Citizens United is 2 — But Who Isn’t Buying In?

Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown limit outside ads in their Senate campagins

Citizens United, the decision that lets unlimited corporate funds into elections, is two years old. What does it have to show for itself?

Well — let’s crunch some numbers:

Between the 2008 and 2010 elections, spending by independent groups, including corporations, increased approximately 130% from $119.9 million to $280 million, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.

Almost 80 Super PACs spent more than $60 million calling for election or defeat of federal candidates. Bear in mind Super PACs weren’t even formed until the summer of 2010 and it wasn’t even a presidential election year!

And just since the beginning of the GOP primaries, OpenSecrets.org reports 12 super PACs operated by supporters of a specific presidential candidate have spent more than $22 million on ads and other expenditures!

Because of this, and the negative impact many believe this decision has had ( and will continue to have), Representative Keith Ellison has introduced the Get Corporate Money out of Politics Constitutional Amendment (H. J. RES. 92).

The bill reaffirms the importance of a level playing field and authorizes Congress and the States to regulate election contributions of for-profit corporations. While protecting the freedom of the press, the Get Corporate Money out of Politics Amendment clearly states that corporations are not people. They do not vote, they do not serve in office, and they should not be able to buy our elections.

While I could happily spend all day (or all year) talking about the impact of Citizens United on campaigning and therefore the entire American political system,  let’s take a look at how some people are trying to get corporate money, and negative campaigns out of politics.

One of Gingrich’s supporters,  Miriam Adelson, wife of Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, has attached a caveat along her $5 million donation — the money must be used for ads that support Gingrich and not attack ads.

And in another rebellion against negative advertising, in fact outside ads of any kind,Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown have reached an agreement attempting to limit outside ads in their Massachusetts Senate race campaigns.

The fundamental idea is a pledge by each campaign to make charitable donations when outside groups run paid advertisements. Brown said his campaign would to donate 50 percent of the value of any spending on his behalf to a charity of Warren’s choice, and Warren would have to do the same to a charity of his choosing if he was targeted with an outside ad benefiting her.

Warren has also suggested that they sign a joint letter “explicitly notifying known third party groups…of the agreement.” She also hopes to officially notify broadcasters in the hope of getting their help, and “ensuring that the agreement not only cover express advocacy ads, but all paid public advertisements that seek to promote or attack either candidate or campaign.”

So, all is not doom and gloom in the post-Citizens United world. But no doubt more questions will present themselves when the national election starts in full.

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in 1st amendment, election, government, supreme court | Tagged , , , , , , , |

Leave a comment

President Says State of the Union is “Strong”, GOP says State of the Union is “Grave”. Who’s Right?

The president delivers a speech focusing on jobs, education and nation builiding

The ideals of 2008’s pre-presidency have been replaced with a real understanding of the realities of the American democracy and the politics of the Washington system. In last night’s address, President Obama came out fighting, ready for the coming election battle. As of last night, it is no longer Game Over, as it has been recently, but Game On.

Focusing on education, infrastructure, job creation, and an economy fair for everyone — all within a renewed examination of the proper role of government — President Obama gave us a first-look into his re-election campaign language.

While sections of last night’s speech sounded very much like the post-partisan president being discussed at the moment (most notably in the New Yorker article from this week), Mr. Obama was critical of Washington and a cynical Congress.  There were a come hard edges in his address:

Nothing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.

The greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year didn’t come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco? I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad — and it seems to get worse every year.

The president also vowed to “fight obstruction with action” and that he would work “with or without this Congress.” Of course though, everything would work better if everyone worked together and an active Congress would put bills on his desk, and send him suggestions for signature.

As Chris Cillizza noted, the President finally realised that “the only way to effectively deal with Republicans was show them that he was willing to talk tougher and push harder than they were.”

Here is a little bit of what he said. To read the full transcript, complete with audio, see the New York Times article.

On the Economy

We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits….

On Business

Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

On Innovation

We should support everyone who’s willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.

Innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed.

On Wall Street

You are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail – because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again.

Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.

On Wealth

We need to change our tax code…Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.

And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

On Energy

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.

On Education

Teachers matter…let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

Tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

On Government

Neither party has been blameless in these [disruptive] tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote…I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: that Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.

Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana presented the official GOP response. Undermining the positive tone of the president’s speech, Governor Daniels raised the issues of growing unemployment, the worsening federal debt, and how “a government as big and bossy as this one is maintained on the backs of the middle class, and those who hope to join it.”

