White House Opposes Key SOPA Provisions

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Opposes Key SOPA Provisions

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday January 15, 2012 @10:44AM 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.'"

40 of 175 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

They can say they oppose it, by Gideon+Wells · 2012-01-15 10:46 · 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 · 2012-01-15 11:07 · 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 artor3 · 2012-01-15 11:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That will likely depend on whether or not its passed by a veto proof majority. Frankly, I'm starting to think it won't pass at all, given the momentum the opposition has been building lately. Of course, that means that we need to keep up the pressure. Calling your senators and representative once a week to see where they stand is a good start. They'll likely be wishy-washy at first, but that's why you make your desires clear, and then call the next week to follow up and see if they've cemented an opinion yet. Keep going until they commit to opposing it. And if they're dead set on supporting it, remember that primary season is just around the corner, and has lower turnout -- meaning that a smaller, well-motivated group of voters can make a change. (Unless they're a senator elected in 2010, in which case they can do whatever the hell they want, and you'll forget about it by 2016.)
3. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-15 11:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Didn't "the White House" also oppose the NDAA, which they then refused to veto?
4. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-15 11:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Vetoproof shouldn't mean you shouldn't veto it. Clinton signed in the Glass-Steagal repeal, and it was veto proof(bipartisan even), doesn't mean he shouldn't have said "I don't want to go down in history as the monster that signed this piece of shiat"
5. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Aighearach · 2012-01-15 11:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They could have ignored the issue entirely if they were planning to let it pass.
  No, there is a new government transparency mechanism at the White House https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petitions where you can vote on stuff, or create petitions to vote on, and the ones that get a lot of votes get official policy responses. It is not a mechanism for changes, but it is a mechanism to discover official positions on a wide variety of issues, including ones that would not otherwise get responses.
  Sign up, vote on some stuff, and then when the response is published you'll get an email.
  The ones that disagree with stuff that already has an official positions are useless, of course.
6. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-15 11:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The only reason there was a response to the community from the White House on this issue is because of their 'We The People' petitions section that the administration set up. Enough people signed the petition so they did what they promised, issued a response. The actual merit of it, however, has not been clearly defined in any policy I've seen so far.
  Make your own White House Petition here: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions
7. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-15 11:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Elections are coming, they can't afford any bad publicity. Just because they say they oppose "some" SOPA provisions, actually means, they'll have to modify it a little, and they both get to win, SOPA supporters don't lose anything important, and White House, says, look, we negotiated for you. If they really opposed it, the article would have been titled "White House Opposes SOPA.". Notice that? Just a couple of words, that's how politics works.
8. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Arancaytar · 2012-01-15 12:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is not like this issue is something covered on Fox and MSNBC and CNN.
  Ever since 2008, elections aren't won by ignoring the internet, and Obama of all people knows it.
  Not to say this is all idle campaign talk. I have high hope that whatever we end up with won't be the end-of-democracy-as-we-know-it bill we have now. It might not even be as bad as the DMCA, and the internet survived that one. But it'll still be bad legislation, because the very principle behind it is trying to solve the wrong problem the wrong way.
9. Re:They can say they oppose it, by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-15 12:51 · 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
10. Re:They can say they oppose it, by berashith · 2012-01-15 13:33 · 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.
11. Re:They can say they oppose it, by modmans2ndcoming · 2012-01-15 15:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  50 thousand people voted on that poll.... so... how does that make it something that they could not ignore?
12. Re:They can say they oppose it, by PyroMosh · 2012-01-15 15:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  NDAA is not a good comparison to this legislation.
  The NDAA is considered "must pass" legislation. While we can't know for sure what the President would have done had a bill landed on his desk separate from the NDAA, which included its controversial provisions, we do know that they cited the "must pass" nature of NDAA as the reason they reluctantly signed it into law.
  This legislation, however is not attached to anything of the sort. It will pass or fail on its own merits. Congress can't use this as pressure, and the White House can't use it as an excuse.
  
  --
  Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
13. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Igarden2 · 2012-01-15 15:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "ignores due process" ?
  I'm sure the white house would never allow that.
  Except in the NDAA when detaining American citizens indefinitely without ....
  No, wait...
  
