MPAA Dismisses COICA Free Speech Concerns 300
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.'"
Mr. Bob, (Score:5, Informative)
I would like you to review the text of the 1st Amendment:
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 [wikipedia.org] of habeas corpus [wikipedia.org] to better understand the Suspension Clause [wikipedia.org]:
Of course, I already know your rebuttal: Murphy's Golden Rule [murphys-laws.com].
Editors!!! (Score:2, Informative)
the power to shut down any domestic, or block and foreign website it so chooses
Editors of /. take a little time reading what gets posted
Of course they'd say that (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it is true. The 1st Amendment of the US allows for ... let me look it up...
"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"
Okay, so the part about religion doesn't apply unless there's an esoteric branch of Hinduism that allows for the reincarnation of bits as MP3s.
Freedom of speech...really, when you get right down to it, when you download music, that's a form of censorship. You're taking money away from the MPAA, and that's money they use to bribe congressmen and senators and presidents. How can they redress the Government when they don't have any money?
For freedom of the press, how important is it to be able for the media to access the Internet? You have newspapers and television and radio. Admittedly, half of those are official government propaganda machines and the other half is owned by media conglomerates, but the idea is still there.
Assembly? For online stuff? Come on, it's not like you could use something like twitter to tell the outside world about how things are going in your country.
Pisano ducked the question. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
It's not a law, or even a treaty (Score:1, Informative)
> 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.
Unfortunately this won't be a law, or even a treaty. It's an executive agreement and so therefore the 1st amendment may not apply.
Re:Mr. Bob, (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is this a joke (Score:1, Informative)
'tis MAFIAA: Music And Film Industry Associations of America.
Re:Mr. Bob, (Score:2, Informative)
I think you mean proper noun. If you're going to poke at someone's grammar, you might want to know what you're talking about before hitting submit
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Informative)
We certainly shouldn't blindly trust proposed free speech and privacy regulatory changes.
People will thing it is personal privacy being protected, but we'll see corporations wanting "privacy" as if they were individuals. AT&T is already looking for less transparency.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/eff-brief-privacy-protections-corporations [eff.org]
Re:Mr. Bob, (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No, it's Off-Topic (Score:4, Informative)
I know grammar/spelling/composition critique is a time-honored /. pastime, but I definitely consider all such posts categorically off-topic. Boring at best, and a premeditated attempt to derail discussion with minutiae at worst.
But when you reach the point where a summary/article/post becomes ambiguous, incoherent or just plain wrong it is entirely reasonable to question it.
If you're reading a simple sentence and you have to go over it a couple of times to work out what the author was intending to say, that is simply rude. Also, it undermines whatever point the author was trying to make, as it destroys confidence in the writer.