In contrast to the president’s suggestions of obstruction and poor behaviour in Congress, Mr. Daniels argued that “it’s not fair and it’s not true for the President to attack Republicans in Congress as obstacles…They and they alone have passed bills to reduce borrowing, reform entitlements, and encourage new job creation, only to be shot down time and time again by the President and his Democratic Senate allies.”

Then in what seemed like notes of agreement with the administration, Governor Daniels asserted the need for a simpler tax system with “fewer loopholes and lower rates”. And he continued to argue that we must all “unite to save the safety net…preserving Medicare and Social Security unchanged and untouched for those now in or near retirement,” while also building a “new affordable safety net so future Americans are protected, too.”

But, the overall tone of the speech was one that pointed to the president’s broken promises, failed plans, and his “constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others.”

Of course, the men hoping to battle with the president this election year also had something to say about his speech. Rick Santorum echoed Governor Daniels calling the president “Divider-in-chief”; Paul suggested that“President Obama’s ‘job creation’ policies amount to little more than continuing to allow government bureaucrats to pick winners and losers”; Romney highlighted the use of “memorable phrases” in a “nice speech” but the absence of “hard numbers”; and Gingrich concluded that “economic growth and prosperity is not really at the top of his agenda. He will always prefer a food stamp economy to a paycheck economy and call it fair.”

For better or worse, last night marked the official start to this national election. Let’s hope that, as David Horsey argues, that the State of the Union speech “was a reminder that the real Obama is not the same as the imaginary Obama being attacked ever day” by his opposition.

In order to have an election that leads to a mandate for governing, it needs to be based on real issues, real policies and real results. Both sides must clearly lay out their contrasting positions and let the voters decide.

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in government, policy, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Leave a comment

The Fight for Internet Freedom is Not Over Yet

Protests erupt in Poland over ACTA and its wide-ranging global provisions

While SOPA and PIPA might be on their way to the cutting-room floor after effective netroots action last week,  these bills are not the only laws threatening an open Internet.

Meet ACTA — the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Signed by the Obama administration last year (with no need for Congressional approval) the agreement encompasses not only the U.S. but most of the developed world including all of the EU, Switzerland, Japan and Brazil.

With discussions held largely behind closed doors, only now are we finding out what this new acronym has in store for us; only now are the countries of Europe taking up arms — most recently in Poland.

ACTA is an international copyright treaty with terms very similar to SOPA and PIPA regarding Internet freedoms, and the aim to create a new global IP enforcement institution. The legislation also appears to move beyond the Internet, cracking down on drug and food patents in a way some say threatens local farmers, food independence, and access to medication.

The treaty has been widely criticized for its secret negotiations, bypassing national parliaments and the checks and balances in existing international organizations. What this means on the ground is that there are still so many unknowns and it is not nearly clear enough how the agreement will effect US laws.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D, OR) questioned the power of the executive to enter into the agreement:

It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law…But regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law … the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress’ authority, absent congressional approval.

It is possible, yes, that ACTA will not affect US law, but given the lack of transparency it is difficult to say anything for sure. It is also hard to assess how international cooperation and coordination on the issues discussed in ACTA might affect existing international laws and standards.

As E.D. Kain comments for Forbes: “Probably the biggest problem with this trade agreement is how little we all know. There’s something worrisome about governments pursuing these sorts of agreements behind closed doors – even if, at the end of the day, they don’t actually effect existing US laws.”

If ACTA does turn out to look for the kind of changes in Internet governance suggested by SOPA and PIPA — whether in the U.S. or in Europe and the wider world — will the Internet resume its position at the front line?

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in 1st amendment, government, internet, IP law | Tagged , , , , , , , , |

Leave a comment

Can Presidents Ignore the Supreme Court?

The most recent subject of Newt Gingrich's criticism is the judicial branch of the U.S. government

The latest news from the GOP primary circuit is that South Carolina winner and rising star Newt Gingrich has vowed to put the judiciary back in its place. Part of what this means is ignoring Supreme Court decisions he does not agree with: “If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, the president can in fact ignore it.”

If he were elected, Gingrich expects frequent showdowns with the Supreme Court. On his very first day in charge, the outspoken candidate pledged he would order the military to defy the Supreme Court ruling extending legal rights to terrorist suspects. In what has become known as the Boumediene decision, suspects held in Guantanamo are given the right the challenge their detentions in US courts. This, in Gingrich’s opinion, is “an outrageous extension of the court in to the commander-in-chief’s role.”

