PROTECT IP/SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

There they are, your United States Congress, and they are going to stop online piracy NOW!

Ah, and yet…The terrible Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is lurking in the U.S. House of Representatives, and its Senate companion, the also terrible PROTECT IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011) is sneaking through the upper chamber. This is happening in spite of the fact that so much of America hates hates HATES these proposed bills.

Intended to stamp out copyright infringement and piracy on the Internet, these two bills would transfer unprecedented power to the government to block or shut down websites that facilitate intellectual property violations, such as copyright and trademark infringement or piracy. These proposals would have severe consequences for freedom of speech and due process, and many have warned how, if enacted, they would undermine the very structure of the Internet.

The short video explanation heading up this post, via Lifehacker, is perhaps the best four minute briefing on the bills you could ask for. Go ahead, watch, it’s only four minutes. We’ll save your place here till you get back.

Done? Great. Let’s move on.

Will no one rid of us of these meddlesome bills? Don’t count on U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin of Arkansas’ Second District, or Sen. John Boozman, Republicans who are co-sponsors of SOPA and the PROTECT-IP Act in their respective chambers. Ech, it’s enough to make you wonder what we even have Republicans for when they are willing to sign on to such unaccountable expansions of government power. Then you see that the proposals boast bipartisan support, and you realize we, the people, just cannot win.

My friends, these are wretched laws that need to be strangled in the crib, posthaste, but you need not take my word for it. The reviews are in, and the opposition spans the political spectrum. If this were a collection of Rotten Tomatoes reviews this thing would be tracking lower than that new Adam Sandler movie. (“Excellent topical reference, Dave! Very topical.”—All Arkansas Project Readers). Let’s look!:

• Peter Suderman at the libertarian Reason magazine: “There’s so much wrong with Congress’s new anti-piracy legislation that it’s hard to know where to start….Federal lawmakers aren’t exactly the most tech-savvy bunch, and that frequently leads to legislation that’s problematically vague.”
• Nathaniel Botwinick in the conservative National Review: “The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is one of the most misguided Internet-reform efforts to emerge in years….Unfortunately, wide application of the bill’s regulations would strangle the freedom of the Internet.”
• L. Gordon Crovitz in the Wall Street Journal: “These bills would go so far to protect copyright that they would strangle the Internet with regulation. The Web would be transformed from a permissive technology where innovation is welcome to one where websites are shut down first, questions asked later.”
• The liberals at MoveOn.org: ”The government must not be allowed to censor the Internet at the request of powerful lobbyists. Say NO to Internet censorship.”
• The nerds at Techdirt: “The supporters of these bills really seemed to think they’d be approved without any real pushback. They’re still trying to make such claims in our comments. The reality is that there’s a growing public realization that a few big businesses who don’t want to adapt are trying to saddle the innovation industry with regulations to slow down the pace of innovation.”
• The poindexters at the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “There are already laws and procedures in place for taking down sites that violate the law. These acts would allow the Attorney General, and even individuals, to create a blacklist to censor sites when no court has found that they have infringed copyright or any other law.”
• Tom Lee at the Sunlight Foundation: “It’s simply not acceptable for the government to grant itself the power to silence individuals and organizations without appropriate due process.”
• Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing: “SOPA, the House version of the US Senate’s PROTECT-IP Bill, might be the worst-ever copyright proposal in US legislative history.”
• Rebecca MacKinnon of Global Voices in The New York Times: “Public trust in both government and corporations is low, and deservedly so. This is no time for politicians and industry lobbyists in Washington to be devising new Internet censorship mechanisms, adding new opportunities for abuse of corporate and government power over online speech.”
• Lindsey Millar at the leftist Arkansas Times: “Every site that relies on user-generated content, from YouTube to Facebook to some site that doesn’t yet exist, could be imperiled if it becomes law.”
• Meanwhile, here’s an industry letter from leading tech giants (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) expressing concern over the bill (PDF), and an extremely well-written letter signed by 109 law professors laying out the case against SOPA (PDF).

I’ve read at least one recent report indicating that the sponsors probably don’t have the votes to get the bills passed, but remain vigilant. No bad idea ever dies in Washington, and SOPA and PROTECT-IP will almost certainly return. On your guards, people!

UPDATE:  A Slate writer offers an assessment of the SOPA/PROTECT-IP opposition movement, and includes a warning that making a lot of noise on Twitter and whatnot may not be sufficient:

Rep. [Zoe] Lofgren [D-Calif.], who represents part of Silicon Valley, told me that her constituents have already made a couple of rookie mistakes in their anti-SOPA campaigning. The flood of calls to Congress came as many members were looking ahead to the Thanksgiving recess, and many went to district offices rather than offices in the Capitol. For all the fury on Facebook and Twitter, Lofgren says, the backlash against SOPA has registered as “a blip” in Congress so far.

