The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet

[sbsion]

shows you where Hatch is REALLY COMING FROM.........."sold out...." Maybe he KNOWS he won't ever be re-elected again?

[durangout]

shows you where Hatch is REALLY COMING FROM.........."sold out...." Maybe he KNOWS he won't ever be re-elected again?

Hatch has gotta be made to dissapear next election.

[p51-mustang]

Question: would you all support a law that restricted porn on the internet? Would such law violate free speech?

[Fiannan]

Question: would you all support a law that restricted porn on the internet? Would such law violate free speech?

Hard cases make for bad law. Of course people concerned with their kids looking at porn might like this, but do you really think the final application of such legislation will be to curb porn? Not likely. Porn is a multi-billion dollar business that is interwoven with many mega-corporations from the telecommunications industry, to one of the big auto manufacturers to the Marriott Hotel chain. No, the US government will never restrict porn...more likely they will shut down some guys Constitution blog that has maybe 100 visitors per month.

[pjbrownie]

Hatch is now on my chopping block. He better beware. First Bennett, now Hatch. I thought Hatch was better than Bennett. Just goes to show when you are in Washington TOOOOOO long.

Bye bye Hatch.

[pjbrownie]

Question: would you all support a law that restricted porn on the internet? Would such law violate free speech?

That's a really good question. I think we could get the Fairness Doctrine and COICA lobbies to shut up if we demanded that with this sort of economic and political censorship, it's only fair to censor smut as well. No one would go for it.

[dennis]

another QUESTION; what government agency is doing anything to benefit or help the average citizen?

[jnjnelson]

OK, I've heard and read most of the arguments that COICA is a violation of free speech. However, having read the bill (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3804/text) I'm not seeing it - and this bill is only 14 pages long. This bill is short, concise, and clearly falls only under the umbrella of enforcing copyright infringement. Is it not the proper role of government to punish copyright infringement? If it is not, the concept of intellectual property is not a true concept. I think that is a very dangerous road. I believe it is within the proper role of government to punish copyright infringement, and I don't see anywhere in the text of the COICA bill that oversteps that authority. If someone else can explain to me what part of that bill violates free speech, please do so.

Now, on the other side of the coin, the DHS has been misusing its authority granted under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and shutting down Internet sites anyway (see http://www.naturalnews.com/030542_censo ... ernet.html) While copyright infringement is criminal, and should be, those who infringe on copyright should not be denied due process of law by the very government that should be protecting their rights. The real issue in the Internet copyright infringement battle is not free speech, but due process.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment is primarily about protecting the rights of those accused of crime, and if the government refuses to protect the rights of those merely accused of crime, nobody is safe.