Now is the Time to Speak Up!
Write or Call Your Representatives in the House and Senate

In response to lobbying from media industry groups like the MPAA and Creative America, the House and Senate are now both considering bills which would allow large media businesses to shut down virtually any website with nothing more than an unfounded accusation and no due process of law whatsoever.

In the Senate this takes the form of the “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act” (S 968), which was blocked this Spring by Senator. Ron Wyden (D-OR) but is now back on the docket for consideration and appears to have widespread bipartisan support.  In the House it’s the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (HR 3261) which was introduced by the leaders of the House Judiciary Committee, led by the notorious Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) who also brought us the PATRIOT Act, E-Verify and a recent bill to punish travellers for smoking marijuana in foreign countries.

The ostensible purpose of the bills is to go after large-scale media pirates, many operating offshore, who the supporters claim pirate more than 500,000 movies every year, which seems like a reasonable claim.  But as is too often the case with government solutions to complex problems the proposed solution is excessive and open to enormous abuse.  The problem is that as it is written, the language of the PROTECT IP bill is so broad  that it would allow anyone owning a copyright to accuse any website of infringing that copyright and shut the website down by court order, actually scrubbing its IP address from the internet, all with no due process or hearing of any evidence or ruling from a court.  The mere filing of a complaint would result in preemptive shut-down of the accused website, requiring backbone service providers to block any access to it, treating the owner of the site as guilty until he could prove his innocence, likely at a considerable cost in legal fees.

The potential for abuse in this sort of legislation has already been demonstrated by the misuse of existing laws to shut down websites with potentially criminal content. There was a notable case last year where the FBI issued a simple query to a hosting service about one website with suspect content and it led to the shutdown of 73,000 websites out of concern over liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and other draconian laws which are already on the books.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has made its concern over the potential for abuse in these acts very clear, and has raised a further concern. They believe that fear of unmerited shutdowns under the act will lead to excessive self-policing by frightened service providers, stifling free speech and many forms of commerce on the internet.

The EFF’s Corynne McSherry writes that it “would authorize massive interference with the Internet, all in the name of a fruitless quest to stamp out all infringement online.” She points out that the potential for abuse under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is minimized by the “Safe Harbor” provisions of that bill, but that this new legislation would eliminate or bypass many of those protections and would “threaten to effectively eliminate the DMCA safe harbors that, while imperfect, have spurred much economic growth and online creativity.” She concludes that SOPA is “the worst piece of IP legislation we’ve seen in the last decade.”

It is not unreasonable for the government to be able to shut down websites which are engaging in criminal activity, but it should be the outcome of legal due process.  It should require the presentation of evidence to a court and a ruling that there is just cause to shut that sight down.  It should not be done solely on suspicion or through intimidation or as an act of prior restraint, with the presumption of guilt and the burden of proof transferred to the accused.  This is directly contrary to the fundamental legal principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and recognized under common law.

Please help support our work to bring our government under control and restore our liberties by donating using the PayPal link below. You can also join the RLCto become part of our network of member-activists. To make a recurring monthly donation try this link: Enter the maximum amount to pay each month: $ USD Sign up for

Small business leaders and internet entrepreneurs recently sent a letter to Congress, warning that the PROTECT IP Act threatens their ability to continue to expand new and innovative online businesses.  They observe that “the bill will ensnare innocent victims” and “create uncertainty for many legitimate businesses and in turn undermine innovation and creativity on those services,” while “the dedicated pirates who use and operate ‘rogue’ sites will simply migrate to platforms that conceal their activities.”

The amazing freedom to innovate and to engage in entrepreneurial creativity which the intenet has empowered is genuinely under threat from the proliferation of this kind of legislation.  As the United States has lost the lead in traditional manufacturing, we have seen most of our growth in the online business sector.  This is where the jobs of the new millenium are and it is where most of the hope for economic recovery lies.  PROTCT IP and SOPA will have a chilling effect on this increasingly important sectory of the economy and lead to wholesale violations of the privacy rights of individuals and businesses.  It’s another bad idea from a government which has become too big and too eager to interfere in every aspect of our lives.

Some elements of this article appeared previously in Blogcritics Magazine.

