…..”The developments were a setback for former Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, who has made fighting online piracy his No. 1 priority since becoming head of the Motion Picture Assn. of America last March. The Connecticut Democrat was selected in part for his political savvy and 30-year experience in Congress.
Dodd said Friday that the industry would now seek a compromise version of the legislation. He acknowledged that Hollywood lost the public relations battle and blamed his Silicon Valley counterparts.
“You’ve got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there’s no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want,” he said. “We need to engage in a far better education process. People need to know … that 98% of people who work in the entertainment industry make $55,000 a year. They’re not moguls and they’re not walking red carpets.”…..
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-hollywood-post-sopa-20120121,0,300154.story
RRD:This is not the first time that statists have complained about the alleged lack of a “fact checker” on the internet,by which they presumably mean a “independent” fact checker,who works for the government,and polices the web for “lies” directed against government officials and laws.(fn1)Nor do I suspect it will be the last.Of course there is a “fact checker” built into the law:The First Amendment.Countless groups and individuals can and do fact check stories at Politifact,Factcheck,Snopes etc,(and some in turn fact check those sites’ “facts”)It was bloggers who used their ”unfactchecked” blogs,to check the facts of Dan Rather.
”Oh,Robert you’re being unfair,he wasn’t advocating censorship….”.Which universe are we living in?
The one where we should afford the benefit of the doubt to lying statist politicians(see below)?
If he wanted to criticize Facebook,Wikipedia,Google and WordPress why not just say”They’re wrong,here’s why”,why use this phrase: “You’ve got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there’s no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want,” without a fact-checker?What kind of “fact-checker”?From where?Who is the MPAA’s “fact checker”?
Who is Dodd’s?
And why is it outlandish for Facebook,Wikipedia,and Google to object to laws that they think will harm their businesses?
Don’t they have a right to speak on their own website?
Or to shut it down if they wished?
Again why this phrase:” “You’ve got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there’s no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want,”.
Dodd is the representative of a multi-billion industry,which has vast resources at its disposal to argue for their case night and day,and to lobby congress,and they do just that.I have not argued that the problem,or a problem,is that Dodd “can say whatever he wants”,I’ve said that he’s wrong.
The solution to(allegedly) false speech is more speech,not to bewail the fact that “people can say whatever they want”,which is a vital right,and which is one of the key features of a free society that distinguishes it from a dictatorship.(And it cuts both ways,Dodd etal have the same right to say “whatever they want” though since Dodd and his collegues speak TRUTH and the rest of us who oppose him speak LIES,I suspect that he would argue that there is no comparison).
Chris Dodd is a former Senator,& advocate of Cap & Trade.
Chris Dodd: Dodd Touts Energy Plan At Biodiesel Plant, Kitchen Tables In Southeast Iowa | All American Patriots: Politics, economy, health, environment, energy and technology
And a man who ruled out lobbying after he ended his Senate career:
Chris Dodd on life after the U.S. Senate – Capitol Watch
http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/03/chris-dodd-on-life-after-the-u.html
Dodd said he will not lobby, but, like Hagel and Nunn, he may teach
Dodd forswears a lobbying career | The Connecticut Mirror
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/7485/lawmakerlobbyists
….”No lobbying, no lobbying,” Dodd said in a recent interview. That Dodd would forgo a trip through Washington’s “revolving door,” using his policy and political expertise–and a thick Rolodex–to launch a new career in the influence industry, may come as a surprise”…
Dodd to be Hollywood’s top man in Washington – The Hill’s Hillicon Valley
….“Sen. Dodd is a battle-tested leader whose reputation as a strong leader on major issues facing this country has prepared him to serve as the ambassador for the movie business. I, along with my colleagues, agree that he was worth the wait,” said Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairman Jim Gianopulos in a statement, joining his fellow studio bosses in cheering Dodd’s hiring.”…
RRD:But Robert why do you cite this?Are you saying that because a statist is one of those leading the charge for SOPA that that invalidates arguments for it?
Not at all.
Ron Wyden is one of SOPA’s leading opponents and a longtime supporter of Socialized Medicine,it does not logically follow that all opponents of SOPA are either advocates of Socialized Medicine,or dupes of Wyden,any more than SOPA supporters are dupes of Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy
(e.g. now ex-SOPA/PIPA supporter Marsha Blackburn).
It is certainly true that some SOPA supporters are irrational,as are some SOPA opponents.That does not address the specific criticisms of the bill:that it is vague,violates due process,breaks or damages the internet by damaging the DNS system(which is a highly technical matter requiring technical expertise to evaluate,forcing layman to evaluate the arguments & credibility of various experts in the field.),Other arguments have been presented on those matters but saying,in effect,that:”Since some of SOPA’s critics were irrational on some past issues,their arguments about SOPA breaking the net must be wrong”,is not a valid argument.There are many cases of otherwise rational people who make irrational arguments on some issues,and other cases where otherwise irrational people make rational arguments on some issues.
And there are cases where a rational person and a irrational person make the same argument, though for different motives.
(And this does not even take into account the cases of people,with flawless past records for rationality,simply making mistakes).
It is for precisely this reason that I look at the argument rather than the man.It is true,as I noted,that there are highly technical issues in which one is forced,to a degree,to trust in expert witnesses.But even in those cases,the matter is complicated by the fact that experts do not always agree,and also by cases where a good person,with a good philosophy,gets it wrong,and a person with a bad philosophy,happens to be simply better versed in a particular technical issue(science,medicine,engineering etc),and is right.
(And what does one do when the person with the most expertise in a field,has a bad philosophy?)
This is precisely why any law that affects the technology underlying the internet,or that may harm it,( in the opinion of some experts in the field),must be subject to the most intense scrutiny.
We have far too much evidence of the government smashing peoples lives to pieces and then saying “oops”,(and in some cases not even that).The cases range all through all branches of government,from false imprisonment and accusations and wrongful executions,to banning life saving medications,to using “reason”,and “science” to ban DDT at the cost of countless lives,to taking down a internet site under existing laws,and then,returning it a year later.(fn2),to accept the argument that ”abuses happen”.
It is precisely for that reason,that abuses can occur under any legal doctrine no matter how well crafted,that the law must be very carefully vetted,against anything that needlessly violates individual rights.(Or that can be misinterpreted).
Lord knows we have far too many cases of the courts,or the executive,or Congress,ignoring the plain meaning of existing laws without making the Statist’s job easier for them.
Footnotes.
fn1.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/cass_sunsteins_despicable_idea.html
fn2
(As I have noted before,posting a link does NOT imply agreement with everything said)
Glory to man in the highest 