Kill SOPA, bill goes to house December 15.

[ATARI800XLfan]

So they started 20 minutes ago. They ended five minutes ago saying that they'll resume on the next practicable date. Can I get a what?

Anyway, the important things that happened (tweets from @EFFLive):

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (@JasonInTheHouse) again brings up the serious security problems in SOPA. Will anyone listen this time?

This amendment, from Rep. Chaffetz, would take DNS blocking off the table until a study into its security impact had been conducted.

Rep. Chaffetz read a letter from the GOVERNMENT'S OWN CYBER SECURITY EXPERT that SOPA will hurt the Internet's infrastructure.

Rep. Chaffetz proposes a classified security briefing with the NSA, DHS, et al, and a public security hearing before voting on SOPA

Lamar Smith finally sounds open to an additional hearing on cyber security with actual experts. The first semi-positive development all day.

Rep. Watt tying himself in knots talking about experts again. Tries to enter out-of-context blog post from Paul Vixie into the record.

Chairman Smith just announced that they're concluding markup for the day, to reconvene on the next practicable date.

And markup is abruptly over. Okay then.

The biggest thing about this? It's unlikely that this will go to vote before the year is over. Huzzah!

That's good news. Been spreading the word around my college. Looks like everyone's hard work is starting to get notice, keep it up guys. any one else spreading the news.

[MrPopo]

It's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

Keep in mind that a republic is a representative democracy.

Yeah, AppleQueso basically said, "It's not a Sony, it's a PlayStation."

The key is that we elect legislaters who are free to do whatever the hell they want once elected. However, they usually do what their constituents want because if they don't they won't get relected next cycle. But at the end of the day the general people are insulated from actual lawmaking. If we were a full democracy all laws would be voted on by the public.

[ATARI800XLfan]

It's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

Keep in mind that a republic is a representative democracy.

Yeah, AppleQueso basically said, "It's not a Sony, it's a PlayStation."

The key is that we elect legislaters who are free to do whatever the hell they want once elected. However, they usually do what their constituents want because if they don't they won't get relected next cycle. But at the end of the day the general people are insulated from actual lawmaking. If we were a full democracy all laws would be voted on by the public.[/quote]


that is how it should be, any major laws like this should be voted on by the general public after they have been informed fairly and properly.

[o.pwuaioc]

The key is that we elect legislaters who are free to do whatever the hell they want once elected. However, they usually do what their constituents want because if they don't they won't get relected next cycle. But at the end of the day the general people are insulated from actual lawmaking. If we were a full democracy all laws would be voted on by the public.

that is how it should be, any major laws like this should be voted on by the general public after they have been informed fairly and properly.

That would be a direct democracy, rather than "full" democracy. And anyone who has studied 5th century Athens knows that it can be just as dangerous -if not more! - than a representative democracy.

[ATARI800XLfan]

The key is that we elect legislaters who are free to do whatever the hell they want once elected. However, they usually do what their constituents want because if they don't they won't get relected next cycle. But at the end of the day the general people are insulated from actual lawmaking. If we were a full democracy all laws would be voted on by the public.

that is how it should be, any major laws like this should be voted on by the general public after they have been informed fairly and properly.

That would be a direct democracy, rather than "full" democracy. And anyone who has studied 5th century Athens knows that it can be just as dangerous -if not more! - than a representative democracy.

then if anything we need more term limits on politicians, why should just a few like the president only be able to serve so many times. Something does need to be done. I think we should model it more like Brittan. Have campaigns only start a month or so before election and do not allow major lobbyists to give money, if the politician wants money donated they will have to make there voters happy to where they will donate.(Discussed this in my government class in college. Majority of students seemed to like these ideas, get rid of lobbyists.) But that is off topic.

[o.pwuaioc]

That would be a direct democracy, rather than "full" democracy. And anyone who has studied 5th century Athens knows that it can be just as dangerous -if not more! - than a representative democracy.

then if anything we need more term limits on politicians, why should just a few like the president only be able to serve so many times. Something does need to be done. I think we should model it more like Brittan. Have campaigns only start a month or so before election and do not allow major lobbyists to give money, if the politician wants money donated they will have to make there voters happy to where they will donate.(Discussed this in my government class in college. Majority of students seemed to like these ideas, get rid of lobbyists.) But that is off topic.

Democrats tried to get rid of lobbyists - that much is really a cross-party issue, but SCotUS ruled against it. It's something that needs to be written into the Constitution, in my opinion.

[ATARI800XLfan]

that is how it should be, any major laws like this should be voted on by the general public after they have been informed fairly and properly.

That would be a direct democracy, rather than "full" democracy. And anyone who has studied 5th century Athens knows that it can be just as dangerous -if not more! - than a representative democracy.

then if anything we need more term limits on politicians, why should just a few like the president only be able to serve so many times. Something does need to be done. I think we should model it more like Brittan. Have campaigns only start a month or so before election and do not allow major lobbyists to give money, if the politician wants money donated they will have to make there voters happy to where they will donate.(Discussed this in my government class in college. Majority of students seemed to like these ideas, get rid of lobbyists.) But that is off topic.

Democrats tried to get rid of lobbyists - that much is really a cross-party issue, but SCotUS ruled against it. It's something that needs to be written into the Constitution, in my opinion.[/quote]
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I like your opinion.

[Hatta]

If only prohibiting something in the Constitution meant anything. Prohibit lobbying in the Constitution, and they'd just stop calling it lobbying. e.g. the Constitution prohibits going to war without approval of Congress. Solution, call it a "police action" and cram the SCOTUS with war mongers.

[Inazuma]

Woo! Victory for the good guys!

[ATARI800XLfan]

now it sounds like the guys supporting the bill want to start up discussions again as soon as possible.