7 ms·

I don't think there was any doubt that Ron Paul would oppose SOPA. Nancy Pelosi's opposition, on the other hand, is somewhat surprising, but also quite promisin

I don't think there was any doubt that Ron Paul would oppose SOPA. Nancy Pelosi's opposition, on the other hand, is somewhat surprising, but also quite promising.

bentlegen 15y ago
Nancy Pelosi represents the 8th Congressional District, which is basically San Francisco. She knows who her constituents are.
- thomasgerbe 15y ago
  http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Reps-Slam-Obama-on-Marijuana-Crackdown-Pelosi-Silent-132942843.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Reps-Slam-Obam...
- javert 15y ago
  Is there any real chance she could fail to get re-elected? I suspect some other reason for her stance on this (can't fathom what, though).
  - nl 15y ago
    Err - it's a bad bill that will screw over many of her constituents. It's unclear how motivated her constituents are against it, but it seems likely that all that letter writing may be paying off. In extreme cases, sitting members can be vulnerable to losing their nomination within the party (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_elect...). Edit: Downvotes? I'm not from the US - what did I get wrong?
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      The general consensus these days is congressional representatives don't actually care how a bill affects their constituents.
      - mortenjorck 15y ago
        Constituents that live in their districts, or constituents that get them re-elected?
        sliverstorm 15y ago
        Presumably they have figured out that acting in the interests of your constituents and getting re-elected are not mutually inclusive. Voting to please your party instead of your citizens gets you full party support, and as far as beating the other guy, it has been shown that campaign funding has an unsettlingly strong correlation to campaign victories. Making matters worse, voters tend to want conflicting things. For example, in general they want more government programs and also lower taxes. Making matters even more difficult, what voters say they want and what they actually want can be different stories. Schwarzenegger got elected on the premise that he was going to do certain things. He tried to do those things. He was shut down by everyone- including directly by the voters.
        tomjen3 15y ago
        Sure to a point. But you don't see many politicians out of the bible belt who votes for abortions.
        hucker 15y ago
        > it has been shown that campaign funding has an unsettlingly strong correlation to campaign victories. Do you have a citation on this? I recently read Freakonomics where the authors claimed to be able to prove this theory false, but I didn't look up their numbers.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        If HN also discouraged upvotes for the same reason, then that'd be a fine way to handle downvotes.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Pelosi will never fail to get re-elected. But as House Minority Leader she has other things to worry about, in particular getting all the other Democrats re-elected. And that means trying not to piss off any big donor group. Big Content is a big donor group for the Democrats, which is why she'd be naturally inclined to support something like this. On the other hand, overwhelming opposition from Big Internet (particuarly Google, etc) is a bit of a dealbreaker even if Silicon Valley isn't nearly as conscientious about paying its protection money (err, political donations) as Hollywood. So, like she says, "we need to find another way". They'll come up with a new bill that is either less objectionable or one that hides the objectionable parts more clearly... and then they'll pass it when nobody's paying attention.
    - jellicle 15y ago
      This is roughly correct. Please do not confuse Pelosi's temporary and minor objections to the bill as written with any sort of principled long-term objection to the concept behind the bill. Pelosi supports copyright maximization as much as anyone; she's just attempting to find some minimal accommodation to stop Silicon Valley from squawking so loudly.
    - sp332 15y ago
      They'll come up with a bill which is less objectionable in these areas in exchange for a lot of favors and other, probably completely unrelated clauses being added.
jessedhillon 15y ago
That's the wonderful thing about SOPA -- there's something for everyone to hate in it.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  I wish all nasty legislation had this...
nextparadigms 15y ago
I expected Ron Paul to oppose it, too. He was also one of the very few who opposed the persecution of Wikileaks.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  Predicting Ron Paul's opposition of legislation is hardly prescient. Heh.
- orblivion 15y ago
  A guy who praised a leak of secret government documents, running for president and beating half the other contenders, just blows my mind.
  - edwardy20 15y ago
    You might be surprised to know that the founding fathers supported whistle-blowers: "Nearly two centuries later, the Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas, praising the founders’ commitment to freedom of speech, wrote: 'The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information.'" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13kohn.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13kohn.html?_r=1
  - rjbond3rd 15y ago
    In a good way, I hope. He opposes a Big Brother government. He has principles. Off-topic but to the people who so often say, "I agree with him but I'm not going to support him because he can't win," I say, "Where are -your- princples?"
cookiecaper 15y ago
As bentlegen indicated, Pelosi serves something of a different demographic. In fact, I think Democrats as a whole will consider this bill more carefully than Republicans because the Democratic base skews much younger and technologically inclined. Republicans don't have much to lose on this front since most of their base doesn't really know how to use the internet.
- statictype 15y ago
  since most of their base doesn't really know how to use the internet Neither do I identify myself as republican, nor do I support this bill in anyway but these are the types of sweeping statements that make it difficult to have any sort of rational conversation. (Frankly, I think this whole topic seems like exactly the type of thing that shouldn't be on HN. I flagged it for whatever that's worth)