God, you people and your tweeting….He also deems the oddball opposition coalition “the geek lobby.” He’s talking about you, of course, not me. Geek.

On October 29 in Little Rock, a disagreement between an off-duty cop and a civilian at the upscale Ferneau restaurant erupted into a full-scale brawl—and a few days later, a lawsuit. The victim alleges police brutality. Nobody who wasn’t at the restaurant could have any idea what actually happened—except that a spectator videotaped the incident. The victim’s attorney released the video, seen at the top of this post, on YouTube.

The video tells us something, but it certainly doesn’t tell us everything: we can’t know whether we’re seeing a policeman use reasonable force—or going too far.

The fact is that even a video camera may not capture the whole story. The video gives us one perspective and some information, but it certainly won’t tell us what happened before filming started. Maybe a picture is worth a thousand words, but some incidents take more than a thousand words to explain (check out the weirdly compelling comments section at the Arkansas Times post on this affair, which contains a multitude of Rashomon-like multiple perspectives).

However, one thing this incident underscores is the immense importance of protecting citizens who record law enforcement actions in public. Regrettably, we are seeing a nationwide wave of arrests of citizens for doing nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights. As smartphones with cameras become cheaper and more pervasive, this issue will only grow more pressing.

Consider just a few recent examples:

• Three days ago, Wisconsin activists were arrested for the crime of recording  legislative debate in their state Capitol.
• Last week in Florida, deputies arrested a man when they discovered he was using his iPhone to record his detention.
• Two days before that, an Alabama policeman who was directing traffic became so upset when he spotted someone photographing him that he walked across the street to push the camera away.
• It happens in Arkansas, too: journalist Bill Lawson was arrested four years ago for trying to photograph a Maumelle house fire, but was doing it in a way that a law enforcement officer on the scene didn’t like.

Events like these place citizens in the uncomfortable position of having to sue the cops in order to protect their constitutional rights.

It is all too reminiscent of the situation earlier this year in which the Fulton County Quorum Court decided to prohibit filming of their public meetings and in which county Sheriff Buck Foley actually pushed the camera away in the middle of recording. It is a situation in which government agents, whose first official act is to swear obedience to the Constitution, clearly think of that swearing as a formality and the First Amendment as a bunch of abstract words without any relevance to their job duties.

This problem won’t be solved until legislatures decide to penalize government agents who block people from photography in any context where the photographer has a right to be.

Alleged Police Brutality Caught on Tape (KATV)

The War on Cameras (Reason.com) 

Frankly, I'm surprised it's that many.

I’ve long resisted setting up an Arkansas Project page on Facebook, because, ugh, Facebook, but I also recognize that many (some? a few? two?) of you now prefer to conduct all of your interactions with the world without ever venturing outside Professor Zuckerberg’s Magical Connexion Machine.

So to better serve you, I set up an Official Arkansas Project Facebook page. Please go over there and start posting things on the wall explaining how I’m doing it all wrong, so that I can do my usual thing of ignoring your insane gibberish, as I do on my personal Facebook page. That said, I will try to clean it up a bit later. I look forward to spending the rest of my life with you inside the walled garden.

And since this has happened, I now hereby declare Facebook finally over. RIP, we hardly knew ye, etc. 

Official Arkansas Project Facebook Page

The city prosecutor is seeking to identify the anonymous creator of the videos, alleging that, since the purpose of the videos is “to harass, intimidate, torment or embarrass” members of the department, the creator has violated state cyberstalking laws.

And given that Arkansas passed a similar cyberbullying law in the 2011 legislative session, the implications of the case are worth a closer look.

The Renton case is a textbook example of how anti-stalking and bullying laws can easily morph into assaults on freedom of expression. Explains legal eagle Eugene Volokh:

Under the prosecutor’s view, any statement — including on a blog, in a YouTube video, in a newspaper article, on television, or whatever else — is a crime if it is made “with intent to harass, … torment, or embarrass” the subject of the person “[u]sing any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language.” A comedian’s joke that “lewd[ly]” or “lascivious[ly]” described President Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky, or for that matter Congressman Weiner’s behavior, would be a crime if it was made “with intent to … embarrass” the President or the Congressman….

Volokh continues:

If the prosecutor is right that the statute should be interpreted this broadly, then it’s clearly unconstitutionally overbroad. Speech to the public doesn’t lose its constitutional protection because it’s intended to torment or embarrass.

