« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Target These Members of Congress for Defeat. Yes, Even Good Friends of This Site.

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 18th, 2012 at 04:50 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The following are sponsors of Protect IP in the Senate originally introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Both Republicans and Democrats should pledge to unite and primary these members of the Senate, however much we may love them, for pushing such harmful legislation.

If they don’t want to be primaried, they should stop sponsoring this crap. At the same time, I’m not going to primary my side unless the left primaries their side.

Next to each name is the date they signed on as a co-sponsor. Kudos to Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas for withdrawing as a sponsor:

Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] – 5/25/2011
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] – 6/27/2011
Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] – 7/25/2011
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] – 10/19/2011
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] – 5/12/2011
Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] – 5/23/2011 No longer a sponsor.
Sen Boozman, John [AR] – 6/15/2011
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 12/12/2011
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] – 10/20/2011
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] – 7/13/2011
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] – 9/7/2011
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] – 11/2/2011
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] – 6/23/2011
Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE] – 5/12/2011
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] – 6/9/2011
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 6/30/2011
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] – 9/7/2011
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] – 5/12/2011
Sen Franken, Al [MN] – 5/12/2011
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] – 5/26/2011
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 5/12/2011
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] – 5/12/2011
Sen Hagan, Kay [NC] – 7/5/2011
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 5/12/2011 No longer a sponsor.
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] – 11/2/2011
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] – 10/3/2011
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] – 5/12/2011
Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] – 5/12/2011
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] – 10/17/2011
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] – 7/7/2011
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 7/26/2011
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] – 10/31/2011
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] – 9/23/2011
Sen Risch, James E. [ID] – 11/7/2011
Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] – 5/26/2011 No longer a sponsor.
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] – 5/12/2011
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] – 6/30/2011
Sen Udall, Tom [NM] – 7/7/2011
Sen Vitter, David [LA] – 11/7/2011
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] – 5/12/2011

The following are co-sponsors of SOPA in the House, originally introduced by Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas. Both Republicans and Democrats should pledge to unite and primary these members of the Senate, however much we may love them, for pushing such harmful legislation.

If they don’t want to be primaried, they should stop sponsoring this crap At the same time, I’m not going to primary my side unless the left primaries their side..

Next to each name is the date they signed on as a co-sponsor.

Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] – 11/3/2011
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] – 12/7/2011
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] – 11/14/2011
Rep Bass, Karen [CA-33] – 11/3/2011
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] – 10/26/2011
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 10/26/2011
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] – 10/26/2011
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 11/3/2011
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 10/26/2011
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] – 11/30/2011
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 10/26/2011
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-5] – 12/12/2011
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-19] – 10/26/2011
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] – 10/26/2011
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 10/26/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 10/26/2011
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] – 11/30/2011
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] – 11/3/2011
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] – 11/30/2011
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] – 11/14/2011
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 11/3/2011
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] – 11/3/2011
Rep Owens, William L. [NY-23] – 11/14/2011
Rep Quayle, Benjamin [AZ-3] – 12/13/2011
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] – 10/26/2011
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 11/14/2011
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] – 10/26/2011
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] – 12/7/2011
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 10/26/2011
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 10/26/2011
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] – 11/3/2011
Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] – 11/3/2011

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • trickamsterdam

    Why this is a “censorship” issue, and not a “piracy” (i.e., Stop Online Piracy Act) and law enforcement issue?

    If a bar serves minors, even if they don’t know it, they face problems. I’m not sure why sites that have piracy (especially since most of them do know it) don’t face problems?

    And if it’s “due process”, where’s the due process for the bar? Yes, they have to have a license…if the internet doesn’t want to find itself as regulated, maybe it should take a deal sooner rather than later.

    This is not snark…I really think people like me, who are not as caught up in internet “freedom”, are confused by this. It’s just seems like the rules you would have anywhere else in life (IMO).

    But I’m willing to be informed, if there’s something I’m not getting….

