×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

315 comments

The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oregon (5, Insightful)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291640)

The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oregon. Senator Stephen Conroy of Australia, take note.

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291970)

If you are looking for Band Name Handbag Shoes Jacket Jeans Boots, welcome to our online store http://www.365buyonline.com . I appreciate it!

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg (2)

allusionist (983106) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291996)

I live in New York and plan on sending a letter of thanks to Sen. Wyden (even if I'm not convinced of his reasons for stopping this, it still desperately needed to be stopped) as well as letters to my own Senators. Will it do anything? No, of course not. Will it have an impact if many of us do? Probably not, but it's certainly worth a few minutes of each of our time to at least try.

The decline into an Orwellian state has been slowed down, at least a little.

So confused (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292046)

Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

Re:So confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292096)

Rightly or wrongly, the difference that Slashdot perceives is that COICA enables the government to censor, whereas net neutrality enables the government to prevent censorship by others.

Re:So confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292110)

Do you eat poop? I already know you ate eggs for breakfast, and both involve eating.

Re:So confused (5, Insightful)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292182)

Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

I can't speak for every Slashdotter, but...

Net Neutrality isn't about the government controlling the internet, it's about preventing corporations using leverage to control the internet and/or hold bandwidth hostage for competitive advantage or to inhibit the flow of free information.

As for being against policies that stop policies, it's not that I'm for piracy. It's just that legislation, policies, and industry practices to reduce piracy have been ineffective, will probably never be effective, hurt legitimate content consumers more than it hurts the pirates, and continuously erode what we can do under Fair Use. That's not to mention that they create ways for corporations to try to financially ruin individuals that are accused of infringing on a rather small scale, even if the evidence that they have done so is shaky. The people are abused, and even content providers of public domain works are often caught in the crossfire. And all of this is done in the name of stopping piracy (whose actual impact is really hard to know) of copyrighted (for way too damn long) works.

I think that these views are entirely consistent. We don't want corporations and governments meddling with our legitimate access to content and information.

Re:So confused (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292354)

Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

When the government makes regulation that censors the Internet, that's bad. When the government makes regulation that keeps corporations from censoring the Internet, that's good. Censorship is evil, freedom is good. It's that simple.

A car analogy: If the government made a law that prevented you from driving to California, that would be very bad. If a toll road operator forced you to tell your destination and charged extra if it was California, and the government would bitchslap them for that, it would be very good.

Good is good, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone, and evil is evil, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone. This is an entirely consistent position.

Re:So confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292448)

I think I get what you are saying, but I'm still a little bit confused. Which one is the good guy? The government or the corporations?

Anbody want to (2, Interesting)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291648)

trash talk the filibuster [wikipedia.org] now?

Re:Anbody want to (4, Informative)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291664)

"George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. "

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm [senate.gov]

Re:Anbody want to (5, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291830)

"George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. "

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm [senate.gov]

Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.

That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.

Re:Anbody want to (2, Insightful)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291858)

That is the first time Ive seen anyone ever explain that. Thanks, I think anything that removes political contributions to elected officials is a good thing.

Re:Anbody want to (2, Insightful)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292492)

I think anything that removes political contributions to elected officials is a good thing.

So you don't believe in the freedom of speech? Because that is what barring contributions is, silencing speech. As a low income individual I don't enjoy as many ways to spread my speech as others but if I can join others who feel or think the same then we can all contribute pooling our resources to get our message out.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to (4, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291904)

The bigger question is, how the hell do we get rid of the elected-senator system and go back to how it was before?? I can't see much chance of repealing the relevant Amendment. You'd hear all manner of propaganda wailing about how those evil pro-appointed-senator freaks wanted to take away your right to vote and to thereby "control" the gov't.

Remember too that the Founders *designed* the system to promote gridlock, under the excellent and well-demonstrated theory that gov't rushing into ANY action was a Bad Thing. Having the entire system dependent on campaign strategies and contributions defeats that all by itself (everything is pulling in the same basic direction: getting re-elected).

Re:Anbody want to (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291934)

The answer is a constitutional amendment that changes it back. Personally I don't want it to go completely back, I'd like to see the constitution changed to allow each state to decide whether to have the Senators appointed by the house delegation from the state or elected via popular vote.