  --
  Normally I ascribe all life to intelligent design, but in your case I'll make an exception.
14. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-15 17:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Cute: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN
15. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Alex+Belits · 2012-01-15 19:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If SOPA is problematic, that has to be for specific reasons - not just because of its name or because (in agreement with all the rest of US law) it makes copyright infringement illegal.
  No law can make copyright infringement illegal because copyright infringement is already illegal. If this is the only excuse for some new law, then the law is worthless no matter what is in it.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
16. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Khyber · 2012-01-15 21:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Nope, not one single one, and even then, several of those got answered not at all, but merely 'set aside.'
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
17. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Digital+Vomit · 2012-01-16 00:55 · 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.
18. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Alsee · 2012-01-16 02:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It is not like this issue is something covered on Fox and MSNBC and CNN.
  Actually I did see CNN run a segment on SOPA. I wish I had a tape of it to give a better evaluation of the segment, but I'll give the basic impression I had from it. It seemed rather slanted to me. They spend most of the segment talking about how SOPA was a law to protect American jobs against teh evilz international criminals, mentioned that there was controversy over the bill between the Big Media companies and the Big Internet companies, and they wrapped up the segment with a rather weak comment against the bill by one of the opponents.
  It seems like 90% of the people who learn about SOPA online come to the conclusion that it's a seriously bad law. My guess is that most people who saw the segment on CNN would have considered the controversy pretty boring and trivial, and probably gotten the impression that the bill was pretty much neutral or perhaps beneficial.
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
19. Re:They can say they oppose it, by MysteriousPreacher · 2012-01-16 02:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It is rather pointless. The petition to have "under God" removed from the pledge is a good example of how seriously they take these things.
  https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/edit-pledge-allegiance-remove-phrase-under-god/v5J2fC6z?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=response&utm_campaign=undergod
  In this petition, it's asked that the phrase "under God" be removed, as it's arguably a violation of the first amendment. The first issue was the person chosen to respond to this request: Joshua DuBois, the head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Slight bias here, given that DuBois heads-up a department that was itself a flagrant violation of separation of church and state. His answer was an exercise in contradictory hand waving and trying to deny that it's stupid to that a multi-cultural nation, with a pretty strong constitutional protection against religion infecting government, should keep a 1950s addition to the pledge that says that the country is subservient to the Christian god. Yeah, Hindus and stuff are welcome in America, so long as they accept that their elephant guy and the chick with the arms are not running shit here. Personally I don't see the pledge as being a pressing issue - there are far more egregious violations of the first amendment, such as the tax breaks that churches get just by virtue of being religious.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
why did this shitty summary get posted??? by sribe · 2012-01-15 10:49 · 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!
1. Re:why did this shitty summary get posted??? by bonch · 2012-01-15 10:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Fear not, for it was already submitted yesterday with a direct link to the White House's statement. As stated then, the White House gave itself leeway to approve the legislation if the key objections were addressed, so don't think this means the legislation will go away.
Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... by bs0d3 · 2012-01-15 10:55 · Score: 4, Informative

nah his blog was vague enough to make both sides happy, he never says that he opposes SOPA
Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... by modmans2ndcoming · 2012-01-15 11:10 · Score: 3, Informative

where is the WH statement vague? They support legislation to stop foreign piracy on the internet. They do not support all the moronic crap in SOPA that would allow entrenched business interests to shut down any site they want by nodding at an ISP via breaking the way the internet is built to work.
Under the SOPA costgo, EBay, Costco can be shut by Joe_Dragon · 2012-01-15 11:11 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111005/10082416208/monster-cable-claims-ebay-craigslist-costco-sears-are-rogue-sites.shtml
monster cable may even try to take down monoprice as well.
Not really by Mathinker · 2012-01-15 11:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
> Is this an example of our 3-part government actually working as intended?
No, not really. "As intended" would mean that:
- The branches of government would be trying to optimize for the good of society.
- The public would be informed enough to think about what was good for them in the long term, and vote accordingly.
Instead we have:
- The public is excessively swayed by whatever they see in the popular media.
- The branches of government optimize for maximizing their chances of re-election.
Re:Dupe by artor3 · 2012-01-15 11:26 · Score: 5, Informative

The NDAA has to be signed into law. It funds the entire military. If he vetoed it, we'd spend the rest of the year watching non-stop ads about how he took away healthcare from wounded veterans and refused to give guns to troops on the front lines. He'd lose reelection in the biggest landslide in history, because frankly, the average voter is woefully uninformed. So to say he "willingly" signed it into law is a vast oversimplification.
SOPA isn't a big omnibus bill. If he opposes provisions in it, he can veto it without all the collateral damage. And it's not like there were specific things he opposed that could be taken out. It was a pretty broad statement: "we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet." You'd basically need a complete rewrite to avoid doing any of those things.
Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... by Runaway1956 · 2012-01-15 11:26 · 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
Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... by artor3 · 2012-01-15 11:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

It was passed by a veto proof majority. Refusing to sign it would have been an empty gesture, and would have allowed Republicans to run ads against him stating that he vetoed health care for wounded veterans.
So no, his point does not stand. And FYI, when someone uses the phrase "Supreme Leader Baraq Hussein Sotero", there is no "maybe" about their racism.
This is the beginning of the new government by Okian+Warrior · 2012-01-15 11:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