Be forewarned: It could happen here, thanks to the aforementioned cyberbullying law passed in the last legislative session. Comparable to the Washington law, it was sponsored by Little Rock Democratic Sen. Linda Chesterfield and passed on a bipartisan vote, with only a few House conservatives opposing.

The Arkansas law includes similarly vague language (link opens as PDF) that could easily be deployed against, say, political bloggers. The law targets anyone who “transmits, sends, or posts a communication by electronic means with the purpose to frighten, coerce, intimidate, threaten, abuse, harass or alarm another person,” which basically describes 90 percent of the communication on Twitter on any given day.

In this paper for the Advance Arkansas Institute (again, opens as PDF), our own Dan Greenberg warned of the overbroad language in Chesterfield’s bill:

…There is a reasonable prospect that courts would find this bill unconstitutionally vague, unconstitutionally overbroad, or unconstitutional because government bodies would have to analyze the content of communications to determine whether they constituted cyberbullying. Furthermore, law enforcement officers, judges, and citizens may have some difficulty figuring out which communications are “in furtherance of severe, repeated, or hostile behavior.”

One might think a law criminalizing speech would be met with something more than a yawn, but the Arkansas law has generated little response from the state’s media. The actions of the city prosecutor in Renton, which strike right at the heart of free speech, illustrate why these things matter.

More on the Renton case from the indispensable Reason.com.

It is called the BrockCookTolbertTalkOutlookReport.com (previously TalkBusiness.net) and promises one-stop shopping for all your Arkansas political news needs. This site has everything: News! Analysis! Issues! Tolbert!

Oooh, here’s a taste!:

“Healthy and civil debate”? By George, that absolutely sounds like a party you do not want to miss! Everyone, let’s head to the BrockCookTolbertTalkOutlookReport.com!

Roby Brock’s Talk Business Quarterly is out with the latest numbers on embattled Democratic U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln, and if you were thinking that Lincoln’s sucky poll numbers had surely bottomed out, well, that just goes to show what you know, because it just keeps getting worse. Fifty-seven percent of Arkansans hold a “strongly unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable” view of the state’s senior senator.

Do you think it has anything to do with her support for that reeking turd of a health care bill? No, it couldn’t be that, because that’s just insanely popular, right? Quick, we need someone to explain why that reeking turd of a health care bill is actually a net plus for Democrats, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Over to you, Blake Rutherford!

And another thing: Am I the only one who finds it strange that TBQ continues to use GOP political strategist Clint Reed to craft these polls, when he’s consulting for the campaign for Republican state Sen. Gilbert Baker — who’s a strong contender to be Lincoln’s challenger in November? Just askin’.

(UPDATE: Roby Brock called to let me know that he typically discloses Reed’s affiliation with the Baker campaign, as well as his Democratic contributor Robert McClarty’s affiliation with that of Attorney General Dustin McDaniel—but that he’d neglected to do so in this case. He has updated his blog post with the disclosures.)

Fuller results over at Talk Business

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Blanche Lincoln?

15%  Strongly Favorable

19%  Somewhat Favorable (Favorable = 34%)

11%  Somewhat Unfavorable

46%  Strongly Unfavorable (Unfavorable = 57%)

9%    No Opinion

Thinking about the job that Blanche Lincoln is doing as U.S. Senator, would you say you approve or disapprove?

15%  Strongly Approve

23%  Somewhat Approve (Approve = 38%)

7%   Slightly Disapprove

49%  Strongly Disapprove (Disapprove = 56%)

6%   No Opinion

After all, these were polls in which people from outside my district and minors could vote; perhaps more relevantly, someone technologically sophisticated types (which excludes me) might be able to vote multiple times from the same computer — not exactly a scientific gauge of public opinion.

Let’s look more closely at one of these polls. About a month ago, Whit Jones, proprietor of the insidesaline.com news site, polled his readers about the 2010 Senate race in District 22, which included me, my GOP primary opponent Jeremy Hutchinson and Democratic Rep. Dawn Creekmore. When I heard about this poll, I decided to vote once and then focus on more important things in my life: that is, everything else in the universe.

Regrettably, a supporter of mine soon brought to my attention that Hutchinson was accusing me of “robo-voting” in the poll. (Hutchinson made the same accusation in the previous Internet poll that he and I were subjected to; I assume “robo-voting” has something to do with using a computer program that repeatedly casts votes.) I immediately checked the poll, looking forward to an incredibly lopsided vote total in my favor.