As a result of aggressive efforts by grassroots groups in Texas, Governor Rick Perry has offered to put Rep. David Simpson’s TSA anti-groping bill on the agenda for the upcoming legislative special session which starts this coming week if certain conditions are met. Although threats from the Justice Department and the TSA temporarily stymied bill sponsors in the state Senate after it passed the House with an overwhelming majority, they are now ready to put it through both houses in the special session where rules require only a simple majority of both houses for passage. Governor Perry has promised to put the bill on the agenda if there is a guaranteed majority supporting it in both houses and to sign the bill if it passes. A good summary of the situation can be found in the Washington Times.

Simpson’s HB 1937 (now SB29 and HB41) would make it a felony for TSA agents operating in Texas to engage in certain forms of intimate touching during the course of an “enhanced pat down” of an airlin

Evidence against June 13 GOP debate sponsors CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader continues to mount as they persist in excluding former two-term Republican Governor Gary Johnson from the Manchester, New Hampshire debate.

WMUR and the Union-Leader have been inundated with calls and e-mails from concerned Americans, many complaining that they are embarrassing the state of New Hampshire and jeopardizing its status as a first in the nation primary state.

And now Johnson supporters recently released a video targeting CNN:

HOPE AND CHANGE

Johnson’s supporters are hosting a MoneyBomb for his campaign in conjunction with the debate, and cries for inclusion have come from different corners of the political spectrum — ranging from Willy Nelson to the gay conservative group GOProud.

Additionally, there is hope for Johnson supporters:

CNN tried to keep former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel out of the June 3, 2007 Democratic presidential debate, but his supporters flooded CNN/WMUR/Union-Leader with requests and their decision was eventually reversed. Mike Gravel was able to debate.

SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA

The specific criteria CNN and the other outlets are using to justify the exclusion of Governor Johnson also doesn’t add up. The first requirement for inclusion in CNN’s debate is that the individual be “a candidate,” but some of the invitees not only are not candidates (Michele Bachmann), but haven’t even taken a single official step toward becoming one (Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin). CNN’s own definition of a potential invitee is “a candidate”.

CNN selectively used versions of polls that included the names of spoiler non-candidates (such as Palin and Giuliani) in its listed criteria. Despite excluding other polls, Gov. Johnson does qualify for the June 13 debate under the “2.00% average of three polls in the month of May” category.

In the May 27 CNN poll, three different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidates Giuliani and Palin, one including spoiler non-candidate Palin (but not Giuliani), and one including neither Giuliani nor Palin. In the survey that did not include the two spoiler non-candidates (who, as non-candidates, were not eligible for invitations anyway, under CNN’s objective criteria), Gary Johnson earned 2%.

In the May 26 Gallup poll, two different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidate Palin, and one not including spoiler non-candidate Palin. In the survey that did not include the spoiler non-candidate, Johnson earned 3%.

Finally, in the May 4 Quinnipiac poll, only one survey was taken, and Johnson earned 1%.

So the May Johnson poll results using CNN’s poll sources are: 2 + 3 + 1 divided by 3, which equals 2%. View the poll data compiled here.

A Johnson supporter explains the math for all you visual learners:

Finally, in a just-released PPP poll, Gary Johnson leads GOP contenders in favorability ratings in their home states. Johnson is supported by 44 percent of New Mexico voters.

SKETCHY FROM THE START

GOP Presidential candidate Fred Karger explains how the CNN/WMUR/NH Union-Leader debate has been problematic from the very beginning. Says Karger, “The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is very clear on the rules governing debates stating that, ‘The organization staging the debate must select the candidates based on pre-established objective criteria.’ CNN’s criteria is objective, but was the criteria pre-established?” The following evidence was collected by Mr. Karger:

1) Invitations were sent to Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. When were the invitations sent?

2) Were the invitations sent out on a rolling basis, rather than after the criteria period closed? Donald Trump was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 16, 2011. Mike Huckabee was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 14, 2011. Haley Barbour was not invited. Barbour met the criteria after the April 22, 2011 release of a Gallup poll. Haley Barbour announced he would not run on April 25, 2011.

3) Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman did not meet the polling criteria until he received 4% in the UNH poll, which was released on May 23, 2011 at 5pm (pdf). Jon Huntsman announced he would not participate in the debate on May 27, 2011. In the three full days between 5pm May 23, 2011 and May 27, 2011, Jon Huntsman would have needed to receive an invitation from the debate sponsors and have decided to decline that invitation.

4) Herman Cain: Herman Cain announced on or before May 24, 2011 that he would attend the NH debate. When was he invited? Herman Cain met the criteria on April 28, 2011.

5) Rudy Giuliani: Rudy Giuliani qualified on May 4, 2011, when the UNH Survey Center released its Granite State Poll. When was he invited?

6) Polling firms excluded: Why did the criteria exclude the following polling firms: Rasmussen, Zogby, Public Policy Polling and Suffolk — all of whom conducted national polls on the Republican 2012 primary during April and May 2011?

7) Debate Date Moved: The Debate was originally set for June 7th, but was rescheduled to June 13th. The decision to change the debate date was announced on April 27, 2011. Why was the date moved?

8.) UNH Survey Center Polls: When were the UNH Survey Center’s two polls about the 2012 Republican primary (which came out in May 2011) commissioned? Were they commissioned prior to April 1, 2011 (the beginning of the criteria period)? It is important to note that in May 2007, the UNH Survey Center did not conduct any polls about the Republican primary.

The 2007 debate was also hosted by CNN, WMUR TV and the New Hampshire Union Leader. In this debate there were 10 participants: Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson. The pre-established objective criteria for this debate was never released; however, by 2011 standards, it would have been a 6-man debate. During April and May of 2007, Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson did not average 2% on three national polls.

If the same criteria was applied 4 years ago, UNH Survey Center polling would have excluded Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore and Ron Paul, all of whom would not have met (.pdf) a 2% polling criteria.

TAKE ACTION

Please take five minutes to contact CNN, WMUR, and the NH Union-Leader and demand that Gary Johnson is included in their June 13 GOP debate.

A former Republican Governor should automatically gain inclusion in a GOP debate. It’s really that simple.

For WMUR, call 603-669-9999 or email them; for the NH Union-Leader, call 603-668-4321 (redirect to the Newsroom) or email them; for CNN, call 404-827-1500 or text CNN (space) and your news tip.

Also, please sign this petition for inclusion.

CALLING FOR INCLUSION

A variety of individuals and groups are calling for Johnson’s inclusion in the June 13 debate. A sampling of comments is found below.

“The decision to exclude Gary Johnson is completely out of step with the spirit of the New Hampshire primary. We endorse an open political process that keeps New Hampshire special. We respectfully request that the debate partners — CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader — reconsider this decision and welcome Gov. Johnson to the June 13th debate.”
– David Hurst
Chairman, New Hampshire Young Republicans

“When any media outlet decides they are the judge of a “viable” candidate, such as the denial of Governor Gary Johnson (in a GOP debate at St. Anselm’s College Monday), at that point they are usurping the voter’s right to choose a candidate. I say shame on any news agency putting itself in a position to decide which candidate is worthy for America to hear. Just on the face of this issue it seems un-American.”
– Jerry DeLemus
Chairman, Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC

“Man, Gary Johnson’s supporters are dedicated, and unrelenting.”
– Jeff Winkler
Columnist, The DailyCaller

“GOProud has significant policy differences with Governor Johnson, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. However, we believe strongly that Governor Johnson deserves to be included and that Republican primary voters’ best interest would be served by having his voice in this important debate.”
– Jimmy LaSalvia
Executive Director, GOProud

“CNN appears to be aiding and abetting the attempted overturning of gay marriage in one of the five states where it is legal. CNN should lead the way and open up its debate to all serious Presidential candidates, not just some.”
– Fred Karger (who also wants to be included in the debate)
GOP Presidential candidate

“Sign the change.org petition to get Gary Johnson into the debate!”
– Willy Nelson’s TeaPot Party

Let us not accept NO as the answer. Doing so would allow CNN too much power over the GOP primary.

The Florida Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability approved an amendment to include “electronic authentication” as well as “biometrics” to Florida Driver’s licenses last week. The Amendment also instructs the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to provide a security token that can be electronically authenticated through a personal computer.

The 1787 Network does a great job explaining the problems that these two items could pose for non-violent Florida residents if implemented. Read their article.