No, this is not our 3-part government working as expected, it's the new style of government aborning. With the rise of the internet and ubiquitous communications, the public at last has a way to influence government decisions.
We see it here in its early form.
At the moment the effect is fairly weak - Obama is only taking a position because he wants public support for reelection.
But despite self-serving motives, he is taking notice and he is opposing legislation, largely because of widespread grassroots opposition.
This will be the wave of the future. If community opinion, widely distributed and echoed on the internet, can presage community action, it will become increasingly difficult for political corruption. Corporations and politicians will be unable to do "bad" things for fear of being discovered by hackers, publicized by social media, and punished by public backlash.
It's the new boss. Curiously different from the old boss.
1. Re:This is the beginning of the new government by jmerlin · 2012-01-15 12:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The entire point of the President's veto capability was specifically for cases where the executive branch disagrees with the legislative. What the big corporate interests paid for when they paid to have Obama made president (and would've been the same of McCain, it's easy to make people think they have a choice when you control both of the choices) was a president who appeals to the people but really doesn't stand in the way of their majority ownership of the legislative branch.
  
  Unfortunately, tyranny has never gone silently, as you suggest. When (not if) revolution happens in our country, there will be consequences for those involved, and there will be blood. It will not be a silent revolution done over the internets. The fact that now 4 different bills have been proposed and have "approval" from the executive and legislative branches that would permit wholesale censorship of the internet should convince you of that.
2. Re:This is the beginning of the new government by jmerlin · 2012-01-15 14:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Billions of people worldwide do work they don't particularly like for money. For small sums of money, too. The hundreds of millions of campaign contributions I can very easily see as public record given to these people followed by their $700,000+ /yr jobs in the private sector after they retire can't possibly indicate that the same applies. Given enough money, most people do what they're told. This is completely valid and actually correct thinking. The tinfoil hat is when you talk about the corporations planning some kind of NWO, but really it's about control to kill competition and remain absurdly profitable with govt. assistance. It's called tyranny. You might want to read up in some history books.
Re:Wikimedia still discussing by symbolset · 2012-01-15 11:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually I misread that. Sentiment is running in favor of full blackout - no posting, editing or reading of articles for all of English Wikipedia for the full 12-hour period Wednesday, by a ratio of 5:1 over the soft blackout option. There is also support for a blackout of all of Wiki worldwide, but just a wee bit less. And it's approved by the legal team. It looks like Wednesday's going to be a no-Wikipedia day.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Dupe by artor3 · 2012-01-15 12:02 · Score: 3, Informative

If he vetoed it, it would have passed anyway, because it was passed by a veto proof majority.
Please at least try to learn about these issues before coming to your conclusions. Congress would not have been forced to do anything.
Re:Dupe by kroyd · 2012-01-15 13:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Or, if you pay a bit of attention: The indefinite detention paragraphs are most likely illegal under the US constitution. By noting his reservations the comming court cases (appeals all the way up to the supreme court) will be quite a bit simpler. After all, it is the executive branch (where the president is), which has to prosecute in favour of the law, and the president stating reservations is a boon to any defense attorney. This is obvious, and has been covered in the news, but hey, most people complaning doesn't seem to know what the NDAA act really is.
The court cases, in case you don't know, will be judged by the judiciary part of the US system. Of course, if you and the republicans get their way the next president will be a republican, and the one or two new supreme court justices which will be appointed in the next presidential period will be really, really conservative. Then, the indefinite detention will most likely become law.
I'm not an American, but this should be obvious even with the most cursory glance.
Re:Obama supporter addresses this issue... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-15 13:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

You may not have noticed, by the Obama administration is full of people who have ties to Hollywood. What reason is there to think that he will not sign the bill into law?

Wake up -- the Democrats are just as quick to ignore individual rights as the Republicans are, they just have a different (but not even close to disjoint) set of corporations that they prefer to give hand-outs to.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... by Grave · 2012-01-15 13:54 · 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.
Oh wow. Watch what they DO, not what they SAY. by Colin+Smith · 2012-01-15 14:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Good lord. The public is owned by the media, they vote the way they are told to vote. They are told red/blue, black/white, oh look Dancing with the Stars!
In the meantime the real power buy their influence in advance. By the time red/blue puppets get into power it's a done deal:
Obama (blue choice of 08):
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Romney (red choice of 12):
Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250

--
Deleted
Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-15 15:14 · 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.
Free Market Failure or Success? by Ouchie · 2012-01-15 18:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

When will the media companies and government realize that the proliferation of piracy is not the internet it is the outrageous prices they try to extract. The fact is that if they didn't keep trying to sell every stinking CD at $17 when we all know most aren't worth $5. Sell the product at what the market wants to pay for it, if you don't then the incentive to steal goes way up.
There have been several recent examples of artists releasing their work at reasonable prices with no DRM. Rather than being ripped off by the public at large, their fans have put down the money.
Louis CK has made over $1,000,000 off his most recent video. You can download it without DRM for $5. And yes he is Hilarious.

--
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." ~Ozzy Osborne