Regrettably, Hutchinson’s bizarre (and false) accusation was apparently based on the fact that, at the time he sent out this claim in an e-mail to his supporters, he had received 42 votes and I had received 61 votes on the website. I pity anyone who sees electronic skullduggery as the only possible culprit here. It’s got to be rough to be the guy who thinks being legitimately behind by 19 votes is incomprehensible.

Hutchinson followed his claim of “robo-voting” with a pronunciamento: that he lacked the time or knowledge to do what his opponents were doing. Perhaps he was just being modest: mysteriously, the next time I checked the Internet poll a day or two later, Hutchinson had multiplied his vote total by a factor of approximately 15, as had Creekmore, while my votes had merely doubled. These odd results made me wonder about whether the poll results had any relation to the real world.

It turned out that I wasn’t the only one wondering. Just after my votes numbered about 150 and both Hutchinson’s and Creekmore’s topped 600, Whit Jones sent all of us an e-mail that read in part:

Wanted to let you guys know I’ve taken the Senate Web poll off the site immediately and I apologize for the obvious manipulation of the poll by supporters of your respective campaigns.

The company that hosts the site had assured me that safeguards were in place to prevent abuse with polls. Obviously, the safeguards are not in place. For that, I apologize.

At the same time, I am very disappointed that the honor system doesn’t exist and that we cannot conduct a poll that is representative and reflects integrity. People associated with all three campaigns are guilty of manipulating the poll, although IP addresses indicate that two camps were especially abusive.

Jones followed up with another e-mail to the effect that he was considering hosting another Internet poll about the race, one that would not be vulnerable to abuse. I would guess there’s no such animal, having been the subject of two Internet polls that were both cancelled prematurely because there was so much abuse. I have no idea why so many people care so much about who wins American Idol, but clearly many do, and it looks like even that election is vulnerable to cheating via multiple voting despite safeguards. Anonymous Internet voting makes for easily stolen elections.

To echo our president: let me be clear. Internet polls have no relation to reality. Ignore them completely. Unless, of course, you want to cast your vote for me. It’s very important to pay no attention to these ridiculously inaccurate Internet polls. Unless I win. Vote early and vote often!

It’s all in a news release with a comically long headline, which I liked so much I pasted it in as the title for this post. She’ll be serving as deputy campaign manager and communications director. Full statement at jump.

Alice was last seen here on the Arkansas Project when she was in the running for the executive directorship of the Republican Party of Arkansas. She also has a blog, which updates even less frequently than this one, if you can believe such a thing.

Senator Gilbert Baker Announces the Hiring of Former Huckabee for President National Press Secretary Alice Stewart

Stewart to serve as Deputy Campaign Manager and Communications Director

Conway, Ark. – U. S. Senate Candidate Gilbert Baker announced today the hiring of former Huckabee for President National Press Secretary Alice Stewart to serve as Deputy Campaign Manager and Communications Director.  Baker is running to unseat incumbent U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

“I’m excited to have someone with Alice’s contacts as well as her knowledge of Arkansas politics on our team,” Sen. Baker said.  “Her experience on the state and national level will be a great asset as we work to deliver the message of common sense, conservative leadership.”

Stewart worked as National Press Secretary on the Mike Huckabee for President Campaign.  She served as Press Secretary for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and has recently worked as Communications Director for the Republican Party of Arkansas.  Prior to politics,  Stewart worked as a television news anchor and reporter.

“I’m honored to be a part of this winning team,” Stewart said.  “I’ve always known Sen. Baker to be a man of great character and a leader who makes decisions based on what’s best for his constituents. During these trying economic times, we need an enthusiastic Senator who will protect the pocketbooks and represent the values of Arkansans.”

This announcement comes on the heels of tremendous third quarter fundraising numbers for Sen. Baker who outraised all of his Republican opponents with more than $510,000 in contributions, which is almost five times that of his GOP challengers.

A recent Rasmussen Report shows Sen. Baker leading Sen. Lincoln 47% to 39%.

Therefore I suggest you look into attending the Arkansas Society of Professional Journalists Blogging Academy: An Introduction to Community Journalism in Little Rock, where they’ll have a bunch of so-called self-styled “experts” on hand to talk about how you, too, can make a name for yourself through a time consuming, non-paying hobby.

It’s at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law School (Room 305) from 10 a.m to 2 p.m, and panel sessions will focus on ethics and legal issues, accessing government and something called “blogging best practices.” I’m on the latter panel, so I assume they’ll be holding The Arkansas Project up as an example of what not to do.

Other participants include Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times, Steve Harrelson of Under the Dome and, uh, I forget who else. Hell, I don’t know, let’s say “Jason Tolbert.” OK, so no Tolbert, I’m informed.

And best of all, it’s all free, so get thee to the Facebook page to learn more and get registered.