The reasoning would be simple: The corrupt members of the government have levied a body of men to overthrow the democratic institution that we call the United States of America.
"Major" Bloomberg: "The NYPD is my Army", Homeland Security trampling on the US Constitution at every opportunity and at the order of congress, warrantless wiretaps, etc etc. Peaceable Protest made impossible by bureaucracy. Establishment of "First Amendment" zones for the press - where they can't see what's going on. Congress/Executive/SCOTUS making a tidy living from bribes^H^H^H Free Speech Expressed As Money.
There are a great many "bodies of men" acting unconstitutionally in this country, so assuming that a revolution took place, I don't think this line of prosecution would have much of a problem, do you? If a revolution doesn't take place, I think its pretty safe to say that the Government will take your side on the matter.
This is a shake down. If Facebook, Google, reddit, etc have something to gain from this, then they need to step and replace the money our poor senators will lose. This is how america works. You want legal "protection", you pays your "taxes".
If I get pulled over 10 times by 10 different cops, and I offer each one $100 to let me off, and only one of them takes the bribe - the other 9 don't negate the fact that one guy took the bribe.
"No your honor, I just like giving money to police officers whenever I meet them. See, its just random chance that this one guy let me off. Clearly it was on the merits of the situation, not because my money influenced him."
Cops don't make the laws of course. Otherwise you'd be allowed to bribe cops.
This is why, even though he is a nutjob on reproductive-rights, I have to support Ron Paul. All these issues should be decided by the states, not the feds.
> All these issues should be decided by the states, not the feds.
Rather OT, but I have a major problem with this line. The population of the U.S. around the writing of the constitution was ~3 million; if it was a state today, it would be one of the smaller ones. In many cases, states are not in any better a position to decide these issues than the federal government. (And with things like SOPA, per-state regulation would naturally be disastrous.) I think at this point, very few things can be well decided at the state level; thus, either the national gov't is needed to keep states from stepping on each others' toes (tax law and internet taxes), or the national gov't is needed to keep states from stepping on the rights of citizens of that state - which they are just as capable of doing as the national gov't was when the idea of state sovereignty was taken for granted.
tl;dr: states are as capable of screwing things up as the national gov't, and tend to be less transparent about it.
You are mistaken. Bribery and corruption are not protected by the first amendment. Try offering a police officer some cash next time you get a speeding ticket. Or setting up a nice deal to put kids in jail [1].
Of course, this only applies to me, you, county judges, etc. Not senators. Not SCOTUS Justices. Not the people who have the most to gain from such corruption. Not the people who actually decide such laws. Fancy.
You've misunderstood. Bribery and corruption are not protected by the first amendment and I never said they were. Donations are regarded as free speech despite the popular opinion that they are bribes.
I worked in Congress and saw a lot of good people doing a lot of good things. In my three years there I never saw any of the culture of greed and corruption that is perpetuated in so many places. It's sad.
Uh, what? You're claiming that those in congress are doing great things for us and the culture of greed and corruption is a perpetuated lie? Surely I've misread what you're saying because I can't imagine any person intelligent enough to even post online would say something so ridiculous.
And that pretty much hits the nail on the head for why the ruling for Citizens United is bad. It basically legalised bribes by confusing it with free speech.
Power-grabs are the abuse. There need not be any imoral motive behind the desire for this power, nor any plan to use them "for evil". We have already seen (UMG) that, given such power, there will be "accidental" abuse that has a major, negative effect on small players and citizens.
Even if you believe that these were genuine "accidents", do you believe that it is acceptable to allow these interests to have such power? Do you think it is just about "unimportant" things like copying music?
The US is still the worlds largest superpower, but compared to 20 years ago it has vastly less power. Its power has declined and continues to do so. Any student of history will tell you that this is exactly when states transform from free nations to fascist states.
I don't think I mentioned the Nazi's, but since you bring it up.
"From the prosperity of the empire during the Wilhelmine era (1890-1914), Germany plunged into World War I, a war it was to lose and one that spawned many of the economic crises that would destroy the successor Weimar Republic."
"During the Hitler era (1933-45), the economy developed a hothouse prosperity, supported with high government subsidies to those sectors that tended to give Germany military power and economic autarky"
Economic crises inducing a transition from democracy to plutocracy/fascism, and massive military spending, ending in wars on multiple fronts.
I suppose I should also qualify my statement as "dominant states". Since the most common way for small states to be converted to fascism is by the dominant state (i.e. USA) installing fascist/authoritarian governments for them. So I concede that, in general, you may be right.
> Economic crises inducing a transition from democracy to plutocracy/fascism, and massive military spending, ending in wars on multiple fronts.
