Lesson in Gingrich's Win for Obama

If I were Barack Obama, I'd be very unhappy about Newt Gingrich's win tonight in South Carolina.  As it is, I'm a mostly supporter of Obama, and I'd much rather the see the President face the robotic Romney than Gingrich.

Gingrich not only is a highly effective debater, he has a capacity to surprisingly endorse positions that pull the rug out from under his opponents.  In the debate the other night, what I most noticed was Gingrich's powerful condemnation of SOPA and PIPA - the now shelved Internet anti-piracy legislation that would have crippled the Internet.

In contrast, Obama was mostly silent about this and eventually came out with a mild backing off statement expressing reservations with the bills.

Obama cannot afford to be outflanked like this in the general election.  My best advice would be that he be true to his progressive views, take a more libertarian position on respecting the First Amendment and the Constitution, support Occupy Wall Street, and energize his base which he has not especially done in the past few years.

Romney the robot - whom I called  a Cylon back in 2008 (attention Battlestar Galactica fans) - would have been a push-over for Obama, or indeed any candidate with a real passion for his or her ideas and ideals.

Obama has that, and he'll need to call upon all of it to beat Gingrich.  The Republican convention is still a long way off, and anything can happen in the rest of the primaries, but tonight could change everything.

Setting Dodd Straight on SOPA

Former Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), now the head of the MPAA and the main spokesperson for SOPA and PIPA (now shelved or withdrawn), just told Andrea Mitchell a bunch of nonsense on MSNBC.  Here are some of his major points, with translations into truth to set the record straright:

Dodd:  Most people misunderstood what the bills were about - which was, to stop the loss of American jobs due to Internet piracy.

Truth:  Everyone understood that purpose of the bills.  What we also understood were the provisions of the bill that would have held entire sites responsible for even one pirated item on their otherwise massive, non-pirated sites and could have crippled the Internet as we know it.  Dodd said nothing whatsoever about that.

Dodd:  the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has been effective against Internet pirates and has led to the shutdown of many sites.  SOPA and PIPA were just trying to extend its provisions to international pirates operating here.

Truth:  Right, the DMCA has been very effective.  So why not just extend its provisions to cover international pirates?  The DMCA has none of the provisions of SOPA and PIPA which could have crippled the Internet.

Dodd:  The First Amendment does not protect criminals, people who libel and slander others, etc.

Truth:  Right, but the First Amendment does protect from government regulation all modes of speech and press which are not engaged in criminal, slanderous, or libelous actions.   If The New York Times, for example, inadvertently published something deemed libelous, it could be sued for libel under the current laws.  Those same laws can be used against anything online - without the need for SOPA and PIPA - and the same applies to piracy (with extension of DMCA to cover international pirates).  The problem with SOPA and PIPA is they went way too far, and would have have seriously violated the First Amendment.

In sum - Dodd, after being rebuked by the withdrawal of SOPA, is starting off on the wrong foot for where we go from here.  A little truth would help.

Challenging Schumer and Gillibrand on SOPA

Largely missed among the online protests against SOPA and PIPA today - protests with whose goal I strongly agree, though I disagree with the tactics of shutting down online systems, as I indicated on Monday - were in-person demonstrations at the Manhattan offices of US Senators from New York Schumer and Gillibrand.

Unlike Wikipedia going dark, which inconvenienced millions of innocent people, the protests against Schumer and Gillibrand were lodged exactly such protests should be, in the faces of people who support SOPA and PIPA and apparently don't care about the damage such law if enacted would do to the Internet, and thereby our lives.  Not only support these bills, but in the case of Schumer and Gillibrand sponsored the Senate version of SOPA - that is,  PIPA.

I've lived in New York all my life, and yet I still find myself surprised when a New York elected official, let alone a Democrat, has such a benighted, retrograde position.  But Schumer has been a disrespecter of the First Amendment for a long time.  He loves the FCC and the fines it levies, and speaks glowingly of the Fairness Doctrine and hopes to see it reinstated.  He probably thinks all the First Amendment prohibits is the government's shutting down newspapers in the middle of the night, but I wouldn't put that past him, either, if the paper printed something he judged in bad taste.

I guess I expected more of Kristen Gillibrand.  Truthfully, I was disappointed when former Governor Paterson passed over Carolyn Kennedy for Hillary Clinton's replacement, and appointed the little-known Gillibrand.   She's done a pretty good job, until SOPA.  I tried to give her a chance.

But the Schumer-Gillibrand position on SOPA-PIPA is insulting to anyone with any intelligence.  Internet piracy is something we all want to stop.  Especially me, as an author.  But Schumer and Gillibrand think it's costing New Yorkers jobs.   Hardly - the movie and television industries are still situated in Hollywood, and the old music business, the RIAA-kind, isn't situated anywhere anymore.   What would cost jobs in New York are Internet companies going broke because of unconstitutional Federal fines and shutdowns in pursuit of pirates.

But speaking of jobs - I hope New Yorkers put someone up against Schumer next time a primary comes around, and as for Gillibrand - let's hope she comes to her senses and withdraws her support from SOPA and PIPA before she loses whatever support she still has from New Yorkers who want to build a better future.

Wikipedia Wrong to Go Dark for SOPA Protest

The New York Times reported late this afternoon that Wikipedia plans to go dark - shut down - this Wednesday, just for that day, joining Reddit and other online sites in protest of SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act now under consideration by Congress.

I think SOPA is an unconstitutional, dangerous waste of time - that is, a violation of the First Amendment that won't achieve its ends, and could cripple the Internet with its provision that sites could be liable for any pirated material posted on their online premises.  No site can possibly police every post - text or video - for adherence to copyright.

Wikipedia actually does a pretty good job of making sure every image on its site violates no copyright. But I think Wikipedia should not shut down on Wednesday to point out the danger of SOPA.

Wikipedia is a source of information,  a site which by its very existence stands up to ignorance in Congress.  It won't be able to make this point on Wednesday when it's shut down.  And in doing so, Wikipedia will inconvenience millions of people, including students of all ages, who rely on its services.

Wikipedia could make the same point by putting up a page about SOPA which everyone who goes to Wikipedia would see.  A page like that will indeed greet people when they try to go to Wikipedia on Wednesday.  What is gained by then preventing them from getting the information they're seeking?

In times of revolution, even just in opposition to authority, it is especially important that lines of information remain open.  The world will survive Wikipedia's day of darkness, but it is a wrongheaded, unnecessary move, and SOPA will be defeated without it.