Beta
×

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!

White House Opposes Key SOPA Provisions

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the we-beg-to-differ dept.

Politics 175

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.'"

cancel ×

175 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They can say they oppose it, (5, Insightful)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708684)

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!"

Re:They can say they oppose it, (5, Insightful)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708848)

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.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (5, Informative)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709112)

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 [whitehouse.gov] 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.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709148)

The only reason there was a response to the community from the White House on this issue is because of their 'We The People' petitions section that the administration set up. Enough people signed the petition so they did what they promised, issued a response. The actual merit of it, however, has not been clearly defined in any policy I've seen so far.

Make your own White House Petition here: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions

Re:They can say they oppose it, (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709238)

Elections are coming, they can't afford any bad publicity. Just because they say they oppose "some" SOPA provisions, actually means, they'll have to modify it a little, and they both get to win, SOPA supporters don't lose anything important, and White House, says, look, we negotiated for you. If they really opposed it, the article would have been titled "White House Opposes SOPA.". Notice that? Just a couple of words, that's how politics works.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709688)

If SOPA is problematic, that has to be for specific reasons - not just because of its name or because (in agreement with all the rest of US law) it makes copyright infringement illegal.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (3, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709326)

It is not like this issue is something covered on Fox and MSNBC and CNN.

Ever since 2008, elections aren't won by ignoring the internet, and Obama of all people knows it.

Not to say this is all idle campaign talk. I have high hope that whatever we end up with won't be the end-of-democracy-as-we-know-it bill we have now. It might not even be as bad as the DMCA, and the internet survived that one. But it'll still be bad legislation, because the very principle behind it is trying to solve the wrong problem the wrong way.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (2)

genner (694963) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709622)

It is not like this issue is something covered on Fox and MSNBC and CNN.

Ever since 2008, elections aren't won by ignoring the internet, and Obama of all people knows it.

Not to say this is all idle campaign talk. I have high hope that whatever we end up with won't be the end-of-democracy-as-we-know-it bill we have now. It might not even be as bad as the DMCA, and the internet survived that one. But it'll still be bad legislation, because the very principle behind it is trying to solve the wrong problem the wrong way.

As flawed as the DMCA is, it still has some give and take. It has safe harbor clauses that actually helped sites like youtube to operate unhindered. SOPA is completely one sided.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708854)

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.)

Re:They can say they oppose it, (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709060)

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"

Re:They can say they oppose it, (5, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709782)

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.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708884)

Didn't "the White House" also oppose the NDAA, which they then refused to veto?

Re:They can say they oppose it, (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709110)

Yes, which proves that they lie as bad as the republicans.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709558)

A fact that was never in question by anyone who spent more than 2 seconds examining American politics.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709086)

Just like how he opposed NDAA and then signed it.

Do NOT trust that man, He is not honorable, not any more.

and yes, I voted for him, but he proved that he is no different than the freedom hating republicans when he signed that law that makes us no different than IRAN, north Korea or China.

The White house will do what it's masters tell him to do. Obama will gleefully sign any bill like SOPA.

My only hope is that the rest of my fellow americans wake up and voted for a third party, The democrats and republicans are a blight on america and our freedoms.

Our only chance is to vote them all out of office with men who are not corrupt to begin with.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (0)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709342)

no different than IRAN, north Korea or China.

IRAN is an acronym now? What's it stand for?

Re:They can say they oppose it, (2, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709370)

It is a portmanteu of IRaq and AfghanistAN.

Re:They can say they oppose it, (2, Funny)

genner (694963) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709646)

It is a portmanteu of IRaq and AfghanistAN.

That would be Iraqistan.

No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (1)

Zondar (32904) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708692)

I think he just lost a bunch of campaign contributions with that blog.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (4, Informative)

bs0d3 (2439278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708768)

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

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (3, Informative)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708858)

where is the WH statement vague? They support legislation to stop foreign piracy on the internet. They do not support all the moronic crap in SOPA that would allow entrenched business interests to shut down any site they want by nodding at an ISP via breaking the way the internet is built to work.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708878)

What will happen is that Supreme Leader Baraq Hussein Sotero will "reluctantly" sign the bill no matter what, just like he "reluctantly" signed the NDAA.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708946)

Well aren't you just a racist cockbag.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708996)

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.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709082)

It was passed by a veto proof majority. Refusing to sign it would have been an empty gesture, and would have allowed Republicans to run ads against him stating that he vetoed health care for wounded veterans.

