ravensheart18 said:
LMAO. Yes, because the entire reason for the internet is copyright violations.
Considering this doesn't afford due process to event contest, I would be worried about more than just copyright violations. This very site just ran with a controversy over Youtube taking down a legit Megaupload ad at the behest of Universal. Take that and imagine if it had gone through legal channels but bereft of appeal.
rayen020 said:
oh don't give up yet. it still has to be signed into law by our liberal anti-censorship president
The same liberal who is okay with an act that will allow indefinite military detention of American citizens without trial?
Yeaaaaah. Can't see anything going wrong there.
Obama's most "liberal" act so far has been something that was originally modeled on a Bob Dole proposal and ended up looking like Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts: Health Care reform before the right threw a tantrum. Hell, it was something endorsed by Gingrich before it became an attack point and all the Republicans had to fall in line. This is not a liberal President. Further, expectation is split on what Obama will ACTUALLY do. His stance is not as cut and dry as you would indicate.
Obama's got a history of taking a hardline stance and then signing anyway.
Gmans uncle said:
it'll get shown to the supreme court,
Eventually. First, it has to be challenged. Next, it has to work its way through lower courts. Then SCOTUS has to actually agree to hear it. Finally:
at which point it will be found unconstitutional and the precedent WILL BE SET,
In a supreme Court that has ruled corporations have free speech rights as people.
I wouldn't be so certain that, assuming it makes it before the Supreme Court, the rather conservative Supreme Court will actually rule the way you think it will.
no one will be able to get a bill like SOPA taken seriously again, we're safe guys, don't worry.
New bills similar to ones ruled on by the Supreme Court are brought to Congress all the time; it's part of the process by which their rulings are challenged. They could tailor such a bill around the wording of the precedent set, as was done with the various virtual porn acts. They are still taken seriously, no matter what you claim will happen.
Honestly, I get this feeling that no one on these forums actually understands how the judiciary system works.
Considering all of the above, I don't think you should be chucking those stones from behind the glass walls of your abode.
I'm not saying it will pass, I'm not even saying the extreme hissyfit the internet is having is justified (in its fullest, I do agree there are concerns, see above), but once you got to the Judiciary process, you screwed the pooch but bad on your facts.
In the meanwhile, if it does pass, it will likely do a fair share of damage before it hits the Supreme Court itself. If it does. SCOTUS has declined to hear or rule on controversial cases before, despite the fact that it is their job to determine the viability of a law as as Constitutional. Such damage will likely be reversed slowly, because the corporates who are behind this are good at stalling out on court compliance and the government undoes things rather slowly in most cases. In the case of websites that are shut down, a Supreme Court ruling does not mean they will come back. It takes money and effort and people. People who get branded felons in the meanwhile may have even further legal obstacles to overcome, even though the Courts eventually rule on their side.
On a similar note, the "personhood" amendment in Mississippi, while it did not pass, was being forecast to do a lot of harm to a lot of people before it was overturned
if it passed, despite general legal opinion that it would be overturned. Why? Because the legal process is slow, as you already said. Unfortunately, once a law, policy or amendment is put into place, it is enforced well before it can make it to the Supreme Court. That part, you either ignored or are ignorant of. Injunctions can be put into place, but that is no guarantee, especially if a lower court rules in favour of the bill. In the end, a lot of harm can be done by this bill if it becomes law, even if it is eventually overturned. And if it is, that is not the end of this process.
But seriously, stop chastising people for not understanding shit you evidently do not yourself grasp. being misinformed and dismissive is no better than being misinformed and alarmist.
