A Tale of Two Acts
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011 by President Barack Obama.
The Act authorizes $662 million in funding, among other things “for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad.” In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization. The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia, and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security.
The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism.” In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress “affirms” this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.
—National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [my emphasis]
Although there was a lot of people who raised their voices against this Act (see Wikipedia for some examples) the Act was passed on the last day of the year—when most people were getting ready for New Year’s eve party. This Act will be seen in ten or twenty years as the first step to an authoritarian system, not so different from the one currently ruling Syria. In a more immediate affect it could start a war with Iran.
This Act affects people as individuals, but soon after there was another Act that mainly had an affect on corporations:
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is a United States (bill) proposed by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith (Republican) to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Provisions include the requesting of court-orders to bar advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with infringing websites, and search engines from linking to the sites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers (ISP) to block access to the sites. The law would expand existing criminal laws to include streaming of copyright material, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
—Stop Online Piracy Act [my emphasis]
Opposition to this bill was led by multi-billion dollar corporations (Google is both an advertising network and a search engine):
Opponents include Google, Yahoo!, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, Roblox, Reddit, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, in addition to human rights organizations such as Reporters Without Borders, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the ACLU, and Human Rights Watch.
The less worrying of the two was shelved (for now), while the more serious was signed into law. I guess corporations are people, while people are sheep.
That’s an absurd oversimplification. SOPA does, in fact, affect individuals.
“Provisions include the requesting of court-orders to bar advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with infringing websites, and search engines from linking to the sites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers (ISP) to block access to the sites.”
Blocking search engines from linking to sites? Forcing ISPs to block access? And all of this without due process of law? Because the state can do all of this without a proper trial, the bill is a threat to Fair Use laws, and it overturns the democratization of information that the internet age has granted us.
Corporations do oppose it, and I don’t doubt that many oppose it because it hurts their financial future, but Wikipedia also opposes it, as well as “organizations such as Reporters Without Borders, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the ACLU, and Human Rights Watch”. These people aren’t worried about profits, they’re worried about the future of internet freedom.
I’m not happy about corporate citizenship either, and I recognize that the NDAA is certainly more dangerous, but I don’t appreciate the point you’re trying to make about SOPA. The impact of the bill extends far beyond corporate profit margins.
meinperpetualmotion
January 28, 2012 at 6:47 pm
You recognize that the NDAA is more dangerous than SOPA, yet you don’t appreciate the point I am trying to make about SOPA, but I didn’t make any point about SOPA, I only pointed out that the less worrying of the two was opposed and stopped for now.
Are you insulted by the “sheep” comment because you actively participated in the campaign to stop SOPA? If you did participate then you should be proud, participation in civil affairs is the path to manhood.
anonemiss
January 28, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Looking back, I think my previous post seemed very confrontational. I apologize, that was not my intention.
You stated that: “This Act [NDAA] affects people as individuals, but soon after there was another Act [SOPA] that mainly had an affect on corporations:”
You then went on to say that “Opposition to this bill was led by multi-billion dollar corporations”, and while you mentioned the non-profits and advocacy organizations in passing, you cited SOPA’s defeat as proof that the government prioritizes corporations and not people. I am only objecting to this characterization of the legislation.
I am a regular reader of your blog, and I am consistently impressed by the depth of your analysis. I found this silly comparison out of character for you, and potentially misleading to readers who are less educated on the finer points of the bill. I only felt a need to point this out because I respect you greatly, and I want your posts on current events to be held to the same standard of intellectual rigor as they have been in the past.
meinperpetualmotion
January 28, 2012 at 11:24 pm
Thank you for your kind words.
All laws affect people at the end, but the NDAA gives the US government rights over individual while SOPA interacts mainly with corporations and institutions, that is the difference I meant in my post.
I don’t think the government prioritizes corporations and not people, that indeed would be an absurd oversimplification of reality. I do however think that the leadership by corporations provided the needed publicity and momentum to defeat SOPA, while corporate indifference to NDAA meant there was much less publicity and public outcry against it.
Both Acts are ‘bad’ and people tried to stop both of them, corporate interest tipped the scale against SOPA, for now at least.
anonemiss
January 29, 2012 at 12:12 am
I feel like I understand your position better. I’m inclined to think that the publicity around SOPA is due to its strength as a meme. Frequent users of the internet (like myself) are subjected to large amounts of information about the internet, and censorship or threats to the intellectual “sovereignty” of the web resonate with them. Loss of internet freedom feels tangible, whereas the threat of being hauled off to a secret prison and held without trial indefinitely, while real, feels very far removed from the life of the average person. So, like the “Ron Paul Revolution”, the anti-SOPA movement managed be very loud in the media, even if the real number of people who opposed it, or even knew about it, was relatively small.
Of course, I have no way of proving any causal relationship, and your hypothesis is plausible as well.
meinperpetualmotion
January 29, 2012 at 3:55 am
Also note that the bill was sponsored mostly by major corporations, against the interests of internet users:
https://sites.google.com/site/boycottsopasponsors/home/list-of-supporters-and-sponsors
In large part, the major sponsors (like Sony) were trying to protect their copyrighted content, and destroying Fair Use in the process.
If anything, I would call SOPA’s defeat a victory against corporatism.
meinperpetualmotion
January 28, 2012 at 11:28 pm
Keep all the articles coming. I love reading through your things. Cheers.
Homepage
February 10, 2012 at 7:40 pm