  • macwell

    First off this bill is not really about piracy, it’s about control of what you and I can or can’t say.
    Online piracy, at least now a days, comes mostly from the east, Russia, China, the mid-east. The biggest reason for a law like this is to insure that individual property rights are protected, which is impossible. Ever since media became digital it cannot be protected by a law.
    The ones who’re griping most are the media moguls, those in the entertainment industry. Record producers and movie producers who’ve been ripping off, not only the public, but the singers and actors, and bands who work to produce the media. Think about it, how many singers have been left in obscurity while the producers got rich? We here it all the time, the old sign here and we’ll make you rich. Many times these entertainers have signed their lives away by fast talking agents and paltry advances. Here you are, 18 or 20 years old and some slicked back agent plants a few thousand in your hand with promise of a never ending supply of more. You’re young and niave’ and have never seen that much money, so you trust the guy and sign. Now, you’re owned, your life is now the property of some record company. Of course that doesn’t happen as much anymore because of lawyers who look for these opportunities and try to get their clients as much of a fair deal as they can, which is good. But, these hollywood types have been skinning people for a hundred years, so now that it’s payback time and they’re the ones getting skinned, they cry the blues. I, for one, don’t feel sorry for these maggots one bit. Remember, what goes around, comes around.

  • bs61

    For ever in his Tech reports, so take a look at previous stories.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    So yeah. :)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    There’s no constitutional right to serve liquor. You have to have a gov’t license to do so.

    In America, you don’t need a license to speak. You can’t be silenced on a whim of a gov’t official.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    “Piracy” is a violent act. Unauthorized streaming of Shrek 3 isn’t piracy. It’s copyright infringement.

    All SOPA does is censor American Internet outlets. It can’t actually stop foreign websites, so it censors our Internet instead.

    That’s what the Chicoms do. That’s what Iran does.

  • traye

    A list of current primary opponents would be great.

  • TexasTami

    …to have had an R or a D after each name.

  • Tbone

    real conservative is running in the new district.

  • texastaxpayer

    I know he isn’t supporting this particular bill but I think it would be good policy to add him to any list targeting congressmen for removal… Just sayin…

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Thankfully.

  • pttx333

    Thank God above!

  • deringer

    Bloggers liberal and conservative have analysed this plenty. Google’s home page has a link to more information, but to summarise:

    - The DMCA (the current anti-piracy legislation) has a concept of a ‘safe harbor’.

    If you are hosting infringing material that is publically uploaded, you are not liable or otherwise in trouble if, when a copyright holder gives you notice, you promptly investigate, verify copyright, then remove the content. It is a touchstone of ‘Web 2.0′, that is, user generated and site created content working together. Consider Redstate, youtube, facebook; essentially any modern website where you can play a part.

    SOPA and PIPA, in different ways, fundamentally alter that.

    In short, either the Attorney General or a group like the RIAA or MPAA (groups who have on several occasions sued the dead, and people without internet connections, to give you an impression of how reasonably they use the law) can order a site to remove content, and block the site from being accessed by US users.

    To give you an example of how utterly ruinous this would be, consider Redstate. Not a pusher of piracy, and (presumably) equipped with moderation to remove any infringement.

    In this diary : http://www.redstate.com/kowalski/2011/11/19/that-sounds-like-a-trick-question-from-johnny-dangerously/

    A user posted a link to this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufuNHdB-msA&feature=related

    It contains a clip from ‘Johnny Dangerously’.

    The clip is short, and would probably be covered by fair usage if it ended up in court. SOPA and PIPA skip that step. The copyright holder gets to determine whether its infringing, and a site can only dispute it afterwards. Shoot first, ask questions later, if you will.

    Now both redstate and youtube could, under the legislation, be scrubbed. You wouldn’t be able to access them, and they’d legally be in hot water. So the user suffers from lack of access, and the site owner suffers from a legal sword of damocles. All for LINKING to some content that isn’t actually infringing.

    Now think about facebook, or twitter, or any other user generated site. If any user, just one, posts a link to a movie or song or other infringing link, that entire site gets hosed. They face legal issues. Users who are completely innocent are left without a service.

    It’s utter madness. Either sites like facebook would have to monitor all activity, or just stop allowing interaction. And it would be the discretion of historically atrocious groups like the RIAA to enforce this.

    Web startups, geeks who start sites like facebook and google in their garages and go on to create thousands of jobs and money for the US, would have to seek expensive legal counsel before taking a step into the web, and would have to constantly look over their backs in case their users sunk them. “Trolls” could even go from site to site intentionally posting infringing content to take them down.

    All the innovation in IT that the US has benefited from will move overseas. No doubt about it. Why run the next netflix, twitter or google in a country that is actively hostile to it? Latin america, the EU, even parts of Asia would offer the same freedom the US currently has.

