Two progressive presidential candidates have taken action today to protest H.R. 3261, the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act. They have undertaken this protest with two very different approaches, however.
Justice Party presidential candidate Rocky Anderson wrote: “Great to see what websites like Google, Wikipedia, and Reddit are doing in response to SOPA (and PIPA). I am vehemently opposed to both acts. One of the essential elements of my campaign is the democratized means of communication that is helping to bring down dictators — and allowing us all opportunities through user-generated cyberspace the means to create, innovate, and yield a greater voice with expanded freedoms. I have often said that, in this campaign, social media will help us topple the dictatorship of corrupt money in our government.
Many current elected officials seem to have little regard for due process, as reflected in these bills, as well as in the outrageous NDAA provisions allowing for indefinite detention. We must act in every way to protect the rule of law, including due process rights. Due process is one of the most important features of a free society. There are a multitude of problems with these acts that are characteristic of the positions of many, if not most, Republicans and Democrats in recent years.
These bills are written in such broad terms that they effectively give corporations the purported legal justification to infringe on basic freedoms. For example, SOPA allows the Department of Justice and copyright holders to request court orders against those allegedly distributing copyrighted material without permission. These court orders can require search engines to omit search results of suspect websites, and require Internet service providers to block the site’s DNS records. On top of that, they could force payment processors (credit card companies, Paypal, etc.) to freeze accounts associated with those accused websites.
This would be devastating to the Internet, users, and to freedom generally. Initiatives like this have been implemented by some other countries, but the nature of these bills is akin to anti-freedom Internet policies of Iran and China. These bills (SOPA & PIPA) portend a further diminution of our freedom and democracy, ironically at a time when our government contends it is fighting wars to bring greater freedom and democracy to other nations.”
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein did not write in opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act. Instead, she posted the following graphic:
Which approach do you think is more productive?
i learned more about it from Rocky’s ad, but Jill’s was right to the point – government meddling corrupts whatever it touches. Shows they’re both thinkin’ about our rights for a change. i just don’t know how, once they were elected, THEY would ‘undo’ all the grievous policies that have been slowly and painfully put in place by the corporate-lobbying efforts and Congress. The president doesn’t write the bills before the legislature. How would it work? They can’t decree that all of a sudden the people responcible for the mortgage mess (for example) will all be prosecuted; they can’t MAKE Congress regulate Wall Street (or fund the regulators sufficiently, is more accurate); Congress can still declare war on Iran . . .
i think you’re getting your hopes up about this election changing anything progressively.
I don’t have unreasonable hopes, I think. My greatest hope is that Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson get more than 5 percent support, combined. If either one was to become President, though, there would be an impact on legislative action. First of all, there is leeway within present legislative parameters for executive orders. Second, there’s the power of the veto. Think of all the bad law Barack Obama did NOT veto. Then, think what Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson would do. The presence of either one in the White House would make it much more difficult for right wing legislation to be passed. The legislation would have to achieve 2/3 support to overrule a veto.
To be clear, Jill Stein did also issue a statement today.
Okay, I’ll look into that. What I found was an “article” slot with this graphic. Thanks, Ben.
Anderson continually demonstrates a full command of facts and logic concerning every important issue. Stein may not measure up to Anderson in that, but she’s on the right side. I’d like to see them in on the same ticket — since they belong to different parties (Green and Justice), they ought to shed party labels and proceed as Ross Perot did (but either will make a much better vice president than that fellow who wondered in the debate what he was doing there).
Stein does pretty well – and she has a better mechanism in place for gaining ballot access. Remember, Ross Perot didn’t shed party labels. He tried to create a new political party, to create a new label.