quote: That's the beauty of the Constitution. If we stuck to it, it wouldn't matter if we elected people like these, they simply wouldn't have the power to do things like this.
quote: I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, however I seriously doubt SOPA and it's lack of due process and it's ability to arbitrarily shut down web commerce, would fall under a "limited Government". Copyright protection is an enumerated power, sure. But SOPA goes FAR beyond that scope.
quote: Control of the web was never meant to be handed over to the Feds- I KNOW this, because it was not one of the enumerated powers. Aside from the 35 or so aspects of existence that the Feds are tasked with in the constitution- everything and I mean EVERYTHING else in the day to day lives of We the People are to be handled BY We the People in our respective states, in different ways appropriate for each.
quote: Granted, I'm not a Constitutional Law attorney either.
quote: Give them an inch and they want to go all the way.
quote: However, from what I have read of the law (SOPA), there is due process because to shut down a website, an injunction or temporary restraining order must be issued by the court either prior to or after a hearing on the merits of the case.
quote: SOPA changes it so that the infringer's service provider is also liable. The service provider has no idea if any infringement actually occurred, and (assuming they have lots of customers) little interest in preserving the infringer's business or financial integrity. They just want to cover their own butts to make sure they aren't sued for something someone else did without their knowledge.
quote: So the copyright holder sends a claim of infringement to the service provider. The service provider acts in self-interest and immediately shuts down the alleged infringer's website. The alleged infringer is then put into a position where they have to prove that they didn't infringe in order to restore service. No court, no injunction, no hearing, no due process.
quote: as opposed to the irrational hysteria over the supposed Constitutional violations that everyone magically sees in this bill.
quote: Therefore, the bill does not take away the due process rights of any individual.
quote: You're right, it only takes away the rights of the thousands or millions who might visit the offending website, only to find it shut down because of ONE offender/offense. Not to mention the website could be one that people depend on for their livelihood.
quote: Not to mention all the First Amendment issues this bill brings up. But I guess that's more 'hysteria' too...
quote: You say you don't support the bill, yet constantly cook up ways to interpret it as being legitimate and legal. It's NOT.
quote: There is no right to visit a specific website in the Constitution,
quote: However, I can remove myself from the fray and look at the law objectively and say that, according to my knowledge, it doesn't infringe on any Constitutional rights as it is written.
quote: And this is where you prove you don't understand the Constitution at all. At all! Whatsoever.
quote: Excuse me but I've already provided links, and I can find more, of experts who have FORGOTTEN more about the Constitution than you or I will ever know, who soundly disagree with you.
quote: You're being deliberately obtuse to the point of ignorance, sad to say.
quote: I am well aware that Mr. Tribe disagrees with me, but what Mr. Tribe proposes is that individuals, in their own capacity, are equivalent to states and the federal government, and they can run afoul of the First Amendment. There has been no case where the Supreme Court has ever stated this to be true.
quote: As I noted above, there is no Constitutional right to visit a website and I highly doubt the Supreme Court will ever say that there is.
quote: Constitutional law is so amorphous because the Constitution was made intentionally vague to avoid situations where Congress would be unintentionally denied a power necessary to govern.
quote: (yes, I know it is an attorney hired by the MPAA, but he is still bound by ethics)
quote: Now if you bring me a link to Erwin Chemerinsky, Kathleen Sullivan, or Gerald Gunther saying the law is unconstitutional
quote: Furthermore, I noted above that I don't like the law
quote: That's like saying because the Constitution doesn't specifically say I have a right to walk and chew bubble gum, that Congress can pass a law saying I can't. Again, you prove you just do NOT understand the Constitution and enumerated powers.
quote: Again, proving your ignorance. The Constitution is not vague at all. Not even close.
quote: Basically your supporting the same mindset that has lead up to the mess we have now. Interpreting the Constitution so the commerce clause, for example, can be cited as to allow the Government to do everything and anything. Even things specifically NOT granted to them in this document you call "vague".
quote: All of those people are JUST as respected and accredited and qualified as Tribe. Yet because they haven't spoken out on SOPA yet, and Tribe has, that automatically makes him wrong and my source not count? Man that's a terrific debate tactic you're using. I'll have to remember to try that sometime...
quote: This is someone who thinks it's "Constitutional" for Obamacare to force citizens into buying federally ran health insurance for christ sake.
quote: No. If you're against me on this, then you ARE supporting the law.
quote: The issue here is that the court orders can be obtained by accusation. This is not proof that any violations have occurred, just enough to sway a judge.
quote: They're looking for the power to damage these websites well before they've been proven guilty. Even if they are innocent they need to prove their innocence in court before they can reopen their website, and would've lost quite a bit of income, or at the very least usercount from the simple act of arbitrarily suspending the website. I can't see this as anything but guilty until proven innocent, which is unconstitutional.
quote: First it claims that there's little fight between copyright and the First Amendment because the two things were put in place at about the same time. That's a specious argument for a variety of reasons. First, the original copyright law was significantly limited in a way that it was unlikely to really come into conflict with the First Amendment. It was limited to just a few specific areas, and for a very short period of time. It's only now that (1) copyright law has been totally flipped to make just about everything you create covered by copyright, (2) the law has been massively expanded in time and (3) changes in technology make us all create tons of "copyrighted" material all the time -- things have changed an entirely. It's hard to see how the Court can reasonably argue that the traditional contours of copyright law have not changed... but that's exactly what it does.