More

SOPA Anti-Porn Amendment Rejected By Bipartisan Coalition

Sopa Porn Congress

First Posted: 12/19/11 03:23 PM ET Updated: 12/20/11 10:41 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- On Thursday, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers directed the federal government to deploy radical new powers to enforce and protect copyrights on pornography.

By a vote of 9 to 18, the House Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), which would have barred the Department of Justice from using the new tactics envisioned by an anti-piracy bill to protect "obscene and pornographic works."

Members of both parties came together to defeat the anti-pornography initiative, with Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.), and even hardcore social conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) all against Polis' amendment, and in effect, standing up to protect the porn industry.

The vote came during a hearing to modify the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, a bill which gives filmmakers and the federal government the ability to shutdown entire websites that they claim are involved in piracy -- without a trial or even a traditional hearing. And while the legislation is being pushed most aggressively by Hollywood movie studio and major record labels, the sweeping enforcement powers envisioned by the bill could be deployed by adult film auteurs, as well.

Yet a spokesperson for King explained his vote by arguing the Polis amendment would have actually led to more porn online. By enforcing the intellectual property rights of porn producers, King's office argued, the DOJ would be able to take down many websites that post porn illegally.

Polis is one of a handful of outspoken SOPA opponents on the Judiciary Committee, whose position is embraced by several major Silicon Valley companies alongside the ACLU, Internet experts and academics. Web programmers warn that the primary anti-piracy tactics envisioned by the bill would weaken online security measures and crack the very foundation of the Internet. The ACLU and other First Amendment advocates blast the destruction of entire websites without a trial -- rather than the removal of infringing material -- as a major free speech violation.

By introducing his porn rider, Polis forced SOPA supporters into casting an awkward vote. Determining whether a site takedown would protect pornographers would require the Justice Department to conduct additional reviews and open up takedowns to a new category of legal challenges. And that might make the process of website annihilation slower for Hollywood studios seeking to crackdown on pirated mainstream movies.

Hollywood has repeatedly cast SOPA as job-creating legislation, with Motion Picture Association of America Chairman Chris Dodd celebrating the bill as a way to protect actors and technicians alike. Economists say it's unlikely that the bill will actually create any jobs, warning that it's tactics are particularly problematic for legitimate tech start-ups, but film-friendly lawmakers have been happy to parrot the MPAA talking points. To date, however, no members of Congress have celebrated SOPA's potential to create more porn stars.

Several lawmakers ducked the vote by simply not attending. In fact, of the 10 amendments that received roll call votes on Thursday, Polis' porn amendment received the fewest total votes, with just 27, compared to as many as 34 on other amendments. Reps. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.) curiously were able to vote on both the amendments offered before and after the porn amendment, but disappeared for the porn vote.

A spokesman for Polis insists that the amendment was not simply a humorous effort to put SOPA supporters in a difficult position. "It makes a serious point," Polis spokesman Chris Fitzgerald told HuffPost. "You're basically going to have the Justice Department policing all of this, and if we're going to be extending those resources, we shouldn't be prioritizing the property rights of pornographers over others."

Polis' unusual allies supporting his amendment also included members on both sides of the aisle, with SOPA opponents Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) joining strident social conservative Reps. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- On Thursday, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers directed the federal government to deploy radical new powers to enforce and protect copyrights on pornography. By a vote of 9 to 18, t...
WASHINGTON -- On Thursday, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers directed the federal government to deploy radical new powers to enforce and protect copyrights on pornography. By a vote of 9 to 18, t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,376
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (63 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS

photo
Waltfl 09:15 AM on 12/20/2011
There is a lot of misinformation about this bill.  This law has absolutely nothing to do with porn, however, it may include porn, because there are no absolute standards by which to define "obscenity". Is Henry MIller's Topic of the Cancer" obscene? By some standards it is, by others it's great American literature. So should it not be protected by copyright laws, just because some say it's obscene?  Read More...
07:17 AM on 12/27/2011
The government should focus on fixing the economy not the internet. As the saying goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it". The economy is broken, the internet is not.
08:39 AM on 12/26/2011
First get the pirateers who re-hash footage and didn't buy resale rights from the original production companies. Then make the sites splattering exploitatin in plain view card for IDs. That will help tremendously. Why should only bars and liquor stores check IDs? They don't just ask are you 21 or older. Make the sites check IDs. You know darn well the kids and teenagers are saying yeah I'm 21 and are viewing all the smut online, forget filters that doesn't work people. There's a huge problem with smut online and it's getting worse. Read more at kimmigee.wordpress.org being it's critical.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
12:27 AM on 12/22/2011
Yes, they have to 'protect the children'.................and yet having the .xxx top level domain will probably do much more that this could since it's easier to filter that out.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:57 PM on 12/21/2011
I really wish society would reject hollywood for indie, only get local music and only watch amateur porn..make these companies lose money.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tlcpro
Work is not work when you love what you do.
09:31 AM on 12/21/2011
It is the same as copyrighting prostitution.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
02:52 AM on 12/21/2011
Persued steroids in baseball - yes
Protecting porn - yes
Extended Unemployment Compensation - no

--------------------------------------------------->

It's good to see that our congress has it's priorties straight and is addressing the ills that are plaguing this country. That's right fellas - save America.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tlcpro
Work is not work when you love what you do.
09:32 AM on 12/21/2011
Don't forget the outlawing of the phrase, Merry Christmas. That was an important issue. Santa Claus is not a religious figure you door knobs!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
11:22 PM on 12/21/2011
LOL! Absolutely! How could we forget? Nice catch.
04:48 PM on 12/20/2011
"Hollywood has repeatedly cast SOPA as job-creating legislation, with Motion Picture Association of America Chairman Chris Dodd celebrating the bill as a way to protect actors and technicians alike."