There is one major thing missing from your description; it's so glaring and obvious that I'm amazed that you don't notice it. Nazis rose to power through a populist platform which promoted ethnic/racial hatred and reappropriation of resources from those perceived as morally "corrupt" (the Jewish people) or "too powerful" (the British empire). The Nazi leaders did not come to power first and then all of a sudden decided to exterminate the Jews out of the blue; the they went along with what was a populist sentiment at the time (while adding fuel to the fire by the means of propaganda and mass media which was relatively new at the time), and exploited that precisely that popular, hateful sentiment to guarantee their rise to power. I recommend watching a documentary called "The Goebbels Experiment" for a look from the inside on how it happened.
N.B. By going with what you're suggesting, any possible "empire" is fascist, which is blatantly wrong. Plutocracy is bad for various reasons, but plutocracy =/= fascism and genocide. I find it hilarious when people blame plutocracy for causing fascism because it is precisely the supposed "plutocracy" of the time (which was actually a codeword for rich Jews) which drove (indirectly of course) ignorant/resentful Germans in the 1930s to support Hitler and his clique.
So what you're saying is that after a decimation of their economy, Germans were angry at the economic elite in their country. They then listened to the entertainment industry's pressures to remove their freedom of speech, and other civil rights.
No, a really important feature of fascism is this hate component which keeps being omitted.
SOPA sucks, but it isn't driven by an ideology of the nation's renewal through purges of some undesirable class, return to cultural and religious fundamentals of the nation, pressing need to defeat communism and prove the nation's glory with war and occupations...
Whether or not the US is moving toward fascism in some way, SOPA is incidental to that - SOPA is nothing more than a big present to certain industries
> a really important feature of fascism is this hate component which keeps being omitted.
Yeah -- it's like an elephant in the room and no one among those who are the first to bring up comparisons between the U.S. and fascist states talks about it. I wonder why.
> SOPA is nothing more than a big present to certain industries
That is the best way to think about it -- it's akin to government pork in a way.
Great Britain was once the world's greatest superpower and yet managed to transition without becoming fascist. I think that history actually shows a diversity of scenarios.
If your going to define fascist as something that apply's to more than just Italy then, Great Britain got a lot closer to fascist than you might suspect. For example, agricultural subsidies use public funds to prop up private enterprises which is fascist. They also went into public surveillance, and indefinite detention without trial etc.
PS: It's a slippery term, but originally it had nothing to do with Germany.
Our founding fathers believed that you should be very careful what powers you give to any authority because, even though they may be nice now, you have no idea who will be in charge in the future.
This is why any student of history is against SOPA. We believe that it does not protect the rights espoused in the Constitution. We believe that it may be abused in the future.
Some people, such as yourself, seem to believe that this would never happen. You seem to think that because there is a need (in your view) for copyright holders to remove "owned" content, that we need a law like this. And further you seem to believe that its ok to have such a broad law, even though it may be open to such abuse.
UMG is just demonstrating why the founding fathers were right and why you are naive and short-sighted.
Here's the thing: if UMG wasn't actively doing it, you'd still be naive and short-sighted. You'd still be an "asshole", in your words, and the founding fathers would still be right.
There's one thing that the OP is indisputably correct about: Content creators (should) own the content they create. When Isee someone do something like putting "owned" in quotes, it just immediately strikes me as someone who justifies piracy to themselves by saying that no one owns content.
Or at the very least, if nobody owns it (as some people seem to believe), then content creators shouldn't be deceived into thinking that they own it and that society won't just pass it around. Whether or not IP exists, society at large needs to mostly agree one way or another, or a lot of people will put a lot of effort into something they wouldn't otherwise, and they won't be reimbursed in the way that convinced them to put in the effort in the first place.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
"limited times". Apparently the US Constitution disputes your assertion. Bunch of pirates, those founding fathers.
"There is a plan to murder 6 million jews. Some of you have written in to ask me to condemn this plan. Unfortunately, I cannot condemn this plan, because none of you have come up with a reasonable alternative."
I don't think you can use the excuse that we don't have a way to support your business model, to turn around and support fascism.
I can't believe in all your experience, you haven't met extremely smart hackers who are also utterly immoral. A situation like this just means they will be worth more money.
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/41-levying-war....
"Major" Bloomberg: "The NYPD is my Army", Homeland Security trampling on the US Constitution at every opportunity and at the order of congress, warrantless wiretaps, etc etc. Peaceable Protest made impossible by bureaucracy. Establishment of "First Amendment" zones for the press - where they can't see what's going on. Congress/Executive/SCOTUS making a tidy living from bribes^H^H^H Free Speech Expressed As Money.
There are a great many "bodies of men" acting unconstitutionally in this country, so assuming that a revolution took place, I don't think this line of prosecution would have much of a problem, do you? If a revolution doesn't take place, I think its pretty safe to say that the Government will take your side on the matter.