Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Opposes Key SOPA Provisions

Posted by samzenpus on from the we-beg-to-differ dept.

twdorris writes "Is this an example of our 3-part government actually working as intended? It seems the executive branch doesn't agree with the legislative on a key piece of SOPA. From the article: '"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet," the White House said in a blog post.'"

9 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. They can say they oppose it, by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can say they oppose it, but do they oppose it enough to actually Veto it when/if it gets passed? Or will it be "We'll sign it, but we'll say we disagree adamantly on this post-it not attached to it!"

    --
    by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    1. Re:They can say they oppose it, by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They could have ignored the issue entirely if they were planning to let it pass. It is not like this issue is something covered on Fox and MSNBC and CNN.

      I do think they will support a heavily modified version that meets their published requirements because as they say in their statement, they support legislation to curtail piracy....just not stupid legislation that breaks the internet, hurts the ability of start-ups to innovate, ignores due process and limits free speech.

    2. Re:They can say they oppose it, by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A fact that was never in question by anyone who spent more than 2 seconds examining American politics.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:They can say they oppose it, by berashith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or maybe even if it is veto-proof, our leader could, well , you know.. LEAD or something. Veto the damn thing if you dont like it, and it could be that others may change their vote if they see that someone is willing to start things in motion. If everyone believes that they will be alone in opposition, then the safe move is to not oppose. All these paid off crooks could go back to their bosses and show that they voted yes on the first pass, but things just werent going to work out.

    4. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know things are bad when we start talking about the DMCA in a positive sense with respect to newly proposed legislation.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  2. why did this shitty summary get posted??? by sribe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, this is news that deserves to be on slashdot. But a link to an article behind a paywall, which just gets a popup pushing subscriptions, is NOT the proper way to submit this story!

  3. Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dunno - maybe Ethanol is racist, maybe he isn't. But, Obama DID "reluctantly" sign that fucking NDAA, did he not? Ethanol's point stands, racist cockbag or not.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  4. Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... by Grave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Empty gesture? No, it would have been saying "I do not give a fuck about stupid politics, and would prefer to stick to my guns about something that really matters for a change."

    When you act out of concern for your re-election rather than what is best for the nation, you are acting as a traitor to your country.

  5. Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was passed by a veto proof majority. Refusing to sign it would have been an empty gesture

    Not all gestures are empty. Sometimes it is important to have it be known what you stand for.

    What you're saying, basically, is that Obama has said "fuck you" to everyone who disagrees with NDAA, to appease a bunch of Republican nutjobs who hate him anyway. I don't even see how this could possibly be smart in any sense.