So no, his point does not stand. And FYI, when someone uses the phrase "Supreme Leader Baraq Hussein Sotero", there is no "maybe" about their racism.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709452)

Ah, yes, the time-honored tradition of calling somebody a "racist" because you disagree with them. Listen up, sockpuppet - had I used the n-word, the phrase "dune c**n," or even the word "monkey," to describe Obama, then yes, you would have credible grounds to label me a racist.

However, I was actually lampooning racists by using those terms, an obvious fact which flew right over your head. You are not of the proper intellectual calibre Slashdot discussions require. I suggest you spend more time at Reddit or Digg, where you will be welcomed with open arms.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709594)

You were not "lampooning" racists. There was nothing sarcastic about your statement, nor was there any indication that you didn't mean what you said. You're simply backpedaling now, perhaps out of shame, but more likely because you wanted an opportunity to show how awesome and high minded you are (unlike those yokels at Reddit amirite?).

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (4, Insightful)

Grave (8234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709880)

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.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708840)

Please, like they're going to give him LESS money. A slight non-committal response like this is a pathway to more money, not less.

And the Republicans would get behind the Evangelical Crusade to burn Hollywood to the Ground, so they're not even slightly appealing.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (1)

Chewbacon (797801) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708978)

As he's already in office, that'll make this run cheaper for him. Now, it would be smarter for a GOP candidate to support it unconditionally.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (1)

petman (619526) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709058)

I think he just lost a bunch of bribes with that blog.

FTFY.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709522)

I think he just lost a bunch of campaign contributions with that blog.

Not that it matters. The GOP can't find a candidate who can defeat Obama in 2012 anyways. None of the candidates who have a remote chance of winning the nomination are demonstrably more conservative than the actions of President Barack "lawnchair" Obama. If Hollywood completely turned off the tap, Obama could still phone in his re-election campaign and win it easily.

The real loss here, though, is that some people will vote for Obama expecting something to change, in spite of the fact that since 2008 (and really, much further back than that) nothing has.

Re:No Hollywood money for Obama 2012... (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709576)

You do not think that this counts as a change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012 [wikipedia.org]

I guess "continuing to lose rights and freedoms" might not be a second order change (i.e. the rate of change remains unchanged).

Yes they oppose it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708694)

but will they do anything about it? I've seen very little to lead me to believe that the democrats are any less in the pocket of the copyright lobby than the republicans.

Dupe (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708698)

This is a dupe of yesterday's article [slashdot.org] .

Re:Dupe (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708808)

Only this time, it's being spun in the opposite direction. Yesterday's was spun to make it sound like Obama supports SOPA, which was odd because every other site I read inferred that he opposed it.

Re:Dupe (1, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708902)

It wasn't spun to make it sound like he supported it; it was pointed out that the White House supported anti-piracy measures and simply opposed certain provisions in this one, meaning he could still approve the legislation once those provisions were addressed.

Hell, it might even just be a token opposition designed to appeal to his supporters but ultimately won't stop the bill. Obama has done that before, declaring that he has "serious reservations" about something he's willingly signing into law [cbsnews.com] . He's kind of an ass like that.

Re:Dupe (5, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708992)

The NDAA has to be signed into law. It funds the entire military. If he vetoed it, we'd spend the rest of the year watching non-stop ads about how he took away healthcare from wounded veterans and refused to give guns to troops on the front lines. He'd lose reelection in the biggest landslide in history, because frankly, the average voter is woefully uninformed. So to say he "willingly" signed it into law is a vast oversimplification.

SOPA isn't a big omnibus bill. If he opposes provisions in it, he can veto it without all the collateral damage. And it's not like there were specific things he opposed that could be taken out. It was a pretty broad statement: "we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet." You'd basically need a complete rewrite to avoid doing any of those things.

Re:Dupe (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709098)

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.

Good thing Obama cared more about his re-election than his serious reservations.

Well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709220)

The Constitution is just a damned piece of paper, after all.

Bitch needs to go.

Pity that it looks like Obama will simply be replaced by a bitch of equal or greater value.

Re:Dupe (0)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709134)

No it did not. Stop with that lying FUD.

if he vetoed it you actually think the military would stop instantly? That is the single most stupid comment anyone could think.

If he vetoed it, Congress would have been FORCED to get off their asses and come up with a honest bill.

