The problem is that US legislation can be changed in lot of weird ways between the time its introduced and when it's passed. For example, there could be popular support for a "Protecting Net Freedoms" act and something good could be introduced. But the special interest lobbyists would likely get a large amount of edits in, and the "provisions" added for "protecting (children|national security|the environment)" and "creating jobs".
So at the end of the day, passing a "Protecting Net Freedoms" act would likely be worse than the status quo (which in the US is still quite good IMHO).
Sure. I just mostly think that net folk should lead the debate and and offer something positive. Something that the general public can understand and support. That has to be the way forward.
The problem is that US legislation can be changed in lot of weird ways between the time its introduced and when it's passed. For example, there could be popular support for a "Protecting Net Freedoms" act and something good could be introduced. But the special interest lobbyists would likely get a large amount of edits in, and the "provisions" added for "protecting (children|national security|the environment)" and "creating jobs".
So at the end of the day, passing a "Protecting Net Freedoms" act would likely be worse than the status quo (which in the US is still quite good IMHO).