Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jefferson_dem

(32,683 posts)
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:44 AM Jan 2012

White House on SOPA: "We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression..."

Obama Administration responds to We the People petitions on SOPA and online piracy
January 14, 2012
08:09 AM EST

The White House has responded to two petitions about legislative approaches to combat online piracy. In their response, Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff stress that the important task of protecting intellectual property online must not threaten an open and innovative internet.

Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet
By Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra, and Howard Schmidt

Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and actions illustrate the importance of maintaining an open and democratic Internet.

Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support—and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.

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.

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.

Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.

This is not just a matter for legislation. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.

So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.

Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget

Aneesh Chopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
White House on SOPA: "We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression..." (Original Post) jefferson_dem Jan 2012 OP
why is it so hard to believe what they say? ChairmanAgnostic Jan 2012 #1
those words are given as fuel boston bean Jan 2012 #2
DU...Never fails... jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #5
DU never fails to amaze me. boston bean Jan 2012 #6
2, even 8 years ago, I would have scoffed in your face, claimed you were too ChairmanAgnostic Jan 2012 #15
While I have guarded skepticism like that that I have reserved for the NDAA think Jan 2012 #23
Perhaps because you simply feel destined to be disappointed, regardless of reality. jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #3
It gets to be a bit too late to hold folks accountable boston bean Jan 2012 #4
Those who are hoping to do damage (with SOPA) just received a major pushback from the POTUS... jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #7
Good if it's really true, but no reason for anyone boston bean Jan 2012 #8
Your ,not disruptive, insensitive or over the top orpupilofnature57 Jan 2012 #11
Adn you are entitled to speak your opinion,, even if someone else boston bean Jan 2012 #16
Priceless. jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #12
I am not in the doldrums, and I do notice one thing with your posting style. boston bean Jan 2012 #14
I like the statement and also strongly agree that 'Vigilance is the word' Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #19
Maybe POTUS is trying to compensate orpupilofnature57 Jan 2012 #9
I agree with you jd. This is a strong and good statement. Now. Do I go easy on the Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #17
Indeed, Bluenorthwest. jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #18
How is it Internet Freedom when the US wants the ability to prosecute justiceischeap Jan 2012 #21
That's the point. jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #26
They said much the same about the Defense Authorization Act JCMach1 Jan 2012 #10
Please provide examples! FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #29
"any bill I sign must contain a public option" Zhade Jan 2012 #31
Actions vs words. Edweird Jan 2012 #13
So does this mean more signing statements. n/t Joe Shlabotnik Jan 2012 #20
Let's hope not. Zalatix Jan 2012 #33
Really? Folks on DU are pissed that the WH spoke on the matter? Sheepshank Jan 2012 #22
+1 Itchinjim Jan 2012 #24
I wouldn't say "pissed" unless you mean in the british sense. ChairmanAgnostic Jan 2012 #25
I'll believe it when I see the veto. n/t LadyHawkAZ Jan 2012 #27
MORE: Obama Administration Comes Out Against SOPA, PIPA jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #28
Thanks. Scurrilous Jan 2012 #30
So far when the WH says such things it signals an eventual signing. We should believe this because? Dragonfli Jan 2012 #32

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
1. why is it so hard to believe what they say?
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:46 AM
Jan 2012

Perhaps because the words ring pretty and true, but their actions are completely different?

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
2. those words are given as fuel
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:51 AM
Jan 2012

so the naive can batter you over the head with them when you bring up a concern.

And then it's to fricken late to do a damn thing about it.

They got you over a barrel.

jefferson_dem

(32,683 posts)
5. DU...Never fails...
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:57 AM
Jan 2012

Apparently, one of the lone forums on the internet where this statement in support of internet freedom is actually being criticized!

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
6. DU never fails to amaze me.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:58 AM
Jan 2012

After NDAA, you believe every utterance by a politician seeking re-election.