    The most DISGUSTING part of all this stupidity is that SOPA and PIPA WON’T STOP PIRACY. The ‘piratebay’, a notorious piracy website, has already developed a workaround. It works because they have no legitimate interests (bank accounts, US company, etc) for the government to target. If SOPA or PIPA passed, piracy would be a browser- plug-in away, whilst legitimate user-generated websites would be at the mercy of the Attorney General and media conglomerates.

    In short, it isn’t fit for purpose, causes huge damage to one of the US’s most important sectors, and demonstrates the complete detachment and contempt Congress has towards new technology.

  • texastaxpayer

    How many prayers do you think Ron Paul retiring answered? Not counting my own of course lol….

  • conservativemusician

    I’m getting very tired of hearing about his anti-American views on foreign policy and the military and his comments at the last debate on these issues were despicable. If anyone needs to get pressured to get out of the race, it should be Paul before any of the other non-Romney candidates.

  • pttx333

    out-of-control maniac who has no place on any national stage – and he never did have, ever.

  • pttx333

    will not give up on the Presidential thing. He’s got his son Rand in the wings ready to take over the ropes. Do not trust that Rand is not Ron #2 and is unlike his father – bullcorn, I certainly don’t

  • tngal

    and trying to be effective! So he’s up to, what, 6 bills now? I mean pretty soon he may get a handle on this bill thing.

    The hill says today he asked
    ___
    “… his colleagues to support his new legislation that would repeal controversial language that he and others believe could lead to the detention of Americans for terrorist activities without due process.

    Paul?s bill would repeal Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which President Obama has already signed into law. That section states that the government can detain anyone who has ?substantially supported certain terrorist groups.?
    ____

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/204811-ron-paul-slams-sen-graham-calls-on-house-to-repeal-detainee-language

  • aalsup

    WSJ is running a story now stating that Lamar is still going forward with the bill. Apparently, those of us opposed are engaging in fear mongering…

  • BrendanW

    Called her office in DC, said they are getting a lot of call volume (wouldn’t say which way) – I let her (lady answering) know Rubio and Blunt have withdrawn support, and that I will support a primary challenge on this issue.

  • trickamsterdam

    Maybe that shows why this piece of legislation might be a problem..

    But I do want to talk about some of the dangers of online piracy because even on this site I’ve been hearing “well, Hollywood has enough money anyway” and “it’s censorship, man” and “the internet is the wildwest, man”.

    Or the unintended consequences of “free stuff”, like the unintended consequences of liberal programs giving people free stuff.

    Let’s just take a case of some like Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails (irrelevant if you’re fans of his, he just suits the purpose of my argument).

    The stuff gets pirated. What’s the point of working for a year and spending money on making an album when that’s going to happen?

    He stops making albums, but does keep making music…soundtracks to movies, where you’re basically paid a flat fee (in other words, since people don’t usually buy music scores, who cares if it’s pirated?).

    Maybe he still goes on tour, but the ticket prices are raised, because it has to off set the losses in CD revenues.

    Regular people don’t want to pay those prices after a while, so he stops playing big venues, and plays clubs for super high prices to rich people or shows in Vegas or AC (paid by the hotel), where unless you go there you can’t see him..

    Look, maybe this isn’t the right piece of legislation, but I’m sure I don’t have to explain this on a conservative site…

    THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

    This pirating is destroying the arts: or turning them into something that sucks. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that music basically tanked when the internet got very popular. And the other arts may follow.

    You may see great directors making commercials instead of films, because it’s for a flat fee and can’t be pirated. Is that what we want?

    In other words:

    If this wasn’t the right legislation, the Internet had better find a right piece of legislation.

    Or people may get the worst of both worlds: eventually something like this is passed anyway…but the arts are already semi-dead.

  • thurman

    It’s an R+14 district and Smith has been terrible.

    He’s a shameless spender, bailer outer, and this stubborn SOPA garbage is the last straw for me.

    He’s bought and paid for by his Hollywood pimps– his shameless arrogance about the whole matter has really ticked me off.

    I will be working hard to support any viable primary candidate that declares– I’m sure there will be at least one now.

  • trickamsterdam

    I saw read the responses…but then when I’d posted it, saw yours right under it, and made a mental note to read it when I had time.

    Well…now that I’ve read it, I’ll refer you to the post I made to “derriger” just above.

