His real constituents are the various companies that make up the banking sector - not the people in his district. Cynical? sure... but his sponsorship of this bill is very much in line with his almost republican-like business views. It's all about the benjamins.
Yes, America can rightly be called corporate ruled for the most part. So he doesn't really care about average public. He cares about corporations and their money.
Wait, wait, wait. So this was specifically about censoring "illegal" content? That's not in your post at all. in fact, you present it as a direct quote without mentioning illegal content at all. “Senator Schumer is in favor of censoring the internet.” Generically censoring the internet is much more sensational then specifically censoring illegal content. (However you define that, and yes I understand the nuance between how do you determine what's legal/illegal and what's not vis a vis copyright etc., but: the average layperson reading a sensationalized piece does not.)
I asked twice. The first time he said "censor the internet" and then I think he heard the shock in my voice when I asked him to repeat and he said "he is in favor of censoring illegal content." So perhaps worthy of a clarification.
"Censoring illegal content" is weasel terminology and a huge red herring. If a government chooses to censor content, that content is considered illegal by definition: if it wasn't considered illegal, the government would have no grounds to censor it.
The problem is not that they want to censor things. Almost everyone agrees that some things need to be censored (e.g. publications found to be defamatory, publications of stolen trade secrets, etc.). The problem is what content they want to be able to declare illegal at little more than a whim.
Well, let's give him credit. That staffer was at least honest. These congressmen aren't stupid, they well know that they support censorship and that's what all these PIPA and SOPA are about - censorship. And the fact that they don't openly speak about it doesn't change the essence.
But they are scared of publicity still. So thank you for publishing this encounter. It really needs a broader coverage.
The call wasn't recorded and I did not get the person's name. I took clear notes and asked him to repeat that the Senator is in favor of "censoring" illegal content, which he confirmed.
The way he said "censor" really made my skin crawl - it was so pompous. Gillibrand's people were nice, fyi.
I asked twice if he had spoken with any constituents over the phone who support the bill and he confirmed twice that he had not.
But still, I am not a journalist and didn't plan to blog about this except that I was so shocked by the replies I got. Surely people who work the phones at these offices must assume that everything they say could end up "on the internet"?
If the past months are any indication, no news organization is interested in reporting anything remotely relating to SOPA (except maybe as a short piece to promote it as "the legislation that will stop piracy for good" and that anyone who opposes this is a criminal).
SOPA did not get any media coverage, and I'd be surprised if flippant comments made by an anonymous staffer changed that.
The American press loves quoting 'sources close to the senator' or a 'White house senior staffer.' Most journalists have no problem quoting anonymous sources (when it promotes their agenda).
I wouldn't worry about not having taken the name of the person on the other end of the call.
They only do that when they are receiving information off the record, or the person isn't authorized to give their name. They don't do that when getting information second hand that isn't confirmable.
New York is a single-party-notification state as far as recording phone calls goes. If someone else calls, perhaps they can record it? It's pretty easy with Google Voice (though it does notify the other person).
Somebody wake me up.