Re:Dupe (3, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709262)

If he vetoed it, it would have passed anyway, because it was passed by a veto proof majority.

Please at least try to learn about these issues before coming to your conclusions. Congress would not have been forced to do anything.

Re:Dupe (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709470)

The issue isn't necessarily that he signed the bill. It's that he expressed "serious reservations" as he signed it, as if he wants to be able to appease people who don't like the bill while also appeasing those who do by signed it. As is often the case with this president, he wants it both ways. That is why he's an ass.

He should have said nothing.

Re:Dupe (3, Informative)

kroyd (29866) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709714)

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

Re:Dupe (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709480)

I don't understand the finer points of your legal system, seeing as I'm not an American.

If they have a veto proof majority, what would happen if he refused to sign it into law? Does it become law anyway?

Re:Dupe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709554)

There are three actions a president can do when faced with a new bill. He can sign it, and it becomes law. He can ignore it, and after a period, it becomes law as if he signed it. Or he can veto it. If he vetoes it, the veto can be overturned by a super majority in the House and Senate. If that happens, it becomes law.

Re:Dupe (2)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709406)

I think someone forgot to give the President his cut.

Re:Dupe (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709424)

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.

Obama doesn't know how to counter that kind of political attack? Then either he is an incompetent politician, or he didn't really care about NDAA. My guess is on the latter.

Re:Dupe (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709550)

Because I don't know, but isn't it common practice for bills to include riders or laws that are lumped in together? So unpopular or unethical laws get passed because they are included in the main bill? Is that what this is about?

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708812)

So there are dupes. There will always be dupes. Dupes are good filler when the news gets slow, and pull more click-throughs to appreciative sites, so slashdot has every incentive to post dupes.

Pointing out that it is a dupe won't make the flow of dupes stop. Also, people who didn't read the original post don't care that it is a dupe, since they are reading it for the first time. People who DID read the original post also don't care, because they already know it is a dupe.

So why does everybody have to shout "dupe! dupe! OMG DUPE!" every time this happens?

Slashdot readers should be accustomed to dupes by now.

Re:So what? (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708862)

So why does everybody have to shout "dupe! dupe! OMG DUPE!" every time this happens?

Because something new and relevant could have been posted in its place.

Re:So what? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709020)

So - post something bonch. And, please, try not to post more shill shit when you do it.

Re:So what? (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709068)

I submit content all the time.

Re:So what? (0)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709158)

Are you one of those angry fanboys with Asperger's who thinks anything even remotely critical of Google shouldn't be allowed on Slashdot? Seriously, Android fanboys are even more obnoxiously closed-minded than Apple fanboys.

Re:So what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709230)

Nice!

bonch supporting bonch; why does bonch need more than one account?

just to be clear bonch=Overly Critical Guy

just to be clear Overly Critical Guy=bonch

and bonch wonders why he gets downmodded

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709448)

Prove it.

Re:So what? (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709534)

This isn't bonch. Going by post history, he's getting upmodded, not downmodded. Aren't you Galestar [slashdot.org] /NicknameOne [slashdot.org] /flurp [slashdot.org] who replies to all his posts?

Re:So what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709042)

As we all know, there's only so much space on the internet. The dupes clog up the tubes and don't let the good stories through.

Re:So what? (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709170)

With the glacial pace that Slashdot posts stories, and the fact that they often appeared days earlier on other sites anyway, yeah, dupes do clog up the tubes a bit.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708872)

So there are people who post "Dupe". There will always be people who post "Dupe". "Dupes" are good filler when the comments get slow, or haven't started yet, so slashdot has every incentive for people to post "Dupe".

Pointing out that pointing out that it is a dupe won't make the flow of people who post "Dupe" stop. Also, people who set their threshold at 4 don't care that someone posted "Dupe", since they have read "Dupe" before. People who set their threshold at -1 also don't care, because they are used to "Dupe" posts.

So, why does everybody have to shout 'Stop posting "Dupe"! Stop posting "Dupe"! OMG Stop posting "DUPE" every time this happens?

Slashdot readers should be accustomed to people posting "Dupe" by now.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708886)

So there are dupes. There will always be dupes. Dupes are good filler when the news gets slow, and pull more click-throughs to appreciative sites, so slashdot has every incentive to post dupes. Pointing out that it is a dupe won't make the flow of dupes stop. Also, people who didn't read the original post don't care that it is a dupe, since they are reading it for the first time. People who DID read the original post also don't care, because they already know it is a dupe. So why does everybody have to shout "dupe! dupe! OMG DUPE!" every time this happens? Slashdot readers should be accustomed to dupes by now.