For states such as CA, TX or NY et al., it would make it a lot harder to buy Senators, but in cases of states like Wyoming it's actually harder to buy a Senator now than it was prior to the 17th amendment being enacted.

Re:Anbody want to (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292088)

The answer is a constitutional amendment that changes it back.

Yeah, first you have to get them to pay attention to the constitution, though.

Re:Anbody want to (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292080)

Remember too that the Founders *designed* the system to promote gridlock, under the excellent and well-demonstrated theory that gov't rushing into ANY action was a Bad Thing.

Yeah... but also remember that one of the first things done was an usurpation of power, an end-run around article V, in the first congress - the authorization of border searches outside the bounds of the enumerated powers (and just a few years later, also in violation of the 4th amendment.)

The problem with the constitution is (a) there's no effective way to enforce it, and (b) there are no "teeth" to punish those who violate their oaths. Consequently, congress often rushes into things, some of which are extremely ill-advised, not to mention constitutionally unauthorized, and these things become law. Lately, the "for the children" and "TERRORISTS!" are the usual reasons for these lightning moves into moron territory, but it seems there's always something they're using for justification for high-speed blundering.

Re:Anbody want to (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292100)

The lack of enforceability and teeth is indeed a problem, perhaps THE problem, unless you define a violation as treason. I'm not sure that's a bad solution, actually.

Re:Anbody want to (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292118)

The bigger question is, how the hell do we get rid of the elected-senator system and go back to how it was before??

No, the bigger question is: "How do we get people to read history books?", so they understand why the old system was worse than what we have today. Democracy is not perfect, but if you really think that eliminating it is a good idea, you are an idiot. Please name a single country without an elected legislature where the citizens have greater rights than Americans.

Re:Anbody want to (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292256)

We can't really go back to the Founders' patrician system because "duty" has become completely meaningless to the moneyed/political class. Term limits are a better solution for moderating such morally and intellectually weak material.

who votes for Senators? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292466)

Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.

That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.

Ah but states had more right back then, when state legislatures appointed senators. With senators appointed by states it was supposed to guaranty states rights.

I think one fix is to introduce at the federal level what Texas does. By the Texas Constitution the Texas legislature only meets 140 days every other year [wikipedia.org].

I've also proposed, and will again, amending the USA Constitution in other ways. For instance Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President [usconstitution.net] changed the way the president and vice president were elected. I propose to amend how they are elected again. This tyme though the electoral college is abolished and all candidates run for president. However voting would use a condorcet method [wikipedia.org] wherein the candidates are ranked. Voters would rank their choices, say there are five candidates the voter's first choice would get 5 points, the second choice 4, and so on. The points for each candidate are then added up with the winner, highest score, becoming president and the runner-up the vice president. As an added twist voters might also negatively rank candidates, the voter can give candidate they absolutely oppose a negative score. Say -5 which is subtracted from the candidate's score.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291692)

One good use among the thousands of abuses is not enough justification to allow it continue.

Re:Anbody want to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291732)

Do you think the same of Torrents? Guns? That kind of logic is what governments use against us.

Re:Anbody want to (3, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291826)

The fillibuster is an essential mechanism in Congress to keep the government gridlocked. That's a much better scenario than a government that's free to do as it pleases.

Re:Anbody want to (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291944)

But, the congress isn't free to do as it pleases, the President can veto anything he wants, and the courts can set aside things as unconstitutional. It's only in recent times that the filibuster has become such a significant factor in the legislative process, and I doubt very much that using it to prevent much needed healthcare reform is really what it was intended for.

Re:Anbody want to (2, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292206)

Using the fillibuster to prevent veyr much unneeded nationalization of our healthcare system by a bill that no one even bothered to read before voting on it was exactly what it was for. Sadly, it didn't happen. The Senate was supposed to allow cooler heads to prevail - to slow down the process enough to at least read a bill before voting on it (the healthcare bill accidentally removed all medical insurance for congress and their staffers unti 2014, which is about a clear as it can be that no on read it).

