This Weds: The Internet Fights Back -- Please Join Day Of Protest Against "Internet Blacklist" Bill

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday November 14, 2011 · 10:53 AM PST

2011/11/14 · 10:53

This Wednesday, Congress is considering a law that gives the US government (and any private corporation) the power to block websites, remove them from search engines, and cut off their sources of funding.

Leading civil liberties and tech policy organizations are organizing an Internet-wide day of protest in response, inviting sites to turn their logos black and drive people to contact their members of Congress. It’s called American Censorship Day (americancensorship.org and #USACensored on Twitter) and sites can participate by turning their logos black on Wednesday or by running “website blocked” splash pages directing users to contact Congress.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) is calling the legislation “the end of the Internet” -- and that’s barely an exaggeration. The sites we use and love the most are the ones most at risk, and the basic principle of open access is under attack.

Insiders say that HR 3261 or the “Stop Online Piracy Act”-- which enjoys the support of both parties, the Chamber of Commerce, drug companies, Hollywood, and even several unions -- is likely to pass barring an unprecedented uproar from the public and the tech community. The protest aims to create just that.

(We want as many sites as possible to participate, and we're making it easy for them to do so: If you're interested in taking part click here and email us at protest@fightforthefuture.org)

SOPA is hurtling through Congress because it aligns a number of narrow corporate interests. Hollywood wants the power to shut down entire file hosting sites and sue social media websites into submission. Media companies want the power to block streams of sporting events. Drug companies want the power to block Americans’ access to affordable drugs from Canadian pharmacies. The net result? America's Internet could careen away from the principles of freedom and openness it embodies -- and towards the likes of China's, with the government and corporations blocking Americans' access to large swaths of the web.

Its Senate cousin -- the PROTECT IP Act -- has already passed through committee and is awaiting a floor vote. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have asked Congress to kill the legislation, but the interests pushing for it -- the Chamber of Commerce, Hollywood, Big Pharma -- wield indescribable power in Washington.

Says Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, "This is a dangerous bill. It is an unwarranted expansion of government power to protect one special interest, the Big Media companies, would give Internet Service Providers a way to evade open Internet rules on the basis of 'protecting' copyright and allow advertisers and Internet registrars carte blanche to close down a site for the vaguest of reasons."

Or, put more simply: "This bill gives Hollywood a chance to kick that pesky Internet off their lawn," said Corynne McSherry, Intellectual Property Director at The Electronic Frontier Foundation.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, companies could successfully block a website over just one infringing link posted by any user. It could be a copyright claim, a trademark claim, a patent claim (technology patents are notoriously overbroad) or even or right of publicity claim, with celebrities suing site over the use of a name or photo. If the action is successful, the site is blacklisted: American ISPs can be sued to block users’ access, search engines and other sites can be sued to take down links to it, and advertisers and payment processors will be forced to cancel its accounts.

One result of the legislation will be a storm of lawsuits and an extremely hostile legal environment to small startups planning the next Youtube or Twitter.

Websites are currently protected from liability for users’ posts, as long as they take down infringing material. Sites like Twitter and Youtube (or indeed almost any site that allows user comments, including this one) owe their existence to these protections. SOPA throws these protections out the window, replacing them with an environment where any social media startup (and its investors) will have to count on hundreds of lawsuits, any one of which could shut down their site.

If you have a website of your own, you can get everything you need to participate americancensorship.org-- just paste a snippet of code in your site. If you work in tech, try to get your own company to participate and spread the word to friends. This bill is an assault on internet freedom and a direct threat to the livelihood of tech entrepreneurs and anyone who works in tech. And the crazy part? Most don’t even know about it.

For more information on how to participate, write us at: protest@americancensorship.org or visit AmericanCensorship.org

The End of Twitter and YouTube, Redux

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday October 26, 2011 · 1:40 PM PDT

2011/10/26 · 13:40

The bill is out, and it's a terror. We posted about the rumors yesterday, and they were mostly dead-on. It'd break the Internet as we know it.

Purported to be the House version of the PROTECT IP Act (S.968), Lamar Smith's bill is much wider-ranging. PROTECT IP would give the government new powers to block users' access to websites accused of copyright infringement.