As a self-described historian, Gingrich believes the Supreme Court is the least powerful and least accountable arm of government, concluding his argument by citing historic precedent for presidents overriding judicial decisions — starting with Abraham Lincoln’s refusal to accept the 1846 Dred Scott decision denying citizenship to former slaves, and then outright flouting it with his Emancipation Proclamation.

But despite the precedent of Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt, Gingrich still faces the seemingly insurmountable argument of the 1803  Marbury v. Madison decision. In it, as all first year law students are taught, the Supreme Court ruled that its own interpretations of the Constitution prevail over those of Congress — until, of course, the Supreme Court overrules its precedent, or we the people amend the Constitution.

In Gingrich’s view Marbury v. Madison has been incorrectly read. While he accepts that federal courts have the power of judicial review, he does not believe that judicial reiew entails judicial supremacy, binding to Congress and the Executive.  Instead, each branch of government has the power to read the Constitution as they wish. From this, Gingrich asserts that Congress should be able to impeach justices for misconduct, and force judges to testify in front of both the Senate and the House in order to explain contentious decisions.

But, as Michael Dorf argues:

Most twenty-first century Americans react with horror at the Jeffersonian Congress’ treatment of the Federalist judges —  even though we may agree with Jefferson on the underlying merits.

By proposing impeachment for judges and Justices who issue unpopular decisions, and by generally seeking to resurrect long-discarded means by which political actors can control the courts, Newt Gingrich is playing with fire.  It is not by accident that after World War II, nearly every democratic country in the world began to follow the lead of the United States in assigning to judges the role of policing the outer bounds of government’s legitimate authority.  By invoking our distant past as precedent for a neutered judiciary, Gingrich shows that he has not learned from the history he has studied.

So, while the successful prosecution of the Gingrich view is improbable, this argument brings us back to the broader issue under examination this election year: the proper role of each arm of government, and the careful balance of power designed by the Constitution.

The danger of what is suggested here is a judiciary beholden to Congress and the President, where decisions and constitutional interpretations of laws would change term by term, eroding public trust in the legal system and its impartiality.

In any society, and especially in one that sets the system of checks and balances on power at the heart of its democracy, most historians will argue that judges should be free to make decisions, without thought to policy and partisan belief.

While Gingrich believes that the judiciary is the least accountable arm of government because justices are not directly elected by the people, he overlooks the fact that judges are appointed and vetted by elected officials. Moreover, the supreme court is the only branch of government that has to write formal arguments, using the logic of the Constitution, in order to support their decisions.

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in constitution, politics, supreme court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , |

Leave a comment

GPS Tracking is Illegal Without a Warrant Rules the U.S. Supreme Court

Next time Hank wants to Use GPS to Track a Suspect in Breaking Bad, he'd better get a warrant.

If you’re a fan of the television series “Breaking Bad” you know the basic script for the important GPS tracking / 4th Amendment search and seizure case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court today.

Like the fictional DEA agent “Hank,” in the show, police in the real life case of United States vs. Jones, secretly attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to the vehicle of a drug suspect named Antoine Jones to track his vehicle every day, 24 hours a day, as he drove around the Washington, D.C. area.  After his conviction, he appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C.) ruled in his favor that the law enforcement agents should have had a warrant.

So, today the Supreme Court also gave a big thumbs up to privacy and civil liberty advocates by unanimously upholding the prior ruling of the D.C. Court of Appeals.  Here is a good early analysis of the decision from Lyle Denniston in Scotusblog:

Amid a disagreement about what a privacy invasion meant in 1791, but with a strong embrace of privacy in the electronic age, the Supreme Court on Monday suggested that police probably should get a warrant before they physically attach an electronic monitor — like a GPS — to a car or truck, while leaving some doubt about how long such a device may be used, and about what kinds of suspected crimes allow its use. In effect, the Court seemed to have launched years of new lawsuits to sort it all out.

Denniston goes on to note the complexity of the court’s “unanimous” decision.  Here’s the “unanimous” part:

The Court flatly rejected the government’s argument that it was simply not a search, in the constitutional sense, to physically — and secretly — attach a small GPS tracker on the underside of the car used by a man, Antoine Jones, who was a principal target of an investigation into a drug-running operation in Washington, D.C., and its suburbs…

However, he says, the Court considered, but, failed to really resolve the privacy issues surrounding all of the new “Orwellian” electronic methods of gathering information about people that the Court has shown an increasing interest in debating.  This left relatively narrow unanimity in the case:

Given the complexity of the voting pattern, and what the votes actually supported or failed to support, it nonetheless was clear that the Court was unanimous in one respect.  It upheld the result — but no more than the result — of a D.C. Circuit Court ruling that Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.