Re:Anbody want to (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292314)

Agreed, but lets not forget that the Senate was meant to represent states rights/interests - as defined by the rest of the Constitution - by the states electing two members of the state legislature to represent them in the federal government. The people were supposed to be represented only by the House.

Re:Anbody want to (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292464)

Checks and balances is an inherently good system. How well it works is a different issue, but the filibuster doesn't fall into that system. The filibuster is a way for the legislature to stop itself, and no one else. It's a product of bitter polarization within a two-party system, but all it does is weaken the legislature.

Re:Anbody want to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291872)

One good ANYTHING is justification enough to allow that good thing to exist among the bad things.

The Other Half of the Problem (4, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291662)

This commendable Senator took care of the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is more institutional in nature. It grants one hell of an advantage to those who view various forms of freedom as an inconvenient hinderence to their goals.

All oppressive laws have this in common: those who push for them view a defeat like this as merely a delay or minor setback. They can keep trying to get them passed, over and over, through defeat after defeat, until finally they find a Congress more willing to be swayed by their arguments. They understand that once they get the law passed, it will stay on the books forever and will never be repealed. Agencies, bureaucracies and contractors will form around it and give it even more inertia. After a generation or two people will grow up knowing no other status quo.

What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (2, Interesting)

bluerabbit4210 (1642763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291712)

Burning it all to the ground?

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291842)

It's been done before... No reason to believe it would be any different this time.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292188)

"No reason to believe it would be any different this time." The current weapons, surveilance, and other tech available to limit or stop a revolution now would make it a lot more costly in terms of both effort and blood.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291722)

What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?

Revolution.

second that. (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291784)

it took a revolution in 1774, and then another in 1789, and then a few more others in 1848s to establish the fundamentals of the modern liberties and freedoms, and all human rights we take granted now. apparently, we need a few more in order to get one step further.

Re:second that. (1)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291966)

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

Re:second that. (1)

allusionist (983106) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292028)

Are you implying that wasn't the case in all previous revolutions? Aspiring revolutionaries also have better technologies available now than before, so the playing field isn't any more imbalanced than ever before. Just expect more casualties on both sides if such a thing was ever to happen....but with higher populations now, even that is a wash in a sense.

actually (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292036)

with the current collaboration and communication tools (internet, mobile) revolutions dont even need to be bloody anymore.

Re:actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292128)

Maybe the don't need to but that's the way they trend.

Re:actually (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292176)

they only trend that way, if the ruling strata does not be stubborn in their stance, and try to assert their will over the populace. the history is filled with cases in which the ruling elite had backed down, and gave in to the population's demands and revolutions were averted.

Re:second that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292082)

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

That's why the 2nd amendment says "arms", not "hand guns".

All the military hardware in the world is useless against a determined, well-armed insurgency (see Iraq, or America 1776).
Plus, you'd have the lost morale for the troops which would have to go marching through the streets of their home towns, civil wars and revolutions are nasty business which most fighting forces are unprepared for.

Re:second that. (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292124)

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

Hasn't worked in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, and it won't work here, either. Furthermore, in those countries, they weren't destroying their own lines of supply and alienating their own countrymen. I don't think the military would be all that willing to act decisively against the US population.

I also don't think violent revolution is a good answer. Just that if it happened, the military isn't the problem one might think just because it has awesome weaponry, which of course it does.

Personally, just sort of counting heads, I don't think there are enough people in this country that have more than the vaguest understanding of how it was supposed to work or how it does work, to foment and execute a revolution, so I really don't worry about it. In this case, the Gaussian and our terrible educational system look to me to insulate us completely from such a thing. And I don't mind. Things could be a lot worse.

Re:second that. (3, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292342)

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

Revolution does not necessarily mean "violent uprising." Which is good, because it seems to me that the people most likely to take arms up against their government right now would be MORE in favor of censorship and less personal rights.

Hell, the RIAA and MPAA might decide to sponsor the armed revolution through Fox news.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291744)

"After a generation or two people will grow up knowing no other status quo." - Exactly. I have seen that happen in my own lifetime, on multiple fronts, and I am only 52.

