Oregon Senator Stops Internet Censorship Bill

comforteagle writes "Senator Wyden of Oregon has objected to a bill in committee that if passed would have given the government the ability to censor the Internet. His objection effectively stop its current passing, forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is to continue — which it may not. Oregonians, please send this man pats on the back."

Comments

The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oregon

[kaptink]

The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oregon. Senator Stephen Conroy of Australia, take note.

The Other Half of the Problem

[causality]

This commendable Senator took care of the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is more institutional in nature. It grants one hell of an advantage to those who view various forms of freedom as an inconvenient hinderence to their goals.

All oppressive laws have this in common: those who push for them view a defeat like this as merely a delay or minor setback. They can keep trying to get them passed, over and over, through defeat after defeat, until finally they find a Congress more willing to be swayed by their arguments. They understand that once they get the law passed, it will stay on the books forever and will never be repealed. Agencies, bureaucracies and contractors will form around it and give it even more inertia. After a generation or two people will grow up knowing no other status quo.

What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Reziac]

Solution? A requirement that all laws have a sunset provision, to include all agencies and regulations promulgated by said law.

Of course, some Congressional genius would then pass a law that would sunset the sunset law.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[demonlapin]

There's only one problem with this approach: the media companies. You see, they get to talk right up until the end. They get to say whatever they want. And if they don't like you, you're toast. (To take some older examples, think of Dukakis or Quayle.)

So now you're telling people that they can't say what they want, with their own money, unless they happen to own a newspaper, or a TV or radio station. Do you really think that will bring us a better political class?

If you want the money out of politics, you have to take the politics out of money. Quite a few libertarians have been advocating this for a long time. Otherwise, the money will always be there, and all you're doing is ignoring the First Amendment in order to try to score political points.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[DarkOx]

Well me and a number of other people would like a Constitutional Amendment requiring all future laws in the US code to have a sunset date. Congress would have to than re debate every law periodically to determine if it should be renewed. There are varying opinions about how far out the maximum sunset can be. I personally think 30 years makes sense, that is four senate terms plus one to cover the other thirds not up for election at the end of term 1. This way most of the original people who debate the law will be gone from the senate, and folks with a fresh perspective would be able to consider it on its merits. Also having to take an issue up once every thirty years should not be two burdensome. The vast majority of expiring codes probably won't be controversial at all and could get taken care of with a quick up or down direct to floor vote in the first days of each congressional session.

Re:Anbody want to

[Sprouticus]

"George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. "

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm

Huh

[MyLongNickName]

His objection effectively stop its current passing forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is continue.

English, please?

second that.

[unity100]

it took a revolution in 1774, and then another in 1789, and then a few more others in 1848s to establish the fundamentals of the modern liberties and freedoms, and all human rights we take granted now. apparently, we need a few more in order to get one step further.

Re:Anbody want to

[causality]

"George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. "

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm

Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.

That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.

Slashdot need new Editor

[Covalent]

Do the editor stop check for subject verb agreement? Me am curious.

I commend you sir!

[digitalPhant0m]

I usually sway to the Red, however I must say that this Senator has earned my respect by standing up for what do you call it? You know, that thing this country was supposedly built upon and champions, oh yeah Freedom!

Thank you!

One possible solution

[MikeRT]

Pass a constitutional amendment that strips Congress of civil immunity for their unconstitutional laws. Let them get sued for lost wages, profits, trebble damages and emotional distress and suddenly we'll have 535 originalist legal scholars.

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

The bigger question is, how the hell do we get rid of the elected-senator system and go back to how it was before?? I can't see much chance of repealing the relevant Amendment. You'd hear all manner of propaganda wailing about how those evil pro-appointed-senator freaks wanted to take away your right to vote and to thereby "control" the gov't.

Remember too that the Founders *designed* the system to promote gridlock, under the excellent and well-demonstrated theory that gov't rushing into ANY action was a Bad Thing. Having the entire system dependent on campaign strategies and contributions defeats that all by itself (everything is pulling in the same basic direction: getting re-elected).

The senators on the approving panel

[fyrie]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml

        * Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
        * Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
        * Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
        * Dianne Feinstein -- California
        * Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
        * Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
        * Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
        * Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
        * Jon Kyl -- Arizona
        * Chuck Schumer -- New York
        * Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
        * Dick Durbin -- Illinois
        * John Cornyn -- Texas
        * Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
        * Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
        * Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
        * Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
        * Al Franken -- Minnesota
        * Chris Coons -- Delaware

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Al Franken -- Minnesota

As probably the strongest congressional proponent of net neutrality (or at least the most acerbic) I am really disappointed to see his name on this list. Yeah, he was a actor/comedian working for the MAFIAA before, but he was able to overcome that bias and see the danger the MAFIAA poses to freedom of expression with their anti net-neutrality stance, so why did he cave on this one?

Re:So confused

[N0Man74]

Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

I can't speak for every Slashdotter, but...

Net Neutrality isn't about the government controlling the internet, it's about preventing corporations using leverage to control the internet and/or hold bandwidth hostage for competitive advantage or to inhibit the flow of free information.

As for being against policies that stop policies, it's not that I'm for piracy. It's just that legislation, policies, and industry practices to reduce piracy have been ineffective, will probably never be effective, hurt legitimate content consumers more than it hurts the pirates, and continuously erode what we can do under Fair Use. That's not to mention that they create ways for corporations to try to financially ruin individuals that are accused of infringing on a rather small scale, even if the evidence that they have done so is shaky. The people are abused, and even content providers of public domain works are often caught in the crossfire. And all of this is done in the name of stopping piracy (whose actual impact is really hard to know) of copyrighted (for way too damn long) works.

I think that these views are entirely consistent. We don't want corporations and governments meddling with our legitimate access to content and information.

Re:So confused

[ultranova]

Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

When the government makes regulation that censors the Internet, that's bad. When the government makes regulation that keeps corporations from censoring the Internet, that's good. Censorship is evil, freedom is good. It's that simple.

A car analogy: If the government made a law that prevented you from driving to California, that would be very bad. If a toll road operator forced you to tell your destination and charged extra if it was California, and the government would bitchslap them for that, it would be very good.

Good is good, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone, and evil is evil, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone. This is an entirely consistent position.

Re:So confused

[hairyfeet]

As someone under the new caps being "test marketed" and soon coming to you, let me tell what life without net neutrality is like and what it results in. You have a cap of 36GB residential and 76GB business. Vonage counts against the cap, the cableco VoIP doesn't. Result? I don't use Vonage. MSFT Windows Update doesn't count against the cap, Mac and Linux does. The result? I wouldn't buy a Mac and while I used to like trying new distros I don't mess with Linux anymore. Youtube and Netflix has "made a deal" so that their services don't count against the cap, while other video sites do. Result? It just got a lot harder for a competing video site to gain traction here.

Get the picture? Without some sort of common carrier rules you end up in a situation like I'm in, where the cableco can make THEIR offering attractive while everyone else looks bad because they will cost you extra. It also allows them to "herd you" towards the services they approve of, by punishing you (at $1.50 per GB if you go over) if you don't stick to approved services. It is the walled garden all over again, only thanks to the fact many of us live with either no choice or a duopoly that refuses to compete with one another (my only choice is DSL where they made it clear they have NO intention of upgrading the 40+ year old lines here, which means 200KB max speed) so without some sort of basic rules you have tilted the game even farther against competition.