White House opposes SOPA

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

http://www.gamefreaks365.com/newsarticle.php?sid=4334

Important bit:

Opponents of bills currently in Congress that would restrict speech on the Internet scored a victory on Saturday as the White House came out in opposition to SOPA and PIPA as currently written. The White House statmenet comes in response to an online petition urging President Obama to veto the bills should they pass Congress. The White House did not, however, promise a veto if the bill is narrowed in its scope.

"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."

I guess this is amazing news. Is this just Obama's attempt to get more votes in the upcoming elections this year, I don't care. It's great news for us gamers whatever the actual reason behind such stance is.

 

[JesterRaiin]

I guess this is amazing news. Is this just Obama's attempt to get more votes in the upcoming elections this year, I don't care. It's great news for us gamers whatever the actual reason behind such stance is.

Whoooooooooa !
In modern world one can't believe in good intentions of any politician without suspecting some underlying, selfish agenda, but still, this is a great news indeed. Thanks Mr. Jensen.

 

[Kahunaburger]

In modern world one can't believe in good intentions of any politician without suspecting some underlying, selfish agenda, but still, this is a great news indeed.

My guess is the underlying selfish agenda is the youth vote - he gets that a lot of voters (who may live in swing states) may well vote on whether or not he signs SOPA if it comes across his desk. Not that I mind - this is excellent news!

 

[galdon2004]

I would not Trust any promise Obama gives us. Remember he promised to veto the NDAA and instead he signed it saying "I'm signing this even though I believe this bill to be bad" Basically; He's broken his own word so many times by now, I refuse to believe a word he says. He can shout to the heavens that he will veto this bill I will not believe it until he ACTUALLY vetos it.

 

[JesterRaiin]

In modern world one can't believe in good intentions of any politician without suspecting some underlying, selfish agenda, but still, this is a great news indeed.

My guess is the underlying selfish agenda is the youth vote - he gets that a lot of voters (who may live in swing states) may well vote on whether or not he signs SOPA if it comes across his desk. Not that I mind - this is excellent news!

This brings up an important (i think) question :
Is there anyone who believes that his government actually cares about him/her ?
That those people are honest while talking to masses ?

 

[galdon2004]

In modern world one can't believe in good intentions of any politician without suspecting some underlying, selfish agenda, but still, this is a great news indeed.

My guess is the underlying selfish agenda is the youth vote - he gets that a lot of voters (who may live in swing states) may well vote on whether or not he signs SOPA if it comes across his desk. Not that I mind - this is excellent news!

This brings up an important (i think) question :
Is there anyone who believes that his government actually cares about him/her ?
That those people are honest while talking to masses ?

Yeah that's the depressing thing; everybody knows our politicians are corrupt; yet everybody keeps voting for the same political parties that have proven time and again to be corrupt. I think its sort of a Prisoner's Dilemma. 'your' party is bad, and you know it, but the 'other' party is worse, so if you deny 'your' party a vote to go with a third party that would be better, you take the risk the 'other' party will get into power.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Yeah that's the depressing thing; everybody knows our politicians are corrupt; yet everybody keeps voting for the same political parties that have proven time and again to be corrupt. I think its sort of a Prisoner's Dilemma. 'your' party is bad, and you know it, but the 'other' party is worse, so if you deny 'your' party a vote to go with a third party that would be better, you take the risk the 'other' party will get into power.

Around here people started campaign called loosely "don't vote for big parties".
Surprisingly, thanks to this campaign the new, fresh party acquired more votes than a few other, older, better known ones. Unfortunately that's not enough to make serious difference, but it's a good start i guess.

Too bad, that not every country has the luxury of forming diverse opposition.

 

[Kahunaburger]

In modern world one can't believe in good intentions of any politician without suspecting some underlying, selfish agenda, but still, this is a great news indeed.

My guess is the underlying selfish agenda is the youth vote - he gets that a lot of voters (who may live in swing states) may well vote on whether or not he signs SOPA if it comes across his desk. Not that I mind - this is excellent news!

This brings up an important (i think) question :
Is there anyone who believes that his government actually cares about him/her ?
That those people are honest while talking to masses ?

