Active Users:466 Time:02/05/2025 09:24:16 PM
That is a poor approach to drafting legislation, at best. Joel Send a noteboard - 19/01/2012 04:37:22 PM
A suggestion was made, and it went too far. Why not just cut out the parts that people keep pointing out as problems? If a law goes too far, then obviously things need to be removed from it. The removal is part of the revision process. It isn't necessary for new things to be suggested as additions if the removal of certain things is the only thing those protestors see as needed.

Plus, you realize that you are setting a double standard? You say industry lobbyists demanded certain points, and now they're getting them in law, but isn't that the same thing that sites are doing now? Demanding certain points, only in this case to be removed rather than added. But for some reason of the latter you expect a brand new law that will be perfect and satisfy everyone, while the former get away with just listing their demands.

No, it is NOT the same thing that sites are doing now, and that is precisely the problem: The media industry made a series of suggestions and, rather than making counter-suggestions, critics are simply cherry picking the ones they like and trying to discard the rest. Know why that is not a credible way to proceed?

Citizen: I like and support all traffic laws, except speed limits, stop signs and traffic lights; those intolerable infringements of my rights MUST go.

Government: People like you are why speed limits, stop signs and traffic lights exist; next....

The best way to convince government Big Media are the knowledgeable responsible parties here is to let them hand craft new laws, then demand Congress remove the parts that happen to affect you. Whether or not that is the intent, it is the perception. When Congress hears people say they support bans on PCP and crack but think marijuana should be de-criminalized, the impression is not "many people think laws on 'soft' drugs are too strict," it is "potheads want pot to be legal badly enough to throw crackheads under the bus."

Even were that impression not made, if you wait for others to petition Congress for a bill then simply object to the parts you dislike, it suggests the first group are the ones with deep comprehensive knowledge of the situation and you are the one with deep knowledge (possibly) of your own narrow interests. If you want to be taken as seriously as people who have contributed to the process, contribute something to the process, rather than simply waiting for them to do so, then objecting to some of THEIR contributions.

That is just not productive or constructive. I know Washington has reached the point that shouting, "NO, NO, NO111" is considered "debate" and "YOU CANNOT MAKE ME111" counts as "compromise," but how well has that worked? There is a very good reason Obama publicly requested people suggest what they DO want instead of just what they do NOT want:

Cook: What do you want on your burger?

Customer: No pickles.

Cook: ... OK....

*five minutes later*

Customer: THIS BURGER HAS ONIONS, AND WHY IS THERE NO BACON?!

Cook: Because you cannot articulate what you want.

