Tweet
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.
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.
10 Comments
yeah. The proposed bill will remove any site “dedicated to infringing content” What does that mean? Who the hell knows. But I like my internet without a blindfold, thank you.
I had NO idea there were blue dogs that far north of the Mason/Dixon.
Leahy’s been chugging that famed maple syrup a bit heavy it seems. Blood sugar has gone off the charts and he’s delirious.
LeSigh, what fuckery this is.
Rcc’d, n I sure hope Pups n FDL/MyFDL stay on top of this one.
The amendment to the bill (the Protect IP -Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property – Act) will:
Strike provisions that would have authorized the Justice Department to publish a listing of domain names that provided access to websites dedicated to infringing activities, but against which it did not to seek a court order under the Act, in response to concerns from Internet service providers (ISPs), online companies, and public interest groups.
Ease the burden on ISPs and payment processors that are required to take action pursuant to this Act. The amendment specifies that an ISP shall not be required to modify its network or facilities to comply with an order or take steps with respect to domain name lookups performed by others. In addition, the amendment requires only that ISPs and payment processors act as expeditiously as reasonable.
Provide more explicit protection from legal liability for any third-party registrar, registry, ISP, payment processor or advertising network that takes action pursuant to this Act.
Require the Attorney General to develop a process in consultation with other law enforcement agencies to coordinate related investigations.
the Protect IP (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property) Act would be removed from the internet’s address books making them hard to find by their well-known domain name. It allows the blocking of any domains that infringing sites switch to in order to avoid blocking. The bill also contains clauses that would force search engines to stop listing so-called infringing sites in their indexes. As well as letting government take action, the Protect IP Act would allow copyright holders to apply for court orders to get sites blocked or de-listed. Payment firms and ad networks could also be told to stop providing services to sites found to be infringing copyright or peddling fake goods.
This bill for the MPAA folks may well lead to the government sanitising online content so citizens only get what those in power think they should see. But it is not there yet.
Given the ability to fake IP addresses I am not sure how MPAA’s 1990′s bill can be inforced – but this one seems be enforceable – however the blogger that mentions the new address of the banned site does not seem to be addressed.
http://www.dontcensorthenet.com/
http://www.freepress.net/savetheinternet
“I had NO idea there were blue dogs that far north of the Mason/Dixon.”
Good line, Larue.
just goes to show, if so-called “good” Dems like Leahy are sponsoring this Fascist bullshit… there really is no hope for the Democratic Party. It appears that they are hellbent to join the Whigs in irrelevancy.
Thanks for alerting us. This is just obscene. We need to throw all the legacy party bums out.
No Confidence Protest Vote 2012
An aging senior Democratic senator leading the charge to restrict Internet access and free speech, including a gag order prohibiting discussing or criticizing what his law would ban? Not even the UK’s nauseous super-injunctions are so far-reaching.
What next, Mr. Leahy? When will you reintroduce the blasphemy laws? I presume the speech prohibited by those will include criticisms of public officials, from police who taser shackled people in the backs of the police cars to Congresscritters and the president.
Who knew the Democrats were such fans of Atwood, Orwell and Huxley that they want to make their fantasies policy?
As if this were only about protecting corporate intellectual property rights. This is about a concerted attack on the entire Bill of Rights, most especially the First Amendment. Anything, it seems, is a Go if a corporation asks for it.
That some citizens are more equal than others has been true since the Founding Fathers. Wealth, race and gender were always among the criteria. Now it includes corporate personhood.
Mr. Leahy, before you do further damage, retire to Woodstock and write your memoirs. And stop destroying the Constitution by attempting to save it. A guy who lived through Vietnam should know how well that works out.