Smith's bill folds in the bulk of Sen Amy Klobuchar's S.978, which would make certain streaming of unlicensed content a felony punished by 5 years in prison. While Klobuchar's bill criminalized 10 instances of streaming, Goodlatte would put you in prison for doing it once. The legislation threatens to target people for posting music in the background of videos, dancing to pop songs, or playing in cover bands. As S.978 cosponsor Chris Coons (D-DE) has put it, the legislation would criminalize "individuals and sites providing the streamed content."

Smith's bill also targets sites that are said to "induce" infringement -- creating new exposure for site proprietors based on what their users post, potentially undermining the long-standing Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Sites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and others could be targeted.

This is an omnibus grab-bag of corporate goodies that will hurt consumers, stifle innovation, foment censorship, and change the Internet as we know it for the worse. It's so over-the-top that we're not sure if we should be laughing or crying.

Please click here to ask your lawmakers to vote no.

The End Of Twitter And YouTube

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday October 25, 2011 · 9:09 AM PDT

2011/10/25 · 09:09

A bit of an emergency: The rumor all over Capitol Hill is that the House version of the Internet Blacklist Bill (PROTECT IP Act) will be introduced this week -- probably tomorrow -- by congressmembers Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Lamar Smith (R-TX) and others.

Our allies on the Hill say the bill's so bad that it could effectively destroy YouTube, Twitter, and other sites that rely on user-generated content by making the sites' owners legally responsible for everything their users post. Nobody will want to take that risk, so these sites and others could be forced to shut down if it manages to pass as it stands.

Facebook, Myspace, and Google+ would be at risk. The cyberlocker and streaming provisions could affect your iPhone, Android, AmazonCloud, Pandora, Grooveshark and even your email accounts.

Our information is not from bomb-throwing activists, but rather the people who run some of the most established and respected civil liberties and tech freedom outfits, along with lobbyists for a few corporations that oppose the legislation.

The original PROTECT IP Act would give the government new powers to block Americans' access to sites accused of copyright infringement. Its Senate form would enable censorship and generally stifle innovation online. (Which is why civil libertarians, tech activists, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and Internet engineers have vocally opposed it.) It's being pushed by Hollywood, the Recording Artists, Pharma, and the Chamber of Commerce. It was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and is being blocked by a 'hold' issued by Ron Wyden (D-OR).

This new, even more extreme position might be a negotiating tack, or it might be a manifestation of DC's limited knowledge about the Internet and how most Americans make use of it -- a failing they've demonstrated time and again in recent months.

Either way, all of this is -- surprise -- being driven by a few major corporations that are trying to protect their private profits. They're combining at least four of their more noxious proposals into this omnibus grab-bag of corporate goodies.

The draft bill would:

1) Give the government and private corporations new powers to block access to sites accused of copyright infringement;

2) Criminalize the streaming of copyrighted content;

3) Restrict cloud-based storage services, music lockers, and the like;

4) Create the aforementioned new liabilities for sites that encourage the posting of user-generated content.

Demand Progress is asking people to urge their congressmembers to refuse to cosponsor the House version of the bill. You can do so by clicking here.

Tea Party Group Slams PROTECT IP Act (Internet Blacklist Bill)

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday October 03, 2011 · 9:18 AM PDT

2011/10/03 · 09:18

Three decades ago home taping was "killing music". Technology has advanced, but the entertainment industry is still in the Dark Ages: Under the guise of protecting "innovation" these Luddites are urging Congress to undermine the greatest engine of invention humanity has ever known: the Internet.

Demand Progress has been fighting the Internet Blacklist Bill -- formally the PROTECT IP Act, or PIPA -- since it was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) last year. More than 400,000 Demand Progress members have urged their lawmakers to oppose it -- you can join them here. And as we anticipate the introduction of the House version of the bill later this month, we're excited to welcome some strange new bedfellows to the fight.

As was reported by The Hill, last week the Tea Party Patriots slammed the bill, citing an op-ed by Demand Progress that recently ran in the Oregonian:

THE LEDE: The opposition to Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D-Vt.) Protect IP or PIPA Act got a lot broader this weekend when the Tea Party Patriots came out against the legislation on Facebook. The conservative umbrella group has almost 850,000 supporters on Facebook and linked to an editorial from Demand Progress executive director David Segal and Don't Censor the Net executive director Patrick Ruffini on Saturday, arguing the coalition of political opposition from the right and left shows the bill is bad for consumers.

