Isn't this the point where 'the people' should not sit on their laurels, and launch a proposal to make a law that does exactly the opposite: protecting the digital rights of citizens?
I am asking because (also in the EU) we are usually happy when some draconian law does not make it, but there's rarely an attempt to push for legislation that secures the rights of internet users.
Reframe the blackout on the 18th into another blackout with a curated message calling for anti-censorship laws and asking the government to protect its citizen's freedom.
Use strike-out lines on a concise, readable version of SOPA and below each line print the respective anti-censorship law which you wish to be created. This way you draw attention to how draconian SOPA was not by comparing it to similar laws in dictatorships but by creating a message which harnesses American ideals of freedom, entrepreneurship, and anti-censorship.
If you do this right and get enough eyeballs you will make it very difficult for them to reposition the bill without appearing aggressively against the american dream.
What would your proposed law say? Congress can't make a law that says that it can't make a SOPA-like law in the future (or, at least, it would be meaningless, since future legislation could repeal it).
There should be a way for the people to veto a law in a referendum, like in Switzerland. That way politicians would be more cautious passing laws which they know that the public probably won't like and probably will veto.
The current US system only provides "checks and balances" between political parties, so when one party cracks up (meaning, gets bought by special interests and turns against the people) we only can pray that the other party will come to the rescue. But when both parties agree and team up against the people, i.e. when there is a political market failure like in the case of SOPA (or ACTA), theres no way for the voters to defend themselves.
It is not another law that is needed, but a general possibility to override unpopular laws.
> a general possibility to override unpopular laws.
We have to be very careful with this. Sometimes a very popular law is exactly what you don't want. There are vast areas where a law mandating the teaching of creationist superstition in science classes would be immensely popular while a law forbidding it would be very unpopular.
> superstition popular while a law forbidding it would be very unpopular
Having a legal way for the population to defend themselves against bad (purchased) laws does not in any way imply that you would immediately turn into a theocracy. Switzerland has had them for hundreds of years and is still sane.
On the other hand, having a opaque 2-party dictatorship like the US has no does not somehow prevent religion to have a major influence on politics and laws. You have it on your money (in god we trust), you have it in your schools (one nation united under god), you have it in your courtrooms and presidential inaugurations (so help me god), etc.
Introducting a switzerland-like mechanism for more checks and balances wouldnt change much, it would just make it easier to prevent autocratic decisions like SOPA, Iraq war, etc.
Such is democracy, the least bad system we have. Overall it would probably lead to laws that are more in your interest, as opposed to in the interest of people who lobby for laws.
> That hasn't worked super well in California, from many accounts.
Most of those accounts assert that a significant fraction of CA's spending is mandated by referendum and that CA legislature shouldn't take referendums into account when it does a budget. (The latter is how you get to "referendums are responsible for CA's deficit.")
Both of those assertions are wrong, no matter how often they're stated.
Perhaps "Whereas Congress finds the right to free speech includes the ability to discuss unpopular and disagreeable subjects, no person shall be prohibited by law from referencing objectionable/illegal material, including by providing mechanisms for automatic retrieval thereof."
At least a repeal would entail the difficulty of repealing opposing & established legislation. There are a lot of laws which would be enacted save for the outcry of repealing what is considered an established explicit right. This in contrast to an inability to reference an explicit manifestation of a claimed right in opposition to a trampling thereof. "You can't prohibit that!" is often overridden by "there's nothing that says we can't."
>At least a repeal would entail the difficulty of repealing opposing & established legislation.
Nonsense, they do that all the time. A large part of Obamacare and most other large bills modify existing law. New laws simply over-write previous laws.
I'm not saying it can't/doesn't happen. I'm saying it hinders such laws, if not stops them. Obamacare was achieved only after an ENORMOUS fight, at tremendous cost (politically and financially), and is still embattled upon the verge of being overturned. Point is that filling a void is easier than having to empty one first.
I've been wondering about this, but I don't have a good answer. What about (1) Laws that get money out of politics, like campaign finance and the work being done by organizations like United re:public and Rootstrikers (originally founded by Lawrence Lessig under the name Fix Congress First.) Make it harder to support SOPA-like laws in the future. or (2) Repeal the most recent copyright extension act.
I am asking because (also in the EU) we are usually happy when some draconian law does not make it, but there's rarely an attempt to push for legislation that secures the rights of internet users.