Waiting for other people to demand legislation, then picking and choosing which parts of it you will accept, is NOT helpful. If you want to get involved, GET INVOLVED.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 19/01/2012 at 04:37:37 PM
Reply to message
English Wikipedia Anti-SOPA Blackout - 17/01/2012 08:31:46 AM 2179 Views
Yeah, man, because currently copyright holders have no recourse, am I right? - 17/01/2012 11:47:35 AM 1005 Views
"altering the infrastructure of the Internet so as to render RAFO virtually inaccessible"? - 17/01/2012 08:12:27 PM 1116 Views
I'll go ahead and ask before I get my panties in a bunch: do you understand these bills? - 17/01/2012 09:09:22 PM 1222 Views
I admit I have not looked into it much - 17/01/2012 11:42:30 PM 1064 Views
And yet you're still arguing the matter. - 18/01/2012 02:34:04 AM 1173 Views
I love you. *NM* - 18/01/2012 03:41:03 AM 664 Views
heh, thanks. I usually find myself pushing minority opinions. Nice to be "appreciated" for once. *NM* - 18/01/2012 04:01:10 AM 650 Views
Can i second the adulation? - 18/01/2012 04:07:17 AM 892 Views
I too (three?) appreciate the common sense and reasonable explanations. *NM* - 18/01/2012 04:12:59 AM 645 Views
Thanks guys. - 18/01/2012 04:39:00 AM 1066 Views
Right, because the argument is not just over THIS bill but, apparently, over ANY bill. - 18/01/2012 11:09:13 AM 1069 Views
Alternatives to SOPA/PIPA have been proposed for months now. Please stop arguing this. - 18/01/2012 05:42:10 PM 983 Views
That is really all I ask. - 18/01/2012 06:26:37 PM 1051 Views
"sensitive federal content"? Provide a source justifying this claim and it's relevance, please. - 18/01/2012 05:59:47 PM 1082 Views
I would not have thought a source necessary. - 18/01/2012 06:24:44 PM 1073 Views
Okay, I'm with Aemon now. - 18/01/2012 07:36:21 PM 1084 Views
OK. - 18/01/2012 10:16:16 PM 1116 Views
Surreal. It's like you're a spam-bot or something. *NM* - 19/01/2012 01:23:35 AM 781 Views
That was constructive. - 19/01/2012 03:29:53 PM 996 Views
Very nicely summarised. *NM* - 18/01/2012 02:06:02 AM 583 Views
should be interesting - 17/01/2012 12:41:47 PM 941 Views
Could be; depends on a lot of factors. - 17/01/2012 07:38:55 PM 1013 Views
See, that's one of the biggest problems that people aren't understanding. - 17/01/2012 09:31:38 PM 1018 Views
So tell them that. - 17/01/2012 11:54:19 PM 1171 Views
Could've done without the snide rejoinder, but, good. - 17/01/2012 02:20:08 PM 936 Views
I love the black banner, like some kind of internet Holocaust. - 17/01/2012 08:03:27 PM 1081 Views
Are you aware that SOPA/PIPA has nothing to do with hackers and everything to do with copyright? - 18/01/2012 02:08:56 AM 932 Views
There seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 01:08:22 PM 1037 Views
Re: There seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 08:13:15 PM 930 Views
Re: There still seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 10:27:32 PM 1192 Views
Er, what Ghav said. - 18/01/2012 02:30:37 AM 950 Views
Sorry, protecting Pirate Bay and offshore gambling are not compelling counterarguments. - 18/01/2012 11:38:08 AM 1002 Views
Okay, another analogy: - 18/01/2012 02:04:12 PM 943 Views
A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP - 18/01/2012 08:32:44 AM 954 Views
"As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, I'm a sysadmin." - 18/01/2012 12:47:16 PM 1214 Views
wow, you are totally correct! - 18/01/2012 03:45:54 PM 954 Views
That is a separate issue. - 18/01/2012 04:01:24 PM 980 Views
Thank you for posting that. - 18/01/2012 03:09:07 PM 1019 Views
Wikipedia has already convinced me - 18/01/2012 03:26:01 PM 829 Views
Trying to stop this legislation without proposing an alternative is trying to stop ANY legislation. - 18/01/2012 03:44:18 PM 1057 Views
It isn't their job to propose legislation - 18/01/2012 04:12:53 PM 976 Views
No, but they have as much RIGHT to do so as anyone else. - 18/01/2012 05:31:55 PM 961 Views
Strike three. - 18/01/2012 05:37:55 PM 1022 Views
That is fine; that is what people SHOULD be doing. - 18/01/2012 06:03:59 PM 833 Views
Things being better now than they would be under SOPA seems like a legitimate argument to me - 18/01/2012 09:04:18 PM 1102 Views
Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no. - 18/01/2012 10:46:48 PM 938 Views
Re: Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no. - 19/01/2012 12:15:48 AM 1021 Views
That is a poor approach to drafting legislation, at best. - 19/01/2012 04:37:22 PM 1027 Views
About "proposing new legislation" - 18/01/2012 04:45:08 PM 1090 Views
So true - 18/01/2012 05:08:45 PM 1025 Views
Not to go off on a tangent about combatting piracy... - 18/01/2012 05:38:12 PM 945 Views
Entirely agree *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:13:13 PM 639 Views
That was an excellent post. *NM* - 19/01/2012 11:18:19 PM 619 Views
Re: About "proposing new legislation" - 18/01/2012 05:59:55 PM 1169 Views
For those who want a short, one page explanation... - 18/01/2012 05:41:49 PM 968 Views
Yeah, so I use Russian wikipedia for a day. Or German wikipedia, or French, or Italian... *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:23:36 PM 690 Views
We get it: You are a polyglot. - 18/01/2012 06:27:48 PM 954 Views
Or just hit stop right before the script runs. *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:52:40 PM 683 Views
Or just disable Java. *NM* - 19/01/2012 01:58:03 AM 551 Views
That's not as much fun though. *NM* - 19/01/2012 02:13:44 AM 677 Views
Exactly, this way its kind of a game. *NM* - 19/01/2012 02:20:37 AM 490 Views
Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia... - 19/01/2012 01:07:38 AM 1052 Views
They all did it on twitter - 19/01/2012 01:26:19 AM 988 Views
I was asleep much of the day - 19/01/2012 02:40:11 AM 1068 Views
Oh, no; now Congress will be inundated with complaints from lazy college students! - 19/01/2012 04:40:12 PM 1102 Views
13 previously unopposed senators now do not support SOPA. - 19/01/2012 11:36:15 PM 1068 Views
How does that "rebutt" what was a facetious post in the first place? - 20/01/2012 09:24:27 PM 1162 Views
a joke can, indeed, be rebutted... - 21/01/2012 09:07:32 PM 1055 Views
Oh, draggie, I ALWAYS see what you do there. - 21/01/2012 10:01:58 PM 1018 Views

Reply to Message