PIPA would give the government broad new powers to block users' access to sites that are accused of copyright infringement. Or, in other words, it'll make it much easier for the government to censor the Internet, Dems have taken the lead on the Senate side, but opposition by the Tea Party could be a huge factor in the House, where we expect the effort to be spearheaded by Republicans Bob Goodlatte (VA) and Lamar Smith (TX).

The Hollywood establishment might rake in a few extra bucks on its next series of pro-forma teenie-bopper sequels, but PIPA is likely to quash real economy-driving, life-improving innovation. That's why 50 major venture capitalists, urged Congress to kill the bill earlier this year. It's why more than 150 top entrepreneurs just sent Congress a letter urging opposition to the legislation.

And it's why over 400,000 Demand Progress members have asked their lawmakers to oppose PIPA. If you're not one of them yet, you can email your rep and senators by clicking here.

Snooping Bill Would Force ISPs to Retain and Share Your Browsing History, Credit Card and Bank Info

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday August 16, 2011 · 1:14 PM PDT

2011/08/16 · 13:14

"A direct assault on Internet users" is what the ACLU is calling it. Just before the break a House committee approved HR 1981, a broad new Internet snooping bill. They want to force Internet service providers to keep track of and retain their customers' information -- including your name, address, phone number, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses.

They've shamelessly dubbed it the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act," but our staunchest allies in Congress are calling it what it is: an all-encompassing Internet snooping bill. ISPs would collect and retain your data whether or not you're accused of a crime.

According to CNET: , the "mandatory logs would be accessible to police investigating any crime and perhaps attorneys litigating civil disputes in divorce, insurance fraud, and other cases as well."

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill said, "'It represents a data bank of every digital act by every American' that would 'let us find out where every single American visited Web sites."

You can click here to join the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Demand Progress, and 25 other civil liberties and privacy groups in urging Congress to reject this mess of a bill.

And you can watch our new video about the Internet Snooping Bill here:

You're Invited: Conference on the Constitutional Convention

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday August 09, 2011 · 4:04 PM PDT

2011/08/09 · 16:04

Here's an email that Fix Congress First put out about a conference I'm helping to organize -- The Conference on the Constitutional Convention at Harvard, Sept 24-25 -- to discuss the feasibility and advisability of organizing towards an Article V convention, to deal with the rot in Washington. Everybody's welcome to attend and share with their lists:

We're writing to invite you to attend an important upcoming conference at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA. It's called the Conference on the Constitutional Convention, and more info can be found at www.ConConCon.org
From both the Right and the Left, citizens are increasingly coming to recognize that our Republic does not work as our Framers intended. Reform of any kind is stalled by a status quo that profits from blocking change. No side in the political debate benefits from this inertia.

The Framers created the Article V Constitutional Convention as a way to escape captured government: If two-thirds of the state legislatures pass resolutions calling for a convention, then all sides will have the opportunity to argue for the changes they believe will restore our Republic. Any amendment proposed must then be ratified by three fourths of the states to become law.

On September 24th and 25th, people from across America and across the political spectrum will convene at Harvard University to discuss the advisability and feasibility of organizing towards a Constitutional Convention. The conference's lead organizers include proponents and opponents of an Article V convention and we actively encourage the participation of those who support a convention, those who are ambivalent, and those who oppose holding a convention at all. The conference is sponsored by Harvard, Fix Congress First, and the Tea Party Patriots; it's being co-chaired by Fix Congress First's Lawrence Lessig and the Tea Party Patriots' Mark Meckler. You can review the agenda and register at www.ConConCon.org.

Thanks so much, and we hope to see you in September.

Joseph Mornin
Fix Congress First

Let me just try to preempt the likely concerns that a Con Con might lead to something terrible:

What you'd hear Lessig and other left-leaning proponents say about potential risk is that the ratification threshold is incredibly difficult to achieve, requiring the assent of 3/4 of states. Anything seen as too far right or left would be unlikely to vest, but we might have a chance with something like reducing the role of private money in politics where there's a broad consensus among the electorate.

From an organizing standpoint, having this flank open could help force Congress's hand -- the Senate only released the 17th Amendment (elected Senators) after it was clear that a Con Con would happen if it didn't.

And standing by and letting the system tend towards complete dysfunction is costly and untenable -- it makes sense to explore other options and try to assess their merits.

Here's an instructive op-ed by Lessig and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon on a Con Con as it relates to Citizens United.