Sooner or later, we end up where Mr. Orwell predicted. It's only a matter of when.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (2, Insightful)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291828)

Some sort of national initiative/referendum process, perhaps? Many states have it, and while imperfect in its own ways, it does tend to keep in check the worst abuses. Of course, sometimes people pass spectacularly popular but spectacularly stupid laws, too.

But the main thing to that is to get corporate cash the hell out of politics. Amend the Constitution to specify that corporations are not "persons" with the same rights as real people, including the right to participation in the political process. Then stop allowing candidates for office to take brib-erm, excuse me, "campaign contributions". Each viable candidate gets to speak using the same platform in the same manner. One person one vote, not one dollar one vote.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (4, Interesting)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291914)

There's only one problem with this approach: the media companies. You see, they get to talk right up until the end. They get to say whatever they want. And if they don't like you, you're toast. (To take some older examples, think of Dukakis or Quayle.)

So now you're telling people that they can't say what they want, with their own money, unless they happen to own a newspaper, or a TV or radio station. Do you really think that will bring us a better political class?

If you want the money out of politics, you have to take the politics out of money. Quite a few libertarians have been advocating this for a long time. Otherwise, the money will always be there, and all you're doing is ignoring the First Amendment in order to try to score political points.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (1)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292068)

I'm not sure how prohibiting bribery is a violation of "free speech". I can't legally bribe a cop, a judge, a building inspector, hell, the dogcatcher. I can't do that in cash, and I can't do it "in kind"-paying for things on their behalf or that benefit them even if I never directly give them the cash.

If it's not a violation of free speech to say you can't directly or indirectly bribe those officials, it's not a violation to say you can't directly or indirectly bribe others. I can still speak on their behalf until I'm blue in the face-I just can't buy them a Super Bowl commercial. Nor can I use my newspaper or TV company to stump for them, any more than a newspaper could give free classifieds for a year to the local fire marshal in exchange for, or hopes of, "forgetting" the fire inspection. That's not free speech. It's bribery.

As to corporations, they're artificial entities, not people. Each individual who works for a corporation retains full speech rights, but the corporation itself should have no such.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292092)

For some reason I'm reminded of that Ron Paul interview where the interviewer laughs at Paul and says, "But you won't win!" Of course, everyone knew he wouldn't win, but hearing that come from a news employee was just downright sick.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (5, Interesting)

Reziac (43301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291862)

Solution? A requirement that all laws have a sunset provision, to include all agencies and regulations promulgated by said law.

Of course, some Congressional genius would then pass a law that would sunset the sunset law.

One possible solution (5, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291874)

Pass a constitutional amendment that strips Congress of civil immunity for their unconstitutional laws. Let them get sued for lost wages, profits, trebble damages and emotional distress and suddenly we'll have 535 originalist legal scholars.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291890)

What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?

Repeated capaigns of political assasination?? Until finally the ones left are willing to be swayed by the arguments of their constituents rather than their corporate overlords. This guy from Oregon would obviously get a pass...

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292136)

Until finally the ones left are willing to be swayed by the arguments of their constituents rather than their corporate overlords.

Until the big and powerful start assassinating your ideal candidates. Kinda like JF- nvm.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292052)

Well me and a number of other people would like a Constitutional Amendment requiring all future laws in the US code to have a sunset date. Congress would have to than re debate every law periodically to determine if it should be renewed. There are varying opinions about how far out the maximum sunset can be. I personally think 30 years makes sense, that is four senate terms plus one to cover the other thirds not up for election at the end of term 1. This way most of the original people who debate the law will be gone from the senate, and folks with a fresh perspective would be able to consider it on its merits. Also having to take an issue up once every thirty years should not be two burdensome. The vast majority of expiring codes probably won't be controversial at all and could get taken care of with a quick up or down direct to floor vote in the first days of each congressional session.

Call a spade a shovel-ready project (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292072)

Gov't keeps trying to commandeer a private and cooperative institution that we are paying for by choice.

If gov't wants to control a network, then it should build a public network. A network that is administered by the gov't, paid for by tax dollars and freely accessible by all citizens.

It's a long overdue, shovel-ready project with enormous military and fiscal implications, but the old farts in Washington won't wake up until one of those implications bites them in the ass.