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
15. 2, even 8 years ago, I would have scoffed in your face, claimed you were too
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:25 AM
Jan 2012

cynical and jaded. No longer, Mr. Bean. Just watching how the senate fell over itself, extending the Patriot Act at the last minute, or how all cases against ATT and other telecoms disappeared (over warrantless surveillance and warrantless bugging), or seeing how thousands were detained, without cause or warrants, or the right to seek advice of counsel, or seeing how attorneys defending innocents were gagged, unable to even discuss with their law partners, the cases they were working on. . .

If that weren't enough, seeing the travesties committed in Gitmo tribunals, seeing the CIA "lose" evidence, video, still photos, IN SPITE OF COURT ORDERS TO THE CONTRARY, watching the Obama DOJ hide behind national security cloaks, preventing people from learning of the charges for their detentions, or even facing their accusers, - - - face it, our constitution is trashed.

My first reaction to seeing such a nice sounding press release from the White House is simple. "What is their real agenda, and why do I feel like a pickpocket is stealing my wallet again?"

 

think

(11,641 posts)
23. While I have guarded skepticism like that that I have reserved for the NDAA
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 11:44 AM
Jan 2012

at least Obama didn't just laugh and ignore it like the petitions to decriminalize marijuana...

jefferson_dem

(32,683 posts)
3. Perhaps because you simply feel destined to be disappointed, regardless of reality.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:52 AM
Jan 2012


This is, indeed, a strong statement in support of internet freedom. My advice: take it for what it is...and hold folks accountable if they stray (in action) from the message.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
4. It gets to be a bit too late to hold folks accountable
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:54 AM
Jan 2012

after the damage is done, it can't be undone.

And no I am not destined to be disappointed. There are many who are destined to be disappointing.

jefferson_dem

(32,683 posts)
7. Those who are hoping to do damage (with SOPA) just received a major pushback from the POTUS...
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:00 AM
Jan 2012

Who must approve of any legislation moving forward. That you would leap to lambast such an effort speaks volumes.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
8. Good if it's really true, but no reason for anyone
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:06 AM
Jan 2012

to shut up with concerns or be battered by sycophants using one speech made by a politician in an election year, over a policy that is unpopular with the populace.

That is my point.

After NDAA, anything this admin says about controversial legislation must be taken with a grain of salt, and everyone should be on high alert to fight back and be aware of the actions, not words, a particular candidate takes on any particular issue during an election year.

Vigilance is the word, not unending hope in believing the words they speak are true.


 

orpupilofnature57

(15,472 posts)
11. Your ,not disruptive, insensitive or over the top
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:18 AM
Jan 2012

but your wrong ,if " Battered by sycophants " is giving credit for thwarting NWO, over the lack of courage on One policy ( NDDA ) I don't think it's enough to question all the administrations intentions ,and amid the biggest group of Obstructionists in history ,he's doing Well.

jefferson_dem

(32,683 posts)
12. Priceless.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:18 AM
Jan 2012

Rush to criticize the official position of the White House on an important policy issue as being empty words...with your own...words.

"Battered by sycophants"? Awww... Try to enjoy the doldrums, eh.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
14. I am not in the doldrums, and I do notice one thing with your posting style.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:23 AM
Jan 2012

You make it personal almost instantly. You do this by thinking up reasons in your own head as to why I might write what I write and then attribute those feelings you make up in your head to me. Cutely posting personal insults.

According to you, I am depressed in the doldrums, and do not have a sufficient amount of HOPE.

Well, whatever....

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
19. I like the statement and also strongly agree that 'Vigilance is the word'
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:43 AM
Jan 2012

Vigilance is what got the discussion this far along, and full focus and attention are required until it is done, and then in the implementation of the law. Many groups with large financial stake on each side.
Trust is for the real world, politics is the place of not letting up until it is done and working as it should. Always. Always the grain of salt.