Celebrate The World Wide Web's 20th Birthday -- Ask Your Lawmakers To Oppose The Internet Blacklist

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday August 08, 2011 · 1:02 PM PDT

2011/08/08 · 13:02

It was twenty years ago this week that Tim Berners-Lee, while working at CERN, put the world's first website online. It announced his new creation: the World Wide Web. Last year while urging Internet users to sign Demand Progress's petition against the Internet Blacklist Bill, Berners-Lee wrote this about the principles that underpin his project:

No person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the Internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.

The Internet Blacklist Bill -- S.968, formally called the PROTECT IP Act -- would violate those principles by allowing the Department of Justice to force search engines, browsers, and service providers to block users' access to websites that have been accused of facilitating intellectual property infringement -- without even giving them a day in court. It would also give IP rights holders a private right of action, allowing them to sue to get sites prevented from operating. Demand Progress's new mash-up, posted here, explains the bill in more detail:

S.968 has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, but Ron Wyden (D-OR) is temporarily blocking it from getting a floor vote by using a procedural maneuver known as a hold, noting that "By ceding control of the internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the internet, PIPA represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives."

Demand Progress encourages Americans to mark this 20th birthday of the World Wide Web by defending the principles that underpinned its creation -- now under persistent threat by overzealous governments and corporate interests across the globe. The Internet Blacklist Bill would undermine the basic integrity of the Web, and we expect Congress to take it up when they return from their summer break.

More than 400,000 Demand Progress members have urged their lawmakers to oppose the Internet Blacklist Bill. You can email your Senators and Representatives and ask them to oppose S.968 by clicking here.

Demand Progress is an online activism group with more than 500,000 members. It works to promote civil liberties, civil rights, and other progressive causes.

Hypocrites: Obama Administration Pushes Internet Freedom Abroad While Urging Crack-Down At Home

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday June 29, 2011 · 9:51 AM PDT

2011/06/29 · 09:51

The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The United States this month signed on to a statement praising a pro-Internet freedom report by the United Nation's Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, even as the U.S. pushes new domestic laws and regulations to censor the Internet, restrict users' Internet access, and criminalize more online activities.

Those efforts, pushed by the Obama Administration, its Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel, and certain member of Congress include:

1) Senate Bill 978 -- the "Ten Strikes Bill" -- would make unlicensed online streaming a felony -- punishable by 5 years in prison.

2) Senate Bill 968 -- the PROTECT IP Act or "Internet Blacklist Bill" -- would give the government the power to force Internet service providers, search engines, and other "information location tools" to block users' access to sites that have been accused of copyright infringement -- the initiation of a China-style censorship regime here in the United States.

3) It was reported last week that the Obama administration is facilitating a "three strikes" style deal between Internet Service Providers and intellectual property rights holders to reduce bandwidth and restrict web access to certain sites for users who have been accused of copyright infringement. As CNET reported:

The White House was also instrumental in encouraging the parties to reach an agreement, the sources confirmed. President Obama has said intellectual property is important to the country's economy and has vowed to step up the fight against piracy and counterfeiting. His administration has lobbied Congress the past several years to pass new pro-copyright legislation while instructing federal law enforcement to make antipiracy a priority.

The technology news website Ars Technica reported that such "three strikes" laws were singled out for particular condemnation:

[Special Rapporteur Frank] La Rue saved some of his strongest criticism for the "three strikes" laws recently enacted by France and the UK. He writes that he is "deeply concerned" about proposals to create a centralized system for cutting people off from Internet access as a punishment for copyright infringement.
The Special Rapporteur is "alarmed" by these regulations, writing that cutting off Internet access as a response to copyright infringement is "disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

Promoting civil liberties and Internet freedom abroad is a noble goal, but if we want to be taken seriously, we need to live by those same ideals here at home. Doing otherwise opposes American values, represents the height of hypocrisy, and provides comfort to regimes that want to use Internet censorship to stifle democracy.

It'll kill American jobs and stifle innovation: Fifty-plus venture capitalists oppose PROTECT IP

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday June 23, 2011 · 2:56 PM PDT

2011/06/23 · 14:56

Today more than 50 venture capitalists -- from forty firms which have funded many of today's most popular Internet companies -- have announced their opposition to S968, Senator Leahy's PROTECT IP (PIPA) Act. In a letter to Congress, the financiers noted PIPA, "will stifle investment in Internet services, throttle innovation, and hurt American competitiveness." The new business opponents join free speech advocates and companies like Google in pushing back against this dangerous legislation.