Slashdot nigga! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291678)

It's like a nigga, who's in the hole,
It's like a nigga, he's on the dole!

It's like a nigga, he's made of plastic,
It's like a nigga, he's niggatastic!

Might be more likely to pass with next congress (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291700)

Neat trick

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291832)

You have congressman and senators. WRITE THEM. Dont sit on here and bitch about it.

Write them asking how is it possible for someone to swipe the equivalent of 90 bucks worth of songs and end up with million dollar judgments. Ask where is the justice in that? Be polite and loud about it. If they say the do not care. They have written the oppositions campaign for them. They are there to represent YOU and those around you. Do not let some slimy businessman bully you around.

Trust me *THIS* is the time to do it. They have gotten the message loud and clear we are tired of their shit. No seat is 'safe'. We are tired of this 'block' voting. They need to use the freeking thing holding their ears apart. If you do not tell them you do not like it who else do they have listen to? Thats right the lobbyist.

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292116)

How 'bout if I write them, vote against them, encourage my neighbors to do the same hoping the idea might "infect" the whole country, AND sit on here and bitch about it to spread it even further?

Would that be acceptable?

No seat is 'safe'.

Not absolutely, no, but 93% odds aren't too shabby either. If I saw it down to 70%, I might agree there's a movement afoot. And it's entirely possible that the politician will respond accordingly.

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292174)

You have congressman and senators. WRITE THEM.

...and said congress-critter will never see the letter. An "aide" (really some know-nothing) will open it, determine it doesn't contain money or plausibly promise money, and it'll go right into the round-file, and, if you're really lucky, you'll get a generic form letter back thanking you for your "input." With a nice reproduction of your congress-critter's signature, possibly suitable for framing -- if no one looks too closely.

Short version: Writing in doesn't work. If you want to have an effect, you need to be able to wave around money, or huge blocks of voters. Individuals are powerless, and this is by design.

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress (2, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292234)

Individuals are powerless, and this is by design.

Well, yeah, that's how democracy works. A system in which individuals are powerful is called a monarchy, or a dictatorship. Alwyas seems to be the wrong individuals, somehow. By design, you should have to wave around huge blocks of voters to have an effect within a democracy (even a representative democracy like our own).

WTF? The Story Link is to an Open Source Blog? (2, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291704)

Dude, I appreciate that you may want the pageviews, but consider linking to the source next time. It's how it's done in the Big Leagues.

Re:WTF? The Story Link is to an Open Source Blog? (1)

Chaosrains (1778770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291764)

Agreed - this needs updated to link to the source, as well as fix the glaring grammar problems...

Huh (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291706)

His objection effectively stop its current passing forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is continue.

English, please?

Re:Huh (1)

theaceoffire (1053556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291898)

Instead of rubber stamping it, it has to be brought up again (With far more people paying attention, making it more likely that protests will have effect).

Re:Huh (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291932)

His objection effectively stop its current passing forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is continue.

English, please?

His objection effectively stop it's current passing forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is continue.

Re:Huh (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292190)

Nope:

His objection effectively stops its current passing, forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is to continue.

Re:Huh (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292366)

And beyond the mechanical grammar errors is the stylistic one. The sentence should be divided into two or restructured to make it more clear.

Re:Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292238)

So we should be saying "stop it is current passing" in proper English?

Re:Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292060)

English it may not.

A great measure of thanks to my Senator! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291714)

Senator Wyden gets re-elected because he is one of the few who 'get it' in general. Being from the Portland area he is very in tune with the needs and desires of the tech community. Beyond that he is an honorable and decent man... which I cannot say about most politicians. Waking up to this post only validates my vote for him.

Thank you from all of us Senator Wyden... keep up the good work!

What deterrent (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291766)

This guy is a hero for doing the right thing, but where is the punishment for the people who tried to put this through; there is no deterrent!?

I would like to sponsor a new bill: each time you sponsor a bill and it gets denied you get caned Singapore style by a martial arts master. Frankly this is getting off easy as they should be tried for treason. However, I believe the caning would cut down on significant paperwork. I'll start by taking a caning if this bill fails (unfortunately I know it will). Ahh screw it, I don't want to be caned.

yay common sense! (1, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291798)

Give this guy a cookie, and re-elect him please.

