ's?

      He's not a shock jock, he's a satirist (I'm assuming you've never seen the show, perhaps because you're in some non-Daily Show-enabled country).

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    another AC, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 8:40am

    Stewart talking to audience??

    I like Jon Stewart. I liked his stand up, I like his show(s).
    I've had VIP passes to 2 tapings ( once each 2009, 2010) - and in both cases, Jon did not deal with the audience at all.

    Maybe the poster had VIP-er passes than mine, but all I got was front-of-the line, seated to Jon's right just off camera.

    echo: Yes - Colbert has brought up SOPA and Protect-IP.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 9:22am

    I would like to know! I hope he provides a stance!

    For an example, there is a lot of fans of Stewart and Colbert that make fan art/avatars to use on the message boards.

    The clips used on the avatars were done by purchasing the show from iTunes, and then using software to crop and reduce to make a functional avatar.

    In my eyes, fair use.

    In SOPA's eyes, I could totally get lambasted for it.

    http://tdsrefugeepub.phpbb3now.com/users/11/43/34/smilies/watchi10.gif

    I wanna know.....

     

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

  •  
    icon
    letherial (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 10:00am

    I was watching it yesterday and im like, WTF is he talking about lol...now i get it.

    Leave it to the comedy news guy to bring up such a important issue...im ashamed at all the other news media.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Sarah, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 11:38am

    Wow.

    Politicians, pay attention -- Mr. Stewart was asked a question about something he didn't fully understand, admitted that he doesn't fully understand it, and committed to learning more about it in order to better understand it.

    Jon Stewart for president!!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 12th, 2012 @ 1:13pm

    Thanks to Jon Stewart, CBS even mentioned SOPA

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Robert (profile), Jan 13th, 2012 @ 7:43am

    "Tomorrow night our guest will be.."

    Not the Internet and the show did not include a SINGLE mention of SOPA.

    Though funny, as it was picking on Newt, it didn't include SOPA and I doubt we'll see anything on Monday or anytime.

    Very likely he forgot, or slightly less likely, he was threatened by Viacom's lawyers.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 13th, 2012 @ 8:39am

      Re: "Tomorrow night our guest will be.."

      Contrary to popular methodologies.....he will actually research before he just tosses something out there.

      No only does he have to find out about the subject, but also has to create jokes about it...and do it in a way in which he's not hung out to dry by either 'the internet' or 'the lawyers'.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 13th, 2012 @ 8:52am

        Re: Re: "Tomorrow night our guest will be.."

        Oh sure yeah that's totally gonna happen. Good job with your self delusions.

         

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

  •  
    icon
    firefly (profile), Jan 15th, 2012 @ 8:31am

    Can you imagine Stewart getting Pat Leahy on as a guest? He could ask Senator Leahy if he likes Gilfeather turnips (developed in Vermont and very popular here). Does he know the story about how the developer of the Gilfeather turnip cut the tops and bottoms of them before selling them so no one else could grow them? (He probably does.) Then remark, sounds like digital rights management (DRM) for the 19th century to me.

    Then Jon could say something like "You are so passionate about piracy because for you it is a moral issue. So, if John Gilfeather never gave permission to grow (or copy) these rutabagas, is it wrong to sell them and eat them? Why?" It gets a little hard to imagine how the conversation will proceed at this point, but I think you can see where we're headed now.

    In my dreams, we can turn Leahy, in my dreams...

     

    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