Declan Mccullagh also makes an interesting argument for the privacy rights impact of the decision:

(The Court’s) reasoning suggests police also need to obtain warrants before tracking the locations of cell phones and mobile devices, another contentious topic currently before the courts, said Greg Nojeim, an attorney at the Center for Democracy and Technology.

A careful look at the way the justices ruled today suggests that “a warrant would be required before cell phones could be turned into tracking devices,” Nojeim said.

At first glance, this certainly looks like the right direction for the law to take.  We will dig into the opinion and discuss in more detail in the future.

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in 4th Amendment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Leave a comment

Hashtag Power – Netroots Action Erodes Congressional Support for SOPA and PIPA


Is this the coming of age moment for direct political action online?

This week’s flexing of political muscle by Internet giants like Wikipedia, Google, Twitter and Facebook, as well as thousands of individual netizens may be a tipping point for political clout wielded via direct action online.

As we reported, over the weekend, the White House got the ball rolling by announcing in a blog post that the administration would not support key provisions of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the senate version, called the Protect-IP Act (PIPA).  Then, Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, declared that the Internet encyclopedia would go offline on Wednesday, which it did, in protest to the bills.

Well, it is working.  If, like me, you monitor the #sopa and #pipa Twitter feeds, yesterday your screen looked like a day trader’s on a day when the market goes up or down a thousand points.  In other words, there was a new tweet on those subjects about every second or less.  The LA Times says that Google is reporting that over”4.5 Million people added their names to the company’s anti-SOPA petition” on Wednesday alone.

Politicians tend to listen to voices as loud as this.  Marco Rubio, Republican senator from Florida and one of the PIPA sponsors, posted this on his Facebook page:

“I have decided to withdraw my support for the Protect IP Act. Furthermore, I encourage Senator Reid to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor. Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet.”

Joining him has been a bi-partisan stampede of politicians running away from the now controversial copyright enforcement bills.  Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina opposed via Twitter, as did Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Representatives Lee Terry of Nebraska and Ben Quayle of Arizona.  In all, nearly 30 members of Congress have already switched positions, clearly in response to the grass roots (“netroots”) action online.

The two political parties have had a difficult time coming together on big issues like health care, the debt limit, payroll taxes and more.  We have written consistently about this era of “broken government.”  Perhaps the Internet will become the medium for the type of interactive democracy that holds politicians accountable to the popular will in a way that will result in more bi-partisan action.  We’ll see.

Related articles

 

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in 1st amendment, administration, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Leave a comment

City of London Wins Occupy Eviction Battle — Appeal to Follow

Despite losing in the Hight Court, an appeal brings hope for protesters

After three months in the London winter, the tents must go; the UK High Court ruled today that Occupy London can be lawfully evicted from the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral.

Since October, when the protesters entrenched themselves,  through the five day hearing last month to the verdict today, the City of London has waged a very public campaign to remove the Occupiers.

While the London demonstrations have not been anywhere near as confrontational as those in New York or Oakland, City of London officials have been making the same pleas concerning sanitation, safety and vandalism in the camp.

From the other side, Articles 10 and 11 from the European Convention on Human Rights, the rights of expression and assembly, have been cited. Lawyers for the protesters argued during the trial that the case was significant because of the “recent phenomena of the peaceful, but semi-permanent, occupation of civic spaces to highlight issues of political concern where the occupation is the very nature of the protest.”

But, just as judges swept aside First Amendment protections here in the U.S., Articles 1o and 11 are subject to similar restrictions. In other words, the rights are not absolute and courts do need to determine the extent to which landlords can enforce their rights of possession.

The tension for the courts to resolve is that which lies between the rights of people using the public space, the rights of local authorities and the rights of the public land owner — such as the church and City of London — against the legitimate right of protest.

In his decision, Justice Lindblom plainly ruled in favor of the City and local authorities: “The factors for granting relief in this case easily outweigh the factors against.”

“The extent and duration of the obstruction of the highway, and the public nuisance inherent in that obstruction, would itself warrant making an order for possession and granting injunctive and declaratory relief.

