FollowUp 2: SOPA Overreach

Great news.  SOPA and Protect IP (PIPA) are on hold.  Here's Ars Technica on PIPA in the Senate.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is putting the PROTECT IP Act on hold. "In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday's vote on the PROTECT IP Act," he said in a tweet.

"There's no reason that legitimate issues raised about PROTECT IP can't be resolved," he said. "Counterfeiting & piracy cost 1000s of jobs yearly."

"Americans rightfully expect to be fairly compensated 4 their work. I'm optimistic that we can reach compromise on PROTECT IP in coming weeks," he concluded.

PIPA isn't dead, but the move certainly makes passage less likely. With momentum stalled, Senators skittish about angering voters, and Republican leaders blasting the bill, Reid may find it expedient to postpone the vote on PIPA indefinitely.

Similarly, everything is on hold for SOPA in the House of Representatives, from PC World.

Meanwhile, in Congress, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) announced that consideration of SOPA is on hold indefinitely. A hearing on the bill in the Judiciary Committee had been scheduled to resume in February.

“I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy,” Smith says in a statement. “It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.”

This does not mean that these pieces of legislation which would end much of fair use on the Internet are dead and buried.  We can expect either the same bills with a little bit of modification or similar legislation in the future, probably before this session of Congress ends.

22 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

18 December 2011, FollowUp 1.

21 January 2012, FollowUp 3.

FollowUp 1: SOPA Overreach

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Today's Internet blackout by large sites is an important reminder that information needs to be readily available for society to remain free.  Here are a couple of good links to sites fighting SOPA and PIPA.

Google

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Fight For The Future

Wikipedia

There are lots more.  This is important.  I will note that Pedantic Political Ponderings is not dark because it is a tiny blog (about fifty to one hundred viewers per day) and I am new enough to blogging that I don't know how to black out this site.

Midday Update from YouTube:



22 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

20 January 2012, FollowUp 2.

21 January 2012, FollowUp 3.

Repudiation: Censorship of the Blogosphere

Less than a week ago I wrote about pending legislation that would potentially curtail Internet activity based on allegations of copyright infringement.  It should not be a surprise that this is only one of the ongoing threats to Freedom of Speech on the web.

Talking Point Memo has placed a letter online from Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman asking Google to provide censorship of terrorist activities on Blogger (and Blogspot). The impetus for this request is Jose Pimentel, perhaps better known as New York City's recent Lone Wolf Bomber, who ran a blog (no longer accessible) called www.trueislam1.com.

Mr. Lieberman claims that Mr. Pimentel wrote hate-filled entries on this blog, threats against the United States, and provided links to bomb-making instructions.

Pimentel's site is just one of the many examples of homegrown terrorists using Google-hosted sites to propagate their violent ideology.

The Senator goes on to complain that Google is inconsistent in how it limits content.

Unlike YouTube's Community Standards, Blogger's content policy does not expressly ban terrorist content nor does it provide a "flag" feature for such content.

If one reads my posts, it should be clear that I do not approve of violence.  Terrorism is (or should be) unacceptable behavior in any society.  This still troubles me.

How does one define terrorism in the case of a blog entry?  Does being classified as terrorism require more or less than an online threat?  The second question is germane because making threats online is already illegal.  YouTube's flag system is subject to criticism.  Perhaps it is too easy for YouTube video to be pulled due to allegation of copy violation.  Perhaps it is not easy enough.

Is it reasonable for me to protest about the threats to the LGBTQ Community from religious hate sites?  Can they ask that my content be pulled because I advocate what they call a threat to "traditional" marriage?

Freedom of Speech is a precarious right.  It must not be abused by threats of violence and it must not be limited due to paranoia.  Mr. Pinentel's site (which I never saw) was properly pulled if it contained the threats that are alleged.  But it is reasonable to be concerned about an overreach of flags and censorship for anything less.  Heated argument is healthy for a democratic republic.  Violence is not.