What they fail to realize that this will increase costs and liability for other industries on the web. It might boost income to Hollywood/entertainment industry because it is offloading the responsibility of copyright enforcement to the government. Other industries will be impacted because they now have to hire extra staff to comply with some of the new provisions such as self-censoring of blogs/comments/fair-use images/sounds/ social media. They are wanting to make sites liable for what is said and done by all content even ones generated by non-site employees.

I am not under delusions to think that some modified version of this bill isn't going to pass in year or two from now. I just hope that come to reason and respect the constitution. They need to clearly define how a website is be to be seized and to require a court order explaining the reasons; Just like any physical search/seizure.
02:24 PM on 12/20/2011
good i hope they pass it and there wont be as much free porn online.. :-D then guys will stop being so spoiled to tell a girl to get naked online kuz "everyone is doing it". ans they will be more wiloing to pay.
photo
laterthanyouthink
My snark font is: ON
09:46 PM on 12/20/2011
Good point.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Robertson
04:54 PM on 12/21/2011
Really? You're glad because you want to be able to charge your boyfriend? Or are you planning to go public?
12:39 PM on 12/20/2011
gotta love the america we are living in. Cant wait till they start to allow only certian amounts of gas to be purchased at one time. LImits on everything. Welcome to the free country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dodsworth Fandango
The wages of gin is breath
10:45 AM on 12/21/2011
Uhh, that's already been done.
Paulo1
Thanks for reading, (even if you disagree)
12:27 PM on 12/20/2011
Its a stupid rotten infringement on free speech, a loathsome halter around the neck of the net and anyone who would vote for SOPA is no friend of mine.

That said I am glad they are protecting porn. America needs is traditional pastimes protected.
12:26 PM on 12/20/2011
Protect XXX-Porn and TRASH the Payroll Tax extension for the middle-class. That IS the mentality of the U.S. Congress. Vote these BUMS out!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
12Purple
my microbio isn't empty yet communicates nothing
12:48 PM on 12/20/2011
SOPA is much, much more than protecting pornography. This is a strawman and cheap political trick by the bill writers.

If SOPA goes through - there are far-reaching consequences that most people don't comprehend.

But I do agree about the Payroll Tax extension for us middle-classers. That's a bunch of grandtanding too.
photo
laterthanyouthink
My snark font is: ON
09:47 PM on 12/20/2011
Let's not throw the porn out with the bath ....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gypsy508
12:18 PM on 12/20/2011
It was a cheap political trick and they didn't fall for it. On that point I'd have to say congress did something smart for a change. This has nothing to do with porn.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hopingheart
He's NOT your Jesus...
12:13 PM on 12/20/2011
let's remember that online pornography sites make their biggest money in red states, states that are traditionally conservative and vote GOP. Hypocrisy, anyone?

http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:35 PM on 12/20/2011
There is no hypocrisy in giving the same copyright protections to the porn industry as we do Steven Spielberg. But you wouldn't know that since you don't even understand what the article was really about.
photo
laterthanyouthink
My snark font is: ON
09:48 PM on 12/20/2011
What article?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:59 PM on 12/21/2011
a download =/= a lost sale. a lot of porn sites are scams to begin with. They charge and deny access. They continue to charge after you cancel, they add misc charges that you don't authorize.
photo
Cunningham
I intend to live forever, or die trying. GrouchoM
03:17 AM on 12/22/2011
Across the board UTAH has the highest rate of porn subscriptions. heh heh

http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf
12:07 PM on 12/20/2011
If our Govt would have provided Free Cable including Porn to Iraqi citizens during Saddam's regime we wouldn't have had to fight a war there. Mission Accomplished.
12:30 PM on 12/20/2011
Heck, no need to invade really, get walmart a franchise started in the country and before you know it they would have been to poor from working there, yet to hooked to leave, same as here. Either way, they wouldnt have been able to put up a lot of resistance to passive change =p
photo
APBTLover01
Unconditional love comes in the form of 4 paws.
01:42 PM on 12/20/2011
OH I'VE GOT A BETTER ONE than that!!! loan our politicians to them and allow them to run their country for a while....Do I need to say anymore?.......LOL Wouldn't that be ironic?
10:55 AM on 12/21/2011
Iraqis had a lot to fight for, besides fighting for their country and freedom, they did not want to lose all the benefits providing to them under Saddam's rule (such as, but not limited to free healthcare, free dental, and free education through college). Thanks to Bush's war for oil, they have nothing now. And they wont get any of that back because it was paid for by oil revenues. We handed over the Iraqi oil fields to BP and Shell. The Iraqi people get nothing now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Donald Kinge
11:40 AM on 12/20/2011
SOPA - internet censorship...
Defense bill - indefinite detention of Americans...

Good God where are we?!?!
photo
laterthanyouthink
My snark font is: ON
09:50 PM on 12/20/2011
January 30, 1933