MPAA Dismisses COICA Free Speech Concerns

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.'"

Comments

Mr. Bob,

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

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.

Bloodsucker

[ScrewMaster]

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.'"

Well, of course he would say that. The reality is that the First Amendment was not intended to be dismissed so lightly by a cartel composed entirely of bloodsucking leeches.

Re:Bloodsucker

[Katmando911]

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.'"

A comment like that makes me want to break into this guys house and "steal" all of his stuff so that he can learn the meaning of the word.

Re:Bloodsucker

[ScrewMaster]

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.'"

A comment like that makes me want to break into this guys house and "steal" all of his stuff so that he can learn the meaning of the word.

Yeah. And if he keeps it up, he may find himself on the unemployment line, just like the ex-CEO of BP talked himself out of a job. They aren't even trying to make their rhetoric sound palatable anymore. "Your much-vaunted 'free speech' means nothing to us, and if we can destroy it in order to regain control of content distribution, we will. So, here's a hearty 'Fuck YOU!', America!" Now, that's exactly how you would expect a bunch of foreign-owned corporations to think ... I'm just surprised they're being that open about it. Well, they aren't: it's their paid mouthpieces (the RIAA and the MPAA) that are spewing this garbage on their behalf.

So, the next time you buy a DVD with Sony, Time Warner, Vivendi, Viacom or the name of any of the other major studios printed on the side, remember who you have to thank for it. This is no longer about shutting down torrent sites or suing file-sharers. This is about the ongoing destruction of the Supreme Law of our Land by foreign influences. Remember that when the Feds start blocking your favorite Web sites because some lawyer at the "Justice Department", or some member of Congress who just had his infidelity exposed, has them blacklisted.

Remember also that the top slots at the Justice Department are filled by ex-RIAA attorneys. They aren't going to fight this for you, they're not even going to register a complaint. This is about as direct an attack on the Constitution as we've seen in recent years. And yes, even if signed into law, it may very well be eventually struck down, but this is how they operate. Remember, they always ask for something completely unreasonable, fully expecting to fail, and then they ask for a law that is somewhat less obnoxious (but still awful) but which seems positively benign in comparison.

He's right

[IBitOBear]

And the ??AA is stealing our cultural legacy. They deserve no constitutional or legal protection.

Stop Draconian Restriction Mechanisms whether they are technological or political.

You can't steal from corporations

[WillAffleckUW]

You can't steal from corporations.

They aren't people.

They can't be drafted.

They can't be executed.

They never serve a day in jail.

Thus, stealing only occurs when you steal from people.

No matter what the Supreme Court says.

P.S.: Revert to the original patents and copyrights in the original Constitution if you want us to respect them.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Chyeld]

More importantly, as not all copyright holders are corporations, violation of copyright protections is not theft. It is not stealing. It is not burglary, it is not piracy.

It is violating copyright protections.

And as far as that goes, neither the Copyright Acts or 'The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act' are permitted to run contrary to the First Amendment, regardless of it's purpose.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[WillAffleckUW]

The courts say they can take away your constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search while flying too.

Doesn't mean they're right.

This is really starting to get raw

[ScrewMaster]

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.'"

That's how Mr. Pisano "addresses" free speech concerns? By dismissing them? I have news for you, bub ... you aren't speaking for the Founding Fathers when you mouth that garbage. The reality is, the First Amendment was not intended to be dismissed so lightly by what are essentially foreign-owned criminal cartels illegally extending their influence into our Federal Government.

Pisano ducked the question.

[blair1q]

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.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[guruevi]

Pisano is INcorrect in saying "the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means". The First Amendment was/is intended as a shield for any US Citizen irrespective of their means. The First Amendment still applies to people that have committed a crime.