Re:Dupe (1)

zixxt (1547061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708818)

Its not a dupe, its a retelling of the story!

-1 Troll? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709140)

Why is this modded down as troll? It IS a dupe. Are the moderators on crack today?

How I like it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708702)

She forced me to consume chocolate chip cookies and pocket knives. It was then that she forced me to vomit up a giant chocolate chip cookie that looked as if it had been partially digested. She went out on my porch, showed the delicious cookie to the world, and began eating it.

Then she sucked me into the skin on her stomach but left my ass hanging out. She then turned my ass into a coin purse, went into a store, bought something, and began paying off the $1000 bill... in pennies! Each time she pulled a penny out of my ass, it tickled horribly!

Paywall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708708)

The article is behind a paywall, anyone got a link to the blog post?

Re:Paywall (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708822)

Wikimedia still discussing (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708718)

But it looks like a click-through to access the site on the 18th and a banner on every page for a couple weeks. That's about as much as Wiki can do, as they're pretty essential. No word yet on Google. Facebook has scheduled a press event for the day, but no clue whether it's related.

More and more big sites are getting in on the game.

Re:Wikimedia still discussing (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708974)

More and more big sites are getting in on the game.

Slashdot?

Re:Wikimedia still discussing (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709016)

That's about as much as Wiki can do, as they're pretty essential

That's the freaking POINT of making it an utter blackout. Make people understand what it would be like if it passed. A click through isn't going to change squat.

Re:Wikimedia still discussing (3, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709216)

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

Re:Wikimedia still discussing (2)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709488)

Oh, good.

A clickthrough blackout in the rest of the world isn't a bad idea though.

why did this shitty summary get posted??? (4, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708720)

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!

Re:why did this shitty summary get posted??? (5, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708732)

Fear not, for it was already submitted [slashdot.org] yesterday with a direct link to the White House's statement. As stated then, the White House gave itself leeway to approve the legislation if the key objections were addressed, so don't think this means the legislation will go away.

Re:why did this shitty summary get posted??? (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708882)

considering all adults in the world oppose SOPA because of the key issues that are in the WH statement, why wouldn't president Obama sign such a modified bill?

Re:why did this shitty summary get posted??? (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709050)

It's a massive assumption on your part to presume that "all adults" oppose SOPA. The majority of Americans probably have never even heard of it.

Re:why did this shitty summary get posted??? (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709104)

you are right, I did not communicate what I actually meant... "all adults int he world that oppose SOPA" is what I meant to say.

Re:why did this shitty summary get posted??? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709056)

You need some serious qualifications to your statement, regarding all adults. The vast majority of adults - people, actually - have no clue to the remifications of SOPA. No clue at all. Those who have a couple of clues have arrived at their opinions based on the word of some stooge whom they like - be that stooge on Fox News, or CNN, or Turner broadcasting. Hell, some brainless twat on American Idol could voice an opinion, and sway a decent percentage of the public with that opinion.

Now, had you said "all informed adults with any technical background, who lack any financial interest in the issue", then you might have been correct.

Will not support, but will sign into law anyway. (2)

hawks5999 (588198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708738)

With a meaningless signing statement of course.

Re:Will not support, but will sign into law anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709006)

Not at all. This will provide the current administration with a chance to blame another law they willingly pass through as having no alternative in the face of Republican dirty tricks. While it doesn't make much sense to anyone who can follow the bouncing ball, there will be enough voters to eat it up to make it worthwhile.

Hey!! (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708744)

Dupe much?

No, The White House Did Not Say (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708826)

http://informationliberation.com/?id=37993

This is merely propaganda doublespeak. Nothing has changed:

from the link above:

The Huffington Post is wrongly reporting the White House will not support SOPA or PIPA. If you read the White House's actual statement, it's full of strongly worded language, but absolutely nowhere does it say they will not support the bills. On the other hand, it does state, "we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting."

How anyone could believe the same White House which passed the NDAA into law after claiming they would veto it should be taken by their rhetoric and not even by their word is beyond belief. With the NDAA, Obama was on record saying he would veto the legislation, this statement from the White House says they're in full support of passing copyright crackdown bills, but they must "defend an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation."

That's pure rhetoric (and it's contradictory on its face).

