BY PETER SCHEER
Successful technology firms pride themselves on their capacity to disrupt the established order. The reference is usually to a technological advance that poses an existential threat to an entrenched industry or way of doing business. Think of Apple Computer's impact on the cellphone and music industries, Google on the sale and delivery of advertising, or Amazon on book publishing-to name just a few.
But in their recent protests against anti-piracy legislation pending in Congress -- the Stop Online Piracy Act, "SOPA," and companion legislation in the Senate -- high-tech firms demonstrated, for the first time, their awesome capacity for "creative destruction" of a political establishment that they see as hostile to their interests.
Literally within hours of Wikipedia going dark and Google covering its logo with the black band of censorship, members of Congress were running for the exits, disavowing their previously pledged support for SOPA. Legislators barely hesitated before reneging on literally decades of accumulated political debts to Hollywood interests, the principal backers of the anti-piracy bill.
These politicians cowered before the emergence of a new political institution -- more powerful even than the traditional media, the so-called "Fourth Estate," in its heyday. Call this new institution, the corporate power brokers of Silicon Valley and other digital meccas across the country, the Fifth Estate. Pulling the plug on SOPA was the occasion for their political coming out.
Shrewdly, the Fifth Estate selected a political strategy that relied entirely on symbolic expression. The online anti-SOPA protests involved no threats of violence, no coercion, no overnight camping in public parks or blocking of street traffic during rush hour. Municipalities were not required to pay overtime to police. Taser guns and pepper spray remained holstered. And there were no injuries.
The Fifth Estate's tactic of symbolic protest was the essence of constitutionally protected expression.
In this context it is worth noting that the First Amendment rights on display in this debate were secured by the US Supreme Court's controversial decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That misunderstood case is reviled in some quarters for its affirmation of the First Amendment rights of corporations. Indeed, in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision, a cottage industry has emerged to advocate legislation (or, God forbid, a constitutional amendment) to curb the influence of corporations in the political sphere.
Their good intentions notwithstanding, those who believe corporations have no free speech rights (or that they should have, at most, a second-rate version of the free speech protections for individuals), should realize that only the First Amendment stands in the way of governmental punishment-legislative, regulatory or otherwise-against Google and other Fifth Estate corporations for their inciting of public opinion against SOPA-style legislation.
Think of how many members of Congress, humiliated (or at least humbled) by the anti-SOPA blow-back on the internet, would love to not only punish the Fifth Estate for its political impudence, but to neuter it permanently-for example, by blocking corporate acquisitions, unleashing antitrust and SEC investigations, or instigating IRS scrutiny.
One does not have to be a Ron Paul supporter to appreciate that for corporations (like Google, Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft), there is nothing more intimidating than being in the cross-hairs of government law enforcement agencies, egged on by pissed-off members of Congress with power over the agencies' budget appropriations.
Corporations, no less than individuals, need First Amendment protection for their criticism of government and advocacy of policies opposed by government. They need this protection for themselves, for their employees, and for their shareholders and customers.
----------
Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition (FAC). The views expressed here are his alone, not necessarily those of the FAC Board of Directors.
Follow Peter Scheer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/1stamendmnt
Dean Baker: The Surefire Way to End Online Piracy: End Copyright
Andrew Edney: The Victorinox SSD - A Swiss Army Knife or SSD - It's Both!
Jade Lane: Why SOPA Is a Reaction, Not a Solution
Michael Geist: SOPA: A Warning to Canada Lawmakers
No one is going to buy your arguments except those owning and running these companies, thank fully the can not force their employees to vote a particular way, of course as they move more jobs out of USA that has smaller impact.
This does not apply to all companies, but that is a very small percentage. A company is there to make money for the investors and nothing else, some do not even do it legally.
This piece misses the boat, badly. Nothing stops members of corporations from excersizing their right to express their opinions. But we hardly need any corporations using their money to buy off our elected officials.
The main reason I don't buy your argument is that I don't agree with giving rights to those without responsibility.
Take the case of Ford Motors and the Pinto. The company knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the design of the Pinto was inherently flawed, a literal death trap when struck from behind. The executives, the CEO and the Board of Directors came to the conclusion that it was cheaper to pay the law suits for wrongful death than to pay for a recall of the deadly cars. Not one of them did time in jail for negligent indifference to human life.
The executives, the CEO, and the Board of Directors at Lehman Brothers knew the assets they were selling were toxic and would lead to a global financial meltdown destroying the well being of millions, have they been held accountable? No.
When CEOs and BoD's start being hauled to jail* when their companies engage in crimes, then we can start talking about their rights.
* Real jail, not some white collar country club posing as prison.
It seems pretty obvious from the comments here that people ain't buying your bull.
I guess you got hired because most people can't see this kind of nonsense. By the way, the technical terms for what you've one here are Red Herring and Straw Man.
www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
To sum up the puff piece: BS and blather.
The politicians have the Dog and Pony show finely tuned and certainly do not want the Tech money to dry up.
As soon as the congress has had time to freshen their makeup they will be back on the streets of Silicon Valley plying their trade. Maybe the second oldest profession
"...those who believe corporations have no free speech rights (or that they should have, at most, a second-rate version of the free speech protections for individuals)..."
Who are these "those who believe..."? The argument of those opposing Citizens United is that multi-national corporation have too much financial influence in national democracies around the world. It doesn't matter where you stand on the SOPA issue, this recent show of tech power over the representatives of voting citizens does not negate that reality. And i don't have to mischaracterize his argument to point that out:
"The online anti-SOPA protests involved no threats of violence, no coercion, no overnight camping in public parks or blocking of street traffic during rush hour."
Yes. They don't have to. And that's a good thing?!!! Messy, silly, violent, disruptive "those who..."! Does his point give anybody pause? Corporations cannot vote -- living citizens can -- but who has the power to make politicians fall all over themselves to appease them? I'll give you one guess.