I think that Obama (like all presidents) cares about certain things - whether Americans are safe from attack, have access to a fair trial, have food to put on the table, things like that. I don't think that in his case freedom from censorship is necessarily one of those things, but if he gets that a good way to get the youth vote is to not give in to the censors, I can accept that. American politics, ladies and gents :/

 

[galdon2004]

Yeah that's the depressing thing; everybody knows our politicians are corrupt; yet everybody keeps voting for the same political parties that have proven time and again to be corrupt. I think its sort of a Prisoner's Dilemma. 'your' party is bad, and you know it, but the 'other' party is worse, so if you deny 'your' party a vote to go with a third party that would be better, you take the risk the 'other' party will get into power.

Around here people started campaign called loosely "don't vote for big parties".
Surprisingly, thanks to this campaign the new, fresh party acquired more votes than a few other, older, better known ones. Unfortunately that's not enough to make serious difference, but it's a good start i guess.

Too bad, that not every country has the luxury of forming diverse opposition.

Yeah I hope that campaign makes some progress as the year goes on; the very fact that Congress is seriously considering SOPA shows that they are horribly corrupt. I read the email congress campaign got over a million supporters, which means a significant chunk of our congress would rather listen to a thousand millionaires than a million citizens. If the voice of the many is silenced simply by money, how can our government be called a democracy?

 

[SageRuffin]

Yeah I hope that campaign makes some progress as the year goes on; the very fact that Congress is seriously considering SOPA shows that they are horribly corrupt. I read the email congress campaign got over a million supporters, which means a significant chunk of our congress would rather listen to a thousand millionaires than a million citizens. If the voice of the many is silenced simply by money, how can our government be called a democracy?

And that, good sir/madam, is why people have come out and said that the US is more a plutocracy than a democracy - those with money have power, and those who want power have the money to get it. "He who has the most toys," in a sense.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

You realize he also opposed the NDAA and he still signed it, right?

While also making a statement saying "I disagree with sections *a lot of sections* of this bill, and my administration will not enforce them!".

Soo...Yeah, he can oppose it all he wants, but if he doesn't Veto it, then his opposition is meaningless.

 

[DustyDrB]

snip

There's also this [http://www.destructoid.com/de-fanged-dns-blocking-has-been-removed-from-sopa-bill-219671.phtml]. It's still an unfavorable bill, but that's one particularly bad part of it is gone.

 

[ElPatron]

So they let NDAA pass, but SOPA *might* be stopped in it's tracks?

Good logic, 'Bama Boy. Let the America turn into a police state but don't deny people's right to an uncensored internet!

 

[Skuffyshootster]

I'll be kind of disappointed if it doesn't pass. I can't be the only one looking forward to the new experiences of living in a cyberpunk dystopia.

 

[Skuffyshootster]

I'll be kind of disappointed if it doesn't pass. I can't be the only one looking forward to the new experiences of living in a cyberpunk dystopia.

 

[David Bjur]

I would like to say "F'ing called it!" but I won't get too cocky.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

So they let NDAA pass, but SOPA *might* be stopped in it's tracks?

Good logic, 'Bama Boy. Let the America turn into a police state but don't deny people's right to an uncensored internet!

As far as I could tell from reading though NDAA, it didn't actually change anything.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Words are wind.

The only thing this definitively proves is that the White House (and by extension, possibly Congress) is perfectly aware of the risks that SOPA and PIPA pose.

Whether they care, that has yet to be definitively shown.

This is a major election year people: Politicians will say whatever they think the people will want to hear, and this year includes the President.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I'll be kind of disappointed if it doesn't pass. I can't be the only one looking forward to the new experiences of living in a cyberpunk dystopia.

I for one welcome our new corporation overlords! *Also, double post you just did*

OT: Well that's good news. I'm not really a pro at american politics so can someone tell me if this means that the bill probably won't happen since the president is against it? Or is this a matter for the courts to decide?

 

[FoAmY99]

President Obama is a politician first and foremost. He knows damn well he's got one hell of a fight in store for him this election from the Republicans (go ron paul!) So i wouldn't read too deep into this. Politicians will say whatever they think will win the populace over. If by some slim chance he does veto it (I highly doubt it by the way) then good for him, but one good decision doesn't erase 4 years of bad ones.