You can read the letter and urge your lawmakers to oppose PROTECT IP by clicking here.

PIPA would give the government the power to force Internet service providers, search engines, and other “information location tools” to block users’ access to sites that have been accused of copyright infringement — initiating a China-like censorship regime here in the United States.

As one signer of the letter noted, "The signatories to this letter work for firms that manage over $13B. We are early investors in services like Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, Skype, Groupon, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Foursquare, and a host of other important web services. The services we have backed now reach over a billion users."

In particular, the letter's authors worry that:

1) By requiring “information location tools” -- potentially encompassing any "director[ies], index[es], reference[s], pointer[s], or hypertext link[s]” -- to remove access to entire domains, the bill puts burdens on countless Internet services.
2) By requiring access to sites to be blocked by Domain Name System providers, it endangers the security and integrity of the Internet.

3) The bill’s private right of action will no doubt be used by many rights-holders in ways that create significant burdens on legitimate online commerce services. The scope of orders and cost of litigation could be significant, even for companies acting in good faith. Rights-holders have stated their interest in this private right of action because they worry that the Department of Justice will not have enough resources to initiate actions against all of the infringing sites. Yet, why should costs be shifted to innocent Internet entrepreneurs, most of whom have budgets smaller than the Department of Justice’s?

The more Americans have heard about the details of Leahy's PROTECT IP bill, the more we've seen them come out against this dangerous Internet censorship effort. The very people who made the Internet as we know it today possible are opposing this bill -- and that should trouble anybody who claims to care about protecting American jobs.

You can read the letter and urge your lawmakers to oppose PROTECT IP by clicking here.

More than 350,000 people have signed Demand Progress's petitions against PIPA and the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act -- an earlier version of the same bill. Over 50,000 members emailed their lawmakers last week to demand that they join Senator Wyden in opposing the bill. And more than 6,000 Demand Progress members have called their lawmakers to urge them to oppose PIPA.

Senator Wyden Puts Hold On Internet Censorship Bill

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday May 26, 2011 · 3:01 PM PDT

2011/05/26 · 15:01

Senator Wyden continues to be the Senate's truest champion of an open Internet. Today he placed a hold on Senator Leahy's PROTECT IP Act, citing concerns that it would "muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth." The bill scooted through Senate Judiciary today on a voice vote. Wyden's full statement is below.

The PROTECT IP Act would give the government the power to force Internet service providers, search engines, and other "information location tools" to block users' access to sites that have been accused of copyright infringement -- creating a China-like censorship regime here in the United States.

You can sign Demand Progress's anti-PROTECT IP petition by clicking here. And you can join more than 3,000 Demand Progress members in calling your lawmakers here.

Opposition to the bill is snowballing: Last week Google CEO Eric Schmidt came out against the legislation, saying "[If] it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it...If it's a request, the answer is we wouldn't do it."

Yesterday Demand Progress and more than a dozen human rights and civil liberties groups sent a letter in opposition to PROTECT IP to Leahy, cautioning that the bill "risks setting a precedent for other countries, even democratic ones, to use DNS mechanisms to enforce a range of domestic policies, erecting barriers on the global medium of the Internet." The full letter is posted here.

Earlier this week, Demand Progress was (proudly) subject to a scurrilous attack by the Motion Picture Association of America because torrent site Demonoid linked to us. This attack reveals PROTECT IP's proponent's warped sense of how the Internet works, or should work -- a world where sites that link, and sites that are linked to, are responsible for each other's actions.

In fact, in its latest campaign to generate attention, demandprogress appears to have allied itself with at least one – and who knows how many more – offshore rogue websites that promote the theft and illegal marketing of American products like movies, video games and software.

Here's Wyden's statement:

Consistent with Senate Standing Orders and my policy of publishing in the Congressional Record a statement whenever I place a hold on legislation, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act.
In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits. After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion. I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective. At the expense of legitimate commerce, PIPA's prescription takes an overreaching approach to policing the Internet when a more balanced and targeted approach would be more effective. The collateral damage of this approach is speech, innovation and the very integrity of the Internet.

The Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century. It is increasingly in America's economic interest to ensure that the Internet is a viable means for American innovation, commerce, and the advancement of our ideals that empower people all around the world. By ceding control of the Internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the Internet, PIPA represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives. Until the many issues that I and others have raised with this legislation are addressed, I will object to a unanimous consent request to proceed to the legislation.

