[url]http://kotaku.com/5876166/the-white-house-isnt-happy-with-sopa-either-will-not-support-legislation-that-reduces-freedom-of-expression[/url]
[quote]Critics of the Stop Online Piracy Act, you just might have a new ally: The President of the United States.
The White House responded to a pair of online petitions today, expressing support for anti-piracy legislation but outright refusing to back the anti-piracy measures as outlines in the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act.
"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the White House said in a letter signed by three officials involved in budget, technology and cybersecurity.
[/quote]
So there you have it guys, Obama is on our side! This is huge!
[quote]we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet[/quote]
Until they explicitly state "we do not support SOPA because it reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, and/or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet", I wouldn't take it as any kind of guarantee.
"I just signed away the civil liberties of people around the world, potentially including my own citizens thanks to an additional law nobody knew about later on, but I am against SOPA. I am Barack Obama and I approve this message"
WOO OBAMA YEA OBAMA 2012
Say what you may about the man, but at least he sees whats wrong with this bill unlike the republicans and some democrats in Congress.
Maybe he will black out the US in support of anti SOPA movements.
Obama "promised" to not sign the NDAA. What the fuck makes you think the outcome of SOPA will be any different than what he did with the NDAA?
[QUOTE=Contag;34212709]Until they explicitly state "we do not support SOPA because it reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, and/or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet", I wouldn't take it as any kind of guarantee.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the full article?
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34212737]Obama "promised" to not sign the NDAA. What the fuck makes you think the outcome of SOPA will be any different than what he did with the NDAA?[/QUOTE]
The NDAA wasn't affecting average american citizens or legal aliens, there was no problem in signing it.
-snip, bad BAD reading-
[QUOTE=Santz;34212788]The NDAA wasn't affecting average american citizens or legal aliens, there was no problem in signing it.[/QUOTE]
Um yes it does, you should read up on it more. It just states that the Obama administration wont detain American citizens. Anyone elected after can do whatever the hell they want.
So what was that about the author of SOPA saying there was no real opposition to it again?
Nowhere in statement did they say they're specifically against SOPA. Just against bills that restrict in freedom. Still good statement.
[QUOTE=dark soul;34212834]Um yes it does, you should read up on it more. It just states that the Obama administration wont detain American citizens. Anyone elected after can do whatever the hell they want.[/QUOTE]
As far as I know the wording of the bill was changed. so there wasn't just a pledge from the current administration but an outright change in the text of the bill.
Obama had already said he wasn't going to support SOPA from the beginning. He said he'd veto it if it ever came to his desk. Of course Congress can override it but still...
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;34212745]Did you read the full article?[/QUOTE]
Yes and point to the fucking part where he explicitly said he would veto SOPA.
I did, however, read the part that said
[quote]while not a veto threat[/quote]
[QUOTE=wraithcat;34212894]As far as I know the wording of the bill was changed. so there wasn't just a pledge from the current administration but an outright change in the text of the bill.[/QUOTE]
Well then I hope this video is wrong.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=93&feature=plcp[/media]
[QUOTE=dark soul;34212834]Um yes it does, you should read up on it more. It just states that the Obama administration wont detain American citizens. Anyone elected after can do whatever the hell they want.[/QUOTE]
If I'm not wrong only under extreme circumstances which means you were linked directly to a terrorist organization or so. People here in FP overreacted thinking it was an against-free-speech thing but it isn't. The NDAA wont get you into jail indefinitely for protesting or "occupying" because those are not considered terrorist acts.
Remember, Obama said this
[quote]"I'm as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I've been for years," Obama said in a press conference on Dec. 7, 2010. "In the long run, we simply can't afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I've championed and that they've opposed."[/quote]
and caved on it.
If there's enough political pressure, he could just as easily cave on this as well.
They've already taken out the DNS bit to help it pass.
[QUOTE=Santz;34212939]If I'm not wrong only under extreme circumstances which means you were linked directly to a terrorist organization or so. People here in FP overreacted thinking it was an against-free-speech thing but it isn't. The NDAA wont get you into jail indefinitely for protesting or "occupying" because those are not considered terrorist acts.[/QUOTE]
Well that's what people are afraid of, the fact that what "terrorism" is is too malleable.
I still hold that the NDAA means absolutely jack shit considering the AMUF already gave the president those powers and more.
Back onto SOPA though, why would he change direction on this? He's made his reasons quite clear. He only changed his views on NDAA because he got his way (he thought it might restrict his powers under the AMUF too much), so I don't think he'll cop out on this one. Also, I beleive they don't mention either SOPA or PIPA by name because they're saying [I]any[/I] act that does those damaging things will lack the White House's support.