“So too would the effect of the camp on the Article 9 rights of worshippers in the cathedral. So would the effect on visits to the cathedral. So would the other private nuisance caused to the Church. So would the planning harm to which I have referred.

“Adding all of these things together, one has, I think, an unusually persuasive case on the positive side of the balance.”

Justice Lindblom did, however, pay tribute to the protesters generally and “to all who participated in the hearing for the courteous and helpful way in which they conducted themselves.”

The protesters now have seven days to consider an appeal before the City of London moves in to enforce the legal eviction.

Early signs suggest that an appeal will take place, drawing the issue out over many more  months.

But, when a final decision is made, whether the Occupy London encampment ends peacefully or fraught with the threat of violence, the impact of the Occupy movement, the message it carries, and the attention it will continue to demand — as we see here in the United States — will not melt quietly away with the last tent.

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in international law, local government, occupy | Tagged , , , , , , , |

Leave a comment

Commercial Sites Find Other Ways to Support Wikipedia’s SOPA Strike Because They Have Customers, Not Just Users

Wikipedia's public appeal has a few hundred sites following suit to protest Internet censorship

While Hundreds of sites have pledged to go dark at midnight tonight, protesting the proposed anti-piracy bills in Congress, big .com sites like Google and Twitter won’t. The called for strike is happening despite the news from the White House that they are opposing key elements of the pending legislation, essentially putting all current versions to bed.

SOPA (Stop Internet Piracy Act), and its compatriot in the House, Protect-IP ACT, while supported by big music and the Hollywood Titans, are opposed by free speech advocates and most of the tech sector – most notably, Google, and now it seems, a whole raft of dynamic Internet sites.

The acts are called out for their heavy-handedness, their limited due process and the power they allocate which will unfairly and unconstitutionally curtail freedom of speech.

It is because of these oversights and the potential for abuse that sites like Wikipedia, Reddit, BoingBoing and Cheezburger will be going on strike. This is black out as an act of political speech.

From the LA Times: “This is an extraordinary action for our community to take,” said Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in a statement Monday announcing Wikipedia’s decision to go dark. “While we regret having to prevent the world from having access to Wikipedia for even a second, we simply cannot ignore the fact that SOPA and PIPA endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, and set a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world.”

These sites, however, have no commercial obligations. Commercial sites like Google cannot so readily cut off their service — just like the many businesses in “Occupied” cities that remained open during the demonstrations. But, little should this stop commercial sites from involvement in direct action such as this. Google said that while its search engine will continue to function, a link will be placed on the homepage to highlight its opposition to the twin bills.

“Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet,” Samantha Smith, a Google spokeswoman, said. “So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our U.S. home page.”

There are some loud voices sending a powerful message about how the Internet should be governed: “If you want an Internet where human rights, free speech and the rule of law are not subordinated to the entertainment industry’s profits, I hope you’ll join us,” said Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing.

We should remember, however,  that this strike action is not, and will not be, the only way Internet sites can voice their displeasure. Twitter, for example, while an opponent of the bills, will not be joining the action. Twitter’s CEO Dick Costolo confirmed in a message that “Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish”.

We’ll be withholding judgement until we see the kind of backlash that arises, both for and against this direct action. The benefit of hindsight is everything.

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in business, internet, legal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , |

Leave a comment

Obama Administration Takes the Right Approach to Internet Policing and Says No to SOPA

English: Obama’s CTO Aneesh Chopra.

US Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra helps put the brakes on SOPA

Good news out of Washington, D.C.  In a post titled “Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet,” members of the Obama Administration, including Chief Technology Officer, Aneesh Chopra have responded by opposing key elements of the pending legislation, “all but killing the current versions,” according to NY Times reporter Edward Wyatt.

From the White House:

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.  Read more…

SOPA, the so-called Stop Intenet Piracy Act, and its cousin, the “Protect-IP Act,” have been strongly criticized by key Internet companies and leaders, including Google, Yahoo and others.  We concur with the opinion that the bills pose significant First Amendment challenges to freedom of speech, among several other potential pitfalls.

The post is published at www.whitehouse.gov, in response to a We the People petition called “VETO the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information.”

The action also demonstrates an effective engagement of the online petition process.  We hope to see more interactive democracy like this in the future.

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in 1st amendment, administration | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Leave a comment

CES, Las Vegas, January 2012

Armed with a camera, a voice recorder and some comfortable shoes, Rocket Lawyer media took on CES this week in Las Vegas.

{lang: 'ar'}
Posted in Technology, trade show, video games |

Leave a comment