The First Rule of the Internet Blacklist Bill: Don't Talk About the Internet Blacklist Bill

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday May 17, 2011 · 11:54 AM PDT

2011/05/17 · 11:54

Last year, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) proposed a bill creating an Internet blacklist of sites Americans weren't allowed to visit (The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act) the response was fast and furious. Over 300,000 people signed Demand Progress's petition against the bill, joining dozens of human rights activists and hundreds of leading Internet engineers. After Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) called it a "bunker-buster cluster bomb" aimed at the Internet, the bill was dropped and not heard of again.

Until now. In response to this criticism, Leahy changed the bill so that it bans the criticism. The new PROTECT-IP Act retains the censorship components from before, but ads a new one: It bans people from having serious conversations about the blacklisted sites. Under the new bill, anyone "referring or linking" to a blacklisted site is prohibited from doing so and can be served with a blacklist order forcing them to stop.

More than 50,000 Demand Progress members have already signed our petition opposing the bill, and you can join them here.

Earlier this year, the government shut down 84,000 websites by mistake. They were quickly restored thanks to diligent reporters and the online outcry. In February, Bryan McCarthy became the first American ever to be arrested for simply linking to other sites and his website, ChannelSurfing.net, was blocked by the Department of Homeland Security. Demand Progress and other groups expressed outrage and drew public attention to his plight. (He's still awaiting trial.)

Under the new blacklist bill such reporting -- including the paragraph immediately preceding this one -- would practically be illegal, since no other sites could refer or link to the blocked domains. It's akin to the PATRIOT Act gag orders that make it illegal to even talk about the fact you've received a PATRIOT Act request, which turned out to let the government cover up thousands of illegal requests. Without the ability to talk about government power, there's no way for citizens to make sure this power isn't being misused.

This Internet censorship bill was undemocratic to begin with -- saying that Americans can't visit the same websites as Mexicans or Canadians makes a mockery of the First Amendment, but this new bill is just insane. Leahy's really gone too far this time and it's up to us to stop him. You can click here to express your opposition.

Bin Laden Is Dead, But Will The Patriot Act Live On?

DavidSegal

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday May 05, 2011 · 7:01 AM PDT

2011/05/05 · 07:01

Osama Bin Laden is dead, but will the Patriot Act live on? The Patriot Act is up for renewal this month. This legislation was initially enacted as a supposedly temporary measure in the wake of 9-11, but portions of it have been made permanent, and the remaining provisions have been extended four times and are set to sunset on May 27th. With the death of Bin Laden, it's time for Congress to re-institute pre-9-11 legal norms, when reverence for civil liberties was a priority for both Americans and their government.

A key debate is brewing as the vote grows near: The right-wing will argue that Bin Laden's demise is evidence that the spying regime was justified. We believe it means that it's time to fix the Patriot Act once and for all. We must erase bin Laden's ugly legacy, not extend it: By ending the PATRIOT Act's erosion of our civil liberties, we can protect the freedoms that make America worth fighting for.

Click here to sign our petition to Congress and President Obama, and urge them to fix the Patriot Act this month.

Progressives and Tea Party Republicans initially blocked a long-term Patriot Act extension in January, but a three month-extension was passed in February. During the interim, the House and Senate have held hearings on potential reforms to the expiring provisions. The authorities in question are:

1) Section 215 powers which make it easier for the government to seize records from people not accused or suspected of crimes.
2) Roving wiretaps which need not specify the devices or the individuals being targeted.
2) The "lone wolf" provision which reduces legal protections for certain individuals by applying the standards used when somebody is an agent of a foreign power.

These provisions were always unjustified, always an over-reach of the government's authorities, initially enacted only because a terrorized citizenry was too fearful to prioritize defense of its constitutional rights. With Bin Laden's passing it should be clear to all Americans: The era of the Patriot Act, of spying on Americans who aren't suspected of crimes, of heavy-handed abuse of our dearly held civil liberties, must come to an end.

Will you click here to sign our petition urging Congress to fix the Patriot Act?

Nearly 75,000 Demand Progress members have urged Congress to fix the Patriot Act. In April 3,000 of them called the White House to urge President Obama to veto any bill that lacks sufficient reforms. Demand Progress aired an anti-Patriot Act ad on MSNBC, CNN, and FOX News earlier this year. Congress is hearing our calls, but we need to press forward this month if we're going to win the fight.

Newer
Older

RSS