I don't think there was any doubt that Ron Paul would oppose SOPA. Nancy Pelosi's opposition, on the other hand, is somewhat surprising, but also quite promising.

bentlegen 15y ago

Nancy Pelosi represents the 8th Congressional District, which is basically San Francisco. She knows who her constituents are.

thomasgerbe 15y ago
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Reps-Slam-Obama-on-Marijuana-Crackdown-Pelosi-Silent-132942843.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Reps-Slam-Obam...
javert 15y ago
Is there any real chance she could fail to get re-elected? I suspect some other reason for her stance on this (can't fathom what, though).
- nl 15y ago
  Err - it's a bad bill that will screw over many of her constituents. It's unclear how motivated her constituents are against it, but it seems likely that all that letter writing may be paying off. In extreme cases, sitting members can be vulnerable to losing their nomination within the party (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_elect...). Edit: Downvotes? I'm not from the US - what did I get wrong?
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    The general consensus these days is congressional representatives don't actually care how a bill affects their constituents.
    - mortenjorck 15y ago
      Constituents that live in their districts, or constituents that get them re-elected?
      - sliverstorm 15y ago
        Presumably they have figured out that acting in the interests of your constituents and getting re-elected are not mutually inclusive. Voting to please your party instead of your citizens gets you full party support, and as far as beating the other guy, it has been shown that campaign funding has an unsettlingly strong correlation to campaign victories. Making matters worse, voters tend to want conflicting things. For example, in general they want more government programs and also lower taxes. Making matters even more difficult, what voters say they want and what they actually want can be different stories. Schwarzenegger got elected on the premise that he was going to do certain things. He tried to do those things. He was shut down by everyone- including directly by the voters.
        tomjen3 15y ago
        Sure to a point. But you don't see many politicians out of the bible belt who votes for abortions.
        hucker 15y ago
        > it has been shown that campaign funding has an unsettlingly strong correlation to campaign victories. Do you have a citation on this? I recently read Freakonomics where the authors claimed to be able to prove this theory false, but I didn't look up their numbers.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        If HN also discouraged upvotes for the same reason, then that'd be a fine way to handle downvotes.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- hugh3 15y ago
  Pelosi will never fail to get re-elected. But as House Minority Leader she has other things to worry about, in particular getting all the other Democrats re-elected. And that means trying not to piss off any big donor group. Big Content is a big donor group for the Democrats, which is why she'd be naturally inclined to support something like this. On the other hand, overwhelming opposition from Big Internet (particuarly Google, etc) is a bit of a dealbreaker even if Silicon Valley isn't nearly as conscientious about paying its protection money (err, political donations) as Hollywood. So, like she says, "we need to find another way". They'll come up with a new bill that is either less objectionable or one that hides the objectionable parts more clearly... and then they'll pass it when nobody's paying attention.
  - jellicle 15y ago
    This is roughly correct. Please do not confuse Pelosi's temporary and minor objections to the bill as written with any sort of principled long-term objection to the concept behind the bill. Pelosi supports copyright maximization as much as anyone; she's just attempting to find some minimal accommodation to stop Silicon Valley from squawking so loudly.
  - sp332 15y ago
    They'll come up with a bill which is less objectionable in these areas in exchange for a lot of favors and other, probably completely unrelated clauses being added.

jessedhillon 15y ago

That's the wonderful thing about SOPA -- there's something for everyone to hate in it.

rbanffy 15y ago
I wish all nasty legislation had this...

nextparadigms 15y ago

I expected Ron Paul to oppose it, too. He was also one of the very few who opposed the persecution of Wikileaks.

ceejayoz 15y ago
Predicting Ron Paul's opposition of legislation is hardly prescient. Heh.
orblivion 15y ago
A guy who praised a leak of secret government documents, running for president and beating half the other contenders, just blows my mind.
- edwardy20 15y ago
  You might be surprised to know that the founding fathers supported whistle-blowers: "Nearly two centuries later, the Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas, praising the founders’ commitment to freedom of speech, wrote: 'The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information.'" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13kohn.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13kohn.html?_r=1
- rjbond3rd 15y ago
  In a good way, I hope. He opposes a Big Brother government. He has principles. Off-topic but to the people who so often say, "I agree with him but I'm not going to support him because he can't win," I say, "Where are -your- princples?"

cookiecaper 15y ago

As bentlegen indicated, Pelosi serves something of a different demographic. In fact, I think Democrats as a whole will consider this bill more carefully than Republicans because the Democratic base skews much younger and technologically inclined. Republicans don't have much to lose on this front since most of their base doesn't really know how to use the internet.

statictype 15y ago
since most of their base doesn't really know how to use the internet Neither do I identify myself as republican, nor do I support this bill in anyway but these are the types of sweeping statements that make it difficult to have any sort of rational conversation. (Frankly, I think this whole topic seems like exactly the type of thing that shouldn't be on HN. I flagged it for whatever that's worth)