Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Dismisses COICA Free Speech Concerns

Posted by samzenpus on from the don't-worry-about-it dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The EFF has gone into detail about why it opposes 'The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act,' or COICA. It has the potential to give the Department of Justice the power to shut down any domestic website, or block any foreign website it so chooses, setting the stage for Internet censorship in the United States. Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"

2 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. Mr. Bob, by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 5, Informative

    I would like you to review the text of the 1st Amendment:

    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.

    Please take note that the first word of the amendment is Congress and is followed by the absolute term "...shall make no law..." This means just what it states.

    I also feel it would be helpful for you to review the writ of habeas corpus to better understand the Suspension Clause:

    Aritlce I, Section 9, Clause 2 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

    Of course, I already know your rebuttal: Murphy's Golden Rule.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  2. Pisano ducked the question. by blair1q · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pisano is correct in saying "the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means."

    He is incorrect in saying that all traffic coming from a site hosting an infringer is the result of stealing, nor is he correct in saying that a conviction for theft is necessary before this law shuts down a site (it requires only a request for a preliminary injunction), nor that the law even restricts its scope to actual theft (it applies if the site is merely to linking to another site that may or may not already be accused of thieving).

    At the point where Pisano guarantees that not one innocent person will have their data cut off from the net for even one second, and can prove it with the text of the bill that accomplishes his goals while doing that, then he may claim he's stopping theft without abrogating the First Amendment.