 

orpupilofnature57

(15,472 posts)
9. Maybe POTUS is trying to compensate
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:07 AM
Jan 2012

for what the Supreme Court did to us when they sold US ,to the wolves.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
17. I agree with you jd. This is a strong and good statement. Now. Do I go easy on the
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:37 AM
Jan 2012

administration? No, I don't. Is this issue wildly important to me? Why yes it is. There are few people who see this issue with any sort of informed clarity. I agree in some areas with each 'side' in the argument, and also think each side makes utterly insane and dated arguments that are not realistic in anyway.
This statement is one of the few things to come out of DC that suggests some of them know the difficulty of crafting this law to protect all interested parties, users, creators, the whole enchilada.

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
21. How is it Internet Freedom when the US wants the ability to prosecute
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 11:10 AM
Jan 2012

outside our country for piracy? At least that's how I see SOPA. This bill is nothing but the movie and music industries wanting to find a way to clamp down on piracy (they want to be able to reach into countries that have no piracy laws and prosecute citizens of other countries). I don't care how nice and flowery they try and make it sound, if someone in another country is breaking the law, it is not our concern.

jefferson_dem

(32,683 posts)
26. That's the point.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:43 PM
Jan 2012

This statement (whether one believes the words or not) expresses public opposition to the kind of freedom-stifling effects that SOPA would bring about. To support the statement is to support internet freedom.

Zhade

(28,702 posts)
31. "any bill I sign must contain a public option"
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 04:23 PM
Jan 2012

I think it's because you're paying attention to the actions instead of being mollified by those pretty words.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
22. Really? Folks on DU are pissed that the WH spoke on the matter?
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 11:41 AM
Jan 2012

So let me see if I understand

A couple of vocal folks on this thread are frustrated over words...because those words don't always morph into the action they desired.

Some think it would be better if the words were never said? These folks amking the assumtion there is/was never going to be any effort to implement those words? You want the WH to stay silent?

You don't think saying the words out loud/publically carries consequences? Public information of efforts made and succeeded and perhaps efforts lost and failed? You don't think the WH take a popularity risk everytime they speak openly about what they want to see happen?

Sheesh....nothing like voting the WH to stay silent on all topics that affect the general population because you personally are sick of words that don't succeed into the 100% desired action.

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
25. I wouldn't say "pissed" unless you mean in the british sense.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:00 PM
Jan 2012

I would say that the words don't offer me the complete relief that the authors intended to provide. My reluctance comes from 3 years of experience, beginning with Public Option.

I still recall Obama asking, no, DEMANDING that we hold his feet to the fire and demand action and results that we wanted. So, we took him at his word. We did just what he asked us to do.

What was the result? A series of strong insults directed from his spokesmen, his chiefs of staff, and his closest handlers. So much wanting input from us. Professional leftists, indeed.

jefferson_dem

(32,683 posts)
28. MORE: Obama Administration Comes Out Against SOPA, PIPA
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:45 PM
Jan 2012

The Obama Administration on Saturday took a stance on two pieces of anti-online piracy legislation moving through Congress — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate —- saying it would not support the bills as currently written, handing the biggest victory yet to a growing chorus of critics of the bills.

Fittingly enough, the Administration’s response came by way of a blog post published in response to two online petitions. As the post states:

“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…. Even more promising for critics of the bills, the Administration came down firmly against one of the most vehemently opposed portions of the bills — the part that would give the government the power to force Internet Service Providers to stop loading overseas webpages accused of piracy. Under the original versions of SOPA and PIPA, ISPs would be required to change their Doman Name System settings to block sites accused of piracy, a measure that critics said would essentially break the Internet and make it more insecure.

The Administration statement basically agrees with the critics wholeheartedly on this one:

“We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.

<SNIP>

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/obama-administration-comes-out-against-sopa-pipa.php

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
32. So far when the WH says such things it signals an eventual signing. We should believe this because?
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 04:33 PM
Jan 2012

This time he really, really, really means it?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»White House on SOPA: &quo...