I'm sorry, politics have jaded me and the American politician system has destroyed any kind of optimism I have in the short term
good fucking luck to you guys though, hopefully enough public pressure will force them to change their minds and overcome the corporate spending
[QUOTE=Santz;34212788]The NDAA wasn't affecting average american citizens or legal aliens, there was no problem in signing it.[/QUOTE]
wow seriously are there people out there who still think this?
if you actually paid attention you would have seen that you can still be detained, it's just not a REQUIREMENT. in the end you're still subject to detainment if the military feels like it, but don't worry because obama pinkie swore he wouldn't use it!!
also until he vetos SOPA i really don't give a shit what he says, considering he was so opposed to NDAA until it landed on his desk
[QUOTE=Santz;34212939]If I'm not wrong only under extreme circumstances which means you were linked directly to a terrorist organization or so. People here in FP overreacted thinking it was an against-free-speech thing but it isn't. The NDAA wont get you into jail indefinitely for protesting or "occupying" because those are not considered terrorist acts.[/QUOTE]
"eh well it doesnt affect me so who cares lol"
this attitude is the reason our rights are being corroded away
"give the government the power to detain me without trial and strip me of my citizenship if i'm a terrorist? well im not a terrorist so no biggie!!"
do you ever stop to think who defines people as terrorists? (hint: the government)
so even if you aren't a terrorist, all they need to say is "santz is a terrorist, lock him up boys"
clearly though this isn't an issue since it won't affect you
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34213134]wow seriously are there people out there who still think this?
if you actually paid attention you would have seen that you can still be detained, it's just not a REQUIREMENT. in the end you're still subject to detainment if the military feels like it, but don't worry because obama pinkie swore he wouldn't use it!!
also until he vetos SOPA i really don't give a shit what he says, considering he was so opposed to NDAA until it landed on his desk[/QUOTE]
He was opposed to the NDAA until he knew it wouldn't restrict his powers. So he never went back on why he had problems with the bill. The President has been able to detain me you and everybody else since 2001 because of the AMUF anyway.
aaaaaaaaw yeah
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;34212737]Obama "promised" to not sign the NDAA. What the fuck makes you think the outcome of SOPA will be any different than what he did with the NDAA?[/QUOTE]
Because it was a dick move as to whoever wrote it because it was tied to the military's budget. Obama couldn't delay the thing forever (to get the bad parts removed) because of that.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jxUvZ2YRZyw/TnXz3QSrnhI/AAAAAAAAAIk/kGzM-65_y_E/s1600/i-want-to-believe.jpg[/img]
picture especially related because the only thing that will unfuck the government is aliens...
I hope
[t]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jxUvZ2YRZyw/TnXz3QSrnhI/AAAAAAAAAIk/kGzM-65_y_E/s1600/i-want-to-believe.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Spooter;34213176]He was opposed to the NDAA until he knew it wouldn't restrict his powers. So he never went back on why he had problems with the bill. The President has been able to detain me you and everybody else since 2001 because of the AMUF anyway.[/QUOTE]
so his entire reasoning behind hating NDAA in the first place was he was afraid he'd LOSE the power to violate the rights of american citizens?
wow that's so reassuring!
[editline]14th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;34213206]Because it was a dick move as to whoever wrote it because it was tied to the military's budget. Obama couldn't delay the thing forever (to get the bad parts removed) because of that.[/QUOTE]
obama isn't held accountable for anything, no matter how often he messes up, apparently even his extremely weak will and willingness to sacrifice his alleged principles and the rights of american citizens for the sake of our bloated military budget is the republican's fault as well.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34213217]so his entire reasoning behind hating NDAA in the first place was he was afraid he'd LOSE the power to violate the rights of american citizens?
wow that's so reassuring![/QUOTE]
Think of it what you will, he went back on his veto threat only because his demands were met. I see that as him sticking to his guns, where-ever those guns may be pointed. Again, doesn't matter because AMUF.
[QUOTE=Santz;34212788]The NDAA wasn't affecting average american citizens or legal aliens, there was no problem in signing it.[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong(really I want to be) but didn't he just say that it'd be like that as long as he was in office to keep it that way?
Let's have a look at the wording:
[quote][B]"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet,"[/B][/quote]
Look at this from a strictly legal perspective. All he's really saying is that if he personally believes - or claims to believe - That a bill reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet, then he will not support it. He can easily pretend not to believe any of those apply to SOPA, and he may well sign it into law anyway.
When any politician, be they senator, representative, congressman or parliamentarian says "I'll see what I can do for you" or "I'll look into it." what they're really saying is "No. Hell no. I can't believe you're asking me this, but because you are this is how I'll say no." It doesn't mean they'll help you, it only legally means that they'll think about possible ways they COULD help you if they were interested in helping you, which they clearly aren't. They really hate to say no.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.