Prof. of Constitutional Law at Harvard says that SOPA violates First Amendment | Hacker News Reader

Prof. of Constitutional Law at Harvard says that SOPA violates First Amendment

scribd.com

146 pointschown30 comments

Reminder: Reasonable people often disagree. The Consumer Electronics Association has found an expert who thinks that SOPA is unconstitutional; I'm sure the MPAA can find an equally reputable expert who thinks that SOPA is not unconstitutional.

Unless you interview a random sample of experts ("80% of constitutional law professors say...") or find some privileged experts ("the Supreme Court says...") relying on expert opinions really doesn't get you anywhere useful.

Law isn't really big enough where there are a room full of people equally as reputable as Lawrence Tribe that you can poll. This is really more like "Paul Dirac says X about physics."

In which case it is known that all the great minds in physics have made wrong predictions at one time or another.

I think it should be read like that: this professor of law predicts that it will be found unconstitutional.

Sure, but even given that the headline is reasonable. It is quite rational to judge the credibility of a prediction on the basis of the credibility of the person making the prediction. Paul Dirac might've been wrong numerous times in his career, but you can bet if another physicist got a letter from Dirac disagreeing with their results, they'd check their math a couple of more times!

I agree. My response wasn't intended to convey disagreement.

Laurence Tribe isn’t just some “reasonable guy” or even “reputable expert”. He’s one of the most famous and respected constitutional scholars and professors in the nation: he taught constitutional law to two sitting Supreme Court Justices and the current President.

I hate to sound pessimist but as far as I know, many current US laws are unconstitutional. http://www.krusch.com/real/unconstitutional.html

That doesn't really show any laws being unconstitutional. Yes, there are lots of things we have that aren't in the Constitution, but not even the most adherent textualist thinks you can find everything you need to structure a government within the four corners of a 10-page document. It incorporates by reference hundreds of years of English law and history. The site you linked to mostly just notes examples of that.

Sorry, I was a bit quick with the reference. I just wanted to point out that a law being unconstitutional doesn't seem to be such a deal breaker. https://www.google.com/?q=unconstitutional%20laws#sclient=ps...

Not saying that there aren't unconstitutional laws on the books, but going to one of the top links in your search isn't very illustrative of the point: http://www.krusch.com/real/unconstitutional.html

E.g. 18 U.S.C. §1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters.

He says: "Consequently, Congress explicitly indicated its intent to leave in force all the pre-existing provisions of 18 U.S.C. §1462.

In other words, giving out abortion information over the Internet, as of 1996, is illegal. Wow!"

Except when the Communications Decency Act was challenged in 1996, the government didn't even attempt to defend the enforceability of 1462(c), which prohibited the exchange of "obscene" materials over the internet. While not deleted from the code, it effectively can't be enforced because the government acquiesced on its obvious unconstitutionality. And the other parts of the CDA that they did try to defend were struck down by the Supreme Court.

You have to remember that "the law" in the U.S. isn't just what's in the statutes, it's what's in the statues + court decisions. There's a lot of garbage in the U.S. Code that can't be enforced because of court decisions like that.

Considering the makeup of SCOTUS, him teaching them constitutional law seems likely.

There are parts of the constitution open to interpretation, such as the 2nd amendment, which is just poor sentence structure. The 1st is very clear and does not require some uber-con-law expert to tell us what it means. This is a good thing, since our citizens need to be able to understand and participate in this basic framework. There are many things we have done in the U.S. which have and continue to violate this 1st amendment. Just because we've encroached on it in the past should not make this SOPA threat any more palatable. Besides, SOPA appears to be more than just a 1st amendment violation. Ripping by due process is a huge problem.

The 1st [amendment] is very clear and does not require some uber-con-law expert to tell us what it means.

What's clear to you isn't necessarily clear to the supreme court. A literal reading of the 1st amendment tells me that shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is constitutionally protected, as is libel and distributing child pornography; fortunately courts have a habit of reading common sense into these things.