The author of the White House's statement, Obama's 'IP czar' Victoria Espinel, has already overseen the seizures of hundreds of websites without any due process, including websites which were deemed legal by their own respective countries. This White House is actively engaged in violating our internet freedoms, to completely ignore this attack on internet freedom and turn around and take a vaguely worded statement promising nothing as an explicit denouncement of these censorship bills is foolish and naive to the extreme.

The only concrete information to come out from the White House's statement is they will move forward "on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting."

That means the current censorship supporting DMCA laws are not enough, the current unconstitutional seizures of hundreds of websites without due process is not enough, they want even more power and they're expecting congress and the internet community to get in line and give it to them.

Update: There is one policy statement in her writing where she says the White House will not support DNS blocking, that provision was already removed from the SOPA bill yesterday, so it changes nothing.

Deep Reservations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708842)

And now, with deep reservations, Obama can sign it into law.

Not really (3, Insightful)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708898)

> Is this an example of our 3-part government actually working as intended?

No, not really. "As intended" would mean that:

  • The branches of government would be trying to optimize for the good of society.
  • The public would be informed enough to think about what was good for them in the long term, and vote accordingly.

Instead we have:

  • The public is excessively swayed by whatever they see in the popular media.
  • The branches of government optimize for maximizing their chances of re-election.

Lip service for Obamites (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38708928)

It's the sound of elections nearing...

Re:Lip service for Obamites (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38708986)

It's the sound of elections nearing...

Really? I thought maybe they read yesterday's Slashdot posts and acquired a clue.

[Warning: be wary of that whooshing sound you may be hearing right now.]

Heh. (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709004)

I love the cookie I'm getting both for this and the DHS X-Ray article:

Hacker's Law: The belief that enhanced understanding will necessarily stir a nation to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions.

This is the beginning of the new government (4, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709172)

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.

Re:This is the beginning of the new government (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709402)

You're such an optimist sir. I wish I could share in your optimism.

Re:This is the beginning of the new government (3, Informative)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709542)

The entire point of the President's veto capability was specifically for cases where the executive branch disagrees with the legislative. What the big corporate interests paid for when they paid to have Obama made president (and would've been the same of McCain, it's easy to make people think they have a choice when you control both of the choices) was a president who appeals to the people but really doesn't stand in the way of their majority ownership of the legislative branch.

Unfortunately, tyranny has never gone silently, as you suggest. When (not if) revolution happens in our country, there will be consequences for those involved, and there will be blood. It will not be a silent revolution done over the internets. The fact that now 4 different bills have been proposed and have "approval" from the executive and legislative branches that would permit wholesale censorship of the internet should convince you of that.

Re:This is the beginning of the new government (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38709626)

A bit of advice, take your meds and put your tin foil hat back on, the gamma waves have corrupted your thinking process.

Re:This is the beginning of the new government (3, Insightful)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709928)

Billions of people worldwide do work they don't particularly like for money. For small sums of money, too. The hundreds of millions of campaign contributions I can very easily see as public record given to these people followed by their $700,000+ /yr jobs in the private sector after they retire can't possibly indicate that the same applies. Given enough money, most people do what they're told. This is completely valid and actually correct thinking. The tinfoil hat is when you talk about the corporations planning some kind of NWO, but really it's about control to kill competition and remain absurdly profitable with govt. assistance. It's called tyranny. You might want to read up in some history books.

Oh wow. Watch what they DO, not what they SAY. (4, Informative)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709912)

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

Bla bla bla hot air (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709438)

its just 'big words from people that don't understand what the hell they are taking about'. You can tell its an election year. Feed the people whatever crap you need to in order to get (re)elected. They have no intention of 'protecting' anything, other than their power and revenue.

Registration Required (1)

eriklou (1027240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709670)

Love how you have to be registered with that site to read it. STOP POSTING REGISTERED LINKS!

Re:Registration Required (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709906)

I concur. Stop promoting these sites.

Disproportionate influence (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709678)

Why do a few corporations supporting it have equal influence to thousands of individuals corporations? Are we just not paying the right people?

Obama supporter addresses this issue... (1)

voss (52565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709684)

I sent an email to the president that I contributed $300 in 2008, and $50 so far in 2012
but if he signs either SOPA or Protect IP, the campaign wont get another dime from me. I suspect Im not the only
one who feels this way.

Re:Obama supporter addresses this issue... (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38709726)

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

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>