4 ms·
Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of
by marshray 15y ago
Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list.
Riiiight.
- dpe82 15y agoI believe them. Once upon a time I worked as a legislative aid in the WI State Senate. I saw this type of thing happen a few times where some overzealous lobbyist or staffer fudged the list of supporters for some controversial legislation. Predictably it always resulted in a gigantic shitstorm. Beats me why they try to get away with it in the first place.
- cdr 15y agoIf the legislation doesn't pass a certain threshold of controversy, they probably get away with it.
- marshray 15y agoCount the number of law firms' names on the list here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76341338/SOPA-Supporters http://www.scribd.com/doc/76341338/SOPA-Supporters Now count the number of private individuals listed. I think lawyers are supposed to know the difference between personally supporting something and a company taking a position. Somebody here is l-y-i-n-g and, sure, maybe it's not the law firm. But the system as a whole doesn't get to just pass it off on the tired old "overzealous junior staffer" routine this time.
- dpe82 15y agoAnd now count the number of firms: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of%20SOPA%20Supporters.pdf http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of... Zero.