Re:yay common sense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292356)

I live in OR, and I wrote to him, saying that exact thing: "Thank you for having common sense!"

bleh... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291814)

now you can go back to stealing your music & movies kids, it's your right! If you want you can pay for it by going to russian sites and the like that charge, but don't pay the content creators! Thank god this bill was defeated so people can keep paying others for stealing content for them!

Re:bleh... (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292210)

The power to punish for copyright violation is appropriate. Broad censorship powers, however, are not. This bill deserves to fall by the wayside, it is both poorly crafted in pursuit of its stated goal, and constitutionally unauthorized.

In other news... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291824)

... it might be nice if the government had the ability to copy-edit the Internet, or at least slashdot story summaries...

Slashdot need new Editor (5, Funny)

Covalent (1001277) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291854)

Do the editor stop check for subject verb agreement? Me am curious.

Re:Slashdot need new Editor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292010)

Jar-jar also job needs. Here, perhaps, less damage he may do. Or on screen, prefer him you might, yes?

I commend you sir! (4, Insightful)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291866)

I usually sway to the Red, however I must say that this Senator has earned my respect by standing up for what do you call it? You know, that thing this country was supposedly built upon and champions, oh yeah Freedom!

Thank you!

Re:I commend you sir! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292168)

I usually sway to the Red

Which in this particular case is a good slant to have.

The bill was put forth [govtrack.us] by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) with 17 co-sponsors: 6(R) and 11(D).

Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
George Voinovich [R-OH]

Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Arlen Specter [D-PA]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]

Oh look, Hatch and Specter....anyone surprised?

Tell him Thank You yourself. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291878)

I believe in positive reinforcement. So few politicians take the right stance on these technology, copyright and censorship issues, and when one does they should be told how much it is appreciated.

You can write a quick 2 line note to that effect on his website here:

http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/

The senators on the approving panel (5, Informative)

fyrie (604735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34291908)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml [techdirt.com]

        * Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
        * Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
        * Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
        * Dianne Feinstein -- California
        * Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
        * Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
        * Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
        * Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
        * Jon Kyl -- Arizona
        * Chuck Schumer -- New York
        * Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
        * Dick Durbin -- Illinois
        * John Cornyn -- Texas
        * Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
        * Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
        * Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
        * Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
        * Al Franken -- Minnesota
        * Chris Coons -- Delaware

Re:The senators on the approving panel (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292054)

these Senators should be ashamed.

Re:The senators on the approving panel (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292106)

these Senators should be assassinated.

FTFY

Re:The senators on the approving panel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292214)

These Senators should be executed for treason...

Re:The senators on the approving panel (1)

Greymoon (834879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292098)

Most thieves are not ashamed, it is one attribute that helps them be a better thief. All these people are trying to steal you culture. You regularly see these names closely associated with the MPAA and RIAA, two organizations dedicated to stealing your culture. Vote these self-centered, corrupt, treasonous, paid-for-politicians out.

Re:The senators on the approving panel (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292122)

What a strange mix! Outside of this specific vote, what do these folks have in common?

Re:The senators on the approving panel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34292348)

I voted for Feinstein on the basis of her voting against the war in Iraq and a lot of the BS Bush pulled through. Guess there's no such thing as a perfect politician.

Too close for comfort... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34291962)

Thanks. But does it really have to come down to one man? This is the same kind of one man action in the Senate that blocks legislation for decades.
Just one senator between us and government censorship of the internet? What do you thing a Palin administration or A Palin/Bush court would do.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Minor quibble... (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34292254)

Censor the Internet? Unpossible.

The bill, if enacted, might have given the US government authorization to try. Once upon a time A bill was introduced in Indiana [straightdope.com] attempting to alter the value of pi.

Naturally any such censorship law would run afoul of the first amendment anyway, so a constitutional amendment would be required to make a credible attempt. And of course if enacted it would be as successful as attempting to control the distribution of alcohol or other harmful substances. It would do no more than breed contempt for law.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...