    BTW, your response was among the worst I’ve ever read on any subject in any forum.. You are precisely the type of person I was talking about when I wrote my response.

    You’re precisely the reason we’re going to get REALITY TV B.S. 24/7 from “Here To Eternity”. And you’re just as jealous and vulgar as any of our ‘furry friends’ in OCCUPY WALL ST.

    Your grade, furry friend:

    FAIL

    Not at Internet posting…but, quite frankly, at life…and at an understanding of the Free Market…w/out the “maggots”, you don’t get to put your Jim Morrison/2Pac/whoever poster on your wall when you’re 15.

    We won’t get into what sort of “merchandise”, I suspect you’re stealing off the Internet now…perhaps “boobs” are involved, but I doubt it’s a bootleg copy of “Dumb And Dumber”. LOL.

  • bs61

    I thought more people need to read RS! Thanks Neil!

  • bs61

    Let hem hire private sector workers to find the fraud, we don’t need a big govt solution for a 13% loss!

  • deringer

    When such a large number of people take part in piracy, and it is so easy to do, crimilizing it is counter productive.

    The free market has already come up with a perfectly good solution to piracy, and that’s being ‘better than free’.

    Consider spotify, pandora, netflix, hulu and countless others. These services give you ‘free’ ad sponsored content, or content for a modest monthky fee. The films songs and tv shows are instantly available, and don’t require tedious work arounds and hoop jumping which piracy does. People are using them.

    The problem is they do not offer the lucrative profit margins that the old media format did, and that’s why records studios and cinema companies are still trying to get these kind of bills passed.

    Make no mistake, there is still money to be made from films. A guy called ‘Louis CK’, a comedian, produced a standup comedy routine and released it for sale online. He put no ‘DRM’ (digital encryption that stops piracy), meaning that if one person paid for it, he could pirate it at will and there would be no way to stop it.

    It was pirated, and hundreds of thousands of people downloaded it.

    Louis CK also made several million dollars from legitimate sales. More than if he’s gone through a publsiher.

    Interesting you should mention Trent Reznor. His latest work was sold online in the same way as CK, and he was happy with the results. He is also a fierce opponent of the music industry’s current practices.

  • Dave_A

    Is that the pirates will always be one step ahead of the legislators….

    Blocking websites doesn’t do anything to seriously impact BitTorrent (the software used for the overwhelming majority of online piracy – as well as various legitimate uses that involve transferring large files), when one considers the various encrypted anonymous networks that run on top of the internet, which can bypass SOPA-type measures just like they are used to bypass the ‘state firewalls’ of various censoring countries today…..

    Sure, SOPA would make www.thepiratebay.com inaccessible from the US – but pirates would just use software like TOR to access it by way of overseas relays – and TOR doesn’t use DNS, because it’s entire purpose is anononymizing communication and bypassing censorship. Or they’d exchange torrent files & hash-codes over IRC, e-mail, and so on… Are we going to block access to gmail.com because one user received “BatmanBegins.torrent” as an email attachment?

    Of course, the folks writing these bills don’t understand any of this – their view of online piracy, is ‘someone goes to www.piratesite.com and downloads a copy of Titanic with their web browser’….

    None of this excuses copyright infringement – but bigger government can’t fix it, period….

    Government’s efforts are better spent on combating non-digital piracy – the sale of counterfeit DVDs, CDs, and other physical merchandise that (if not intercepted) can be fraudulently sold as ‘genuine’ (to contrast, the overwhelming majority of online piracy includes no fraudulent sale to unknowing consumers, but rather individual users downloading pirate copies)….

    Let the content companies sue in civil court, when it comes to the digital stuff…

  • Dave_A

    And leave it to the press to leave out the ‘this provision doesn’t apply to US citizens in the US’ stuff…

  • chipbennett

    I can see myself referring to this list (and referring others to it as well) in the future, so, as Moe is doing, it would be incredibly helpful to update the list with those who do withdraw their support.

    For the record, the list of those who have thus far withdrawn their support (all Republicans; coincidence?):

    Ayotte
    Blunt
    Boozman
    Grassley
    Hatch
    Rubio
    Vitter

    SOPA may be dead in the House, but PIPA is still alive and kicking in the Senate – and regardless, supporters still may try to add SOPA/PIPA provisions into future bills. So, this issue will require constant vigilance.

  • chipbennett

    Sorry for the HTML tag fail.