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.'"

21 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 artor3 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 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
    7. 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.

    8. Re:They can say they oppose it, by PyroMosh · · 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.
    9. Re:They can say they oppose it, by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    10. 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!

    1. Re:why did this shitty summary get posted??? by bonch · · 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.

  3. Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... by bs0d3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    nah his blog was vague enough to make both sides happy, he never says that he opposes SOPA

  4. Under the SOPA costgo, EBay, Costco can be shut by Joe_Dragon · · 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.

  5. Re:Dupe by artor3 · · 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.

  6. 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
  7. This is the beginning of the new government by Okian+Warrior · · 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Oh wow. Watch what they DO, not what they SAY. by Colin+Smith · · 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
  10. 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.