p99/red99 slated to get shut down when SOPA passes

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If it does the courts wil strike it down as being unconstitutional. Bet on it.

From a recent Stanford Law Review article:

(SOPA) not only violates basic principles of due process by depriving persons of property without a fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, it also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that governmental action suppressing speech, if taken prior to an adversary proceeding and subsequent judicial determination that the speech in question is unlawful, is a presumptively unconstitutional “prior restraint.” In other words, it is the “most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,” permissible only in the narrowest range of circumstances. The Constitution requires a court “to make a final determination” that the material in question is unlawful “after an adversary hearing before the material is completely removed from circulation.”

The procedures outlined in both bills fail this fundamental constitutional test. Websites can be “completely removed from circulation”—rendered unreachable by, and invisible to, Internet users in the United States and abroad—immediately upon application by the government, without any reasonable opportunity for the owner or operator of the website in question to be heard or to present evidence on his or her own behalf. This falls far short of what the Constitution requires before speech can be eliminated from public circulation.

I wouldn't bet a penny on the courts doing their job.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wouldn't bet a penny on the courts doing their job.

I would. You only have to look as far as the Communications Decency Act to see how seriously the court views freedom of speech.


In a landmark decision issued on June 26,1997, the Supreme Court held that the Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

The Court's opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, resoundingly rejects censorship of the on-line medium and establishes the fundamental principles that will guide judicial consideration of the Internet for the 21st Century. EPIC is proud to have participated in this historic litigation as both plaintiff and co-counsel.

There have been two new appointees to the court since then, but I'm betting things haven't changed much.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would. You only have to look as far as the Communications Decency Act to see how seriously the court views freedom of speech.


In a landmark decision issued on June 26,1997, the Supreme Court held that the Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

The Court's opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, resoundingly rejects censorship of the on-line medium and establishes the fundamental principles that will guide judicial consideration of the Internet for the 21st Century. EPIC is proud to have participated in this historic litigation as both plaintiff and co-counsel.

There have been two new appointees to the court since then, but I'm betting things haven't changed much.

1997... The court has become increasingly statist since then.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1997... The court has become increasingly statist since then.

Reference me a couple decisions reflecting that. I'm not arguing, just curious.

[Humerox]

Golan vs. Holder is a pretty good indication to me that the court isn't swayed by corporate interest or Congress regarding copyright.

This was decided this year:

Golan vs. Holder is a case originally filed in 2001 challenging the constitutionality of restoring copyright of foreign works that were previously in the United States public domain by the United States Congress.

Judge Babcock wrote:

In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs’ vested First Amendment interests. [...] Accordingly—to the extent Section 514 suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain—Section 514 is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the Government’s interest.

Of course appeals are slated for 2012...but I suspect they'll be fruitless.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Reference me a couple decisions reflecting that. I'm not arguing, just curious.

Actually, looking back in the realm of free speech, you may be right. The major cases in the past decade have all sided on the side of free speech. When I think of the failures of the supreme court, they mostly come in the realm of economics and the expansion of the commerce clause.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually, looking back in the realm of free speech, you may be right. The major cases in the past decade have all sided on the side of free speech. When I think of the failures of the supreme court, they mostly come in the realm of economics and the expansion of the commerce clause.

THAT we can agree on!