There's no justification for a law prohibiting shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and such a law is unconstitutional. What is justified is holding people liable for the consequences of their actions, so if you shout "fire" in a crowded theater and a panic occurs and people are injured, you should be punished.

You don't need laws prohibiting arbitrary behaviors that might or might not cause any actual harm, if you just enforce strict liability. And the deterrent effect is still there, since anybody reasonable (read: the same people who would obey "the law" in the first place) would know better than to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, due to the consequences. And in the freak occurrence where somebody does shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and nothing happens, they aren't punished for a non-event.

SOPA is just plain ridiculous. It just makes sense to those who still didn't understand, that the Internet is probably the most important human invention, since written communication.

I'm not from the United States, but it will be ridiculous, if that law passes.

Apparently common sense, these days, is actually pretty rare...

If you have the mindset that everything that is copyrighted should be controlled by you, than you would see the internet as a threat, because it is the ultimate copying machine.

I think the RIAA would lose 10 dollars and make 1 dollars back in order to stop piracy. They don't have this concept of working with the internet to make even more money. It's either the highway or their way.

Frankly, I don't care much about the whole creative industry going away or not going away. Actually it's getting bigger. I wouldn't notice, because there's so much games out there and people who are willing to produce arts, musics, and games for free just because. Even if they stop producing games, I wouldn't notice. I would never be able to enjoy all these things in my lifetime anyway.

What people should be doing is finding good old stuff to read or improve on existing works, which is kinda prohibited by copyright laws in the first place.

It seems that we are too biased to "new stuff" even though there are a bunch of old stuff we missed.

I mean, WW2 shooters are just the same old, same old. Yet we buy them years after years. Now it's modern wartime. I am sure in 30 years time, it will be WW2 again.

"...than you would see the internet as a threat, because it is the ultimate copying machine."

Not so. The Internet copies nothing. It's the ultimate (and not centrally controlled) _distribution_ machine.

Piracy was going on well before the Internet came along. And distribution too, but then it was via BBS's, not the Internet. Passing this law will do absolutely nothing to stop copying, or distribution. It will just have a huge chilling effect.

>Not so. The Internet copies nothing. It's the ultimate (and not centrally controlled) _distribution_ machine.

It is the ultimate copy machine as much as distribution. Every time it distributes something it does so by making another copy.

Oh, whew, thank Jeebus, because we all know that Congress would never do anything that would violate the Bill of Rights. :-|

I think you meant constitution.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights.

I think that Dennis was implying that congress will break laws that go beyond just the bill of rights.

So... Would this make any difference if it was presented to Congress? Isn't it their duty to protect the Constitution?

Actually, that's the Judicial's role --- foremost the Supreme Court's. So if SOPA passes, there's a reasonable chance that we'll strike it down in a decade. But that'd be a scary decade.

It's every federal employee's role, including the TSA and Congress, by the oath they take to protect and defend the constitution. The military, as well as some state employees, all take similar oaths. It's job number one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#United_States

Bullet 3 is extremely insightful. How much of this do you think is really about little Timmy "stealing music" and how much is about getting a powerful tool to fight Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Remember, MTV used to be, in many ways, like the Twitter of the 1980's.

I'm curious - many people here often express the belief that corporations should not have "free speech rights" [1].

Will those individuals now come out and apply the same reasoning in defense of a SOPA-like law, but one which only applies to corporate websites? I doubt I'd agree with such arguments, but they would certainly be intellectually interesting.

[1] Courts have not ruled that corporations have free speech rights, but that the owners of corporations have the right to use their property in the furtherance of speech. But regardless, there is a certain set of rights that many here oppose.

What would a "SOPA-like law that only applies to corporate websites" be? SOPA gives rights holders a process for removing content from websites that they own rights to. What would the equivalent be for a corporate website?

The process for removing content could only be used against websites owned by a corporation.

I.e., rights holders could remove stuff from youtube, but not from yummyfajitas.com.

New goal, troll reddit, post with better titles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com