Obama Says So Long SOPA, Killing Controversial Internet Piracy Legislation

The growing anti-SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) support that has swept through the gaming and Internet community found a very big ally today. With websites like Reddit and Wikipedia and gaming organizations like Major League Gaming prepared for a blackout on January 18th – the same day that the House Judiciary Committee hearing on HR 3261was scheduled in Washington, DC – President Barack Obama has stepped in and said he would not support the bill.

SOPA has been delayed, for now. The House has agreed to revisit the issue next month, but they now know the White House will veto any bill that’s not more narrowly focused.

Much to the chagrin of Hollywood, the Entertainment Software Association (which has been a backer of the bill from early on), and Internet domain company GoDaddy.com (which lost many accounts as a result of its support for the bill); SOPA has been shelved. The Motion Picture Association of America, one of the bill’s largest sponsors, is expected to regroup.

California congressman Darrell Issa, who has been opposed to the bill from the beginning, praised the Internet action that has swept like a virus across the Web the past week.

“The voice of the Internet community has been heard,” said Issa. “Much more education for members of Congress about the workings of the Internet is essential if anti-piracy legislation is to be workable and achieve broad appeal.”

LINK

Not trying to start a political debate, but he ended up signing the NDAA, so I'm not letting my guard down just yet.

Yeah they will 'revisit' it in a month when it has a different name and gets passed.

In all fairness to the President, he did say he does not agree with all the provisions of the bill - especially that which pertains to detaining, interrogating, and prosecuting of terrorist suspects.

I'm sure you know as well as I do that many public officials have and will sign bills which they do not entirely agree with...

You have a bill which you really want to see - pass, but your opposition(s) has attached a provision to the bill because they want to see it pass as well. This is why political debates always include - "Do not vote for so and so because he has voted for this inhumane bill 37 times."

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

In all fairness to the President, he did say he does not agree with all the provisions of the bill - especially that which pertains to detaining, interrogating, and prosecuting of terrorist suspects.

---

It's impossible for me to respond to this without breaking site rules. All I'll say is that I'm sorry to hear that answer is satisfactory for some.

---

I'm sure you know as well as I do that many public officials have and will sign bills which they do not entirely agree with...

You have a bill which you really want to see - pass, but your opposition(s) has attached a provision to the bill because they want to see it pass as well. This is why political debates always include - "Do not vote for so and so because he has voted for this inhumane bill 37 times."

---

I'm no stranger to the way politics work. That's not the point though. My point is, regardless of what the article says, don't "assume" that he won't sign it just because he said he wouldn't. The volume and consistency of attention this bill gets will be the only thing preventing it from passing. If politicians fear they'll lose votes by supporting a bill, then that will change the game. The NDAA did not receive this sort of attention and passed with flying colors by flying under the public radar... something like 93-7 in the senate. And it was signed into law only like 2 weeks ago.

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

In all fairness to the President, he did say he does not agree with all the provisions of the bill - especially that which pertains to detaining, interrogating, and prosecuting of terrorist suspects.

---

It's impossible for me to respond to this without breaking site rules. All I'll say is that I'm sorry to hear that answer is satisfactory for some.

---

I'm sure you know as well as I do that many public officials have and will sign bills which they do not entirely agree with...

You have a bill which you really want to see - pass, but your opposition(s) has attached a provision to the bill because they want to see it pass as well. This is why political debates always include - "Do not vote for so and so because he has voted for this inhumane bill 37 times."

---

I'm no stranger to the way politics work. That's not the point though. My point is, regardless of what the article says, don't "assume" that he won't sign it just because he said he wouldn't. The volume and consistency of attention this bill gets will be the only thing preventing it from passing. If politicians fear they'll lose votes by supporting a bill, then that will change the game. The NDAA did not receive this sort of attention and passed with flying colors by flying under the public radar... something like 93-7 in the senate. And it was signed into law only like 2 weeks ago.

---

I don't know if you're angry at me or at the president but anyway - let me see if I can respond.

I forgot what it was- but George Bush Jr. wanted to impeach Clinton for something Clinton did in his administration. However, when Bush Jr. became president, he realized there was no way around the problem which he thought Clinton had created and he too realized what Clinton did was the best option.

I can only assume President Obama wants to protect his country the best he can - and the best he can may mean infringing on freedom and privacy of his citizens.

I don't know what your views are as a regular citizen regarding freedom and privacy. But let's assume you are the President of this great nation and you want to protect it from the growing threats which seem to originate from the Middle East. I'm no wizard or fortune teller but I can only guess your views may change a bit and Marshall Law may not sound as radical as it does now.

Citizens' safety vs Citizens' freedom and privacy

Which do you value more as the President of this great nation? It's a philosophical question and I don't expect you to answer it. I only brought it up to defend the President and the predicament he is in.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Just so you know, I'm not mad at you, KFM

I'm not trying to get into a political debate though, so I'll just stick to my original statement. The president has gone back on his word on more than one occasion, so I'm not ready to forget about SOPA just yet. There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster
Marshall Law may not sound as radical as it does now.

---

Marshall Law is a beast on Tekken 6. I'd call him a top MW prospect.

---

Posted by grappler0000

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin
.

---

This is coming from a guy who goes abroad and sleeps with women by the dozens. Of course he will value liberty over anything else.

---

Posted by Kpro

---

Posted by KungFuMaster
Marshall Law may not sound as radical as it does now.

---

Marshall Law is a beast on Tekken 6. I'd call him a top MW prospect.

---

You are under-rating this guy. He would be a P4P fighter for sure.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

You are under-rating this guy. He would be a P4P fighter for sure.

---

Not so fast...I saw him fight not too long ago.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster



This is coming from a guy who goes abroad and sleeps with women by the dozens. Of course he will value liberty over anything else.

---

NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THIS!!!!!!

sorry....my caps lock must've gotten stuck for a second

Ron Paul for President!!!!

---

Posted by Wallass

Ron Paul for President!!!!

---

Amen, brother!

---

Posted by Copenhagen

---

Posted by Wallass

Ron Paul for President!!!!

---

Amen, brother!

---

+1

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by Copenhagen

---

Posted by Wallass

Ron Paul for President!!!!

---

Amen, brother!

---

+1

---

+1

Alright, that is enough.

Here is my negative one. " - 1"

This is what I think of Ron Paul. Like any other politician, he will say what the majority will like to hear. As a Republican, he is trying to pull votes from the liberals by supporting gay marriage and legalizing marijuana - in my opinion of course.

I don't know how much of what Ron Paul says is genuine but the above is my guess of the presidential candidate.

Please don't ban me. I happen to think this is educational.

---

Posted by Kpro

---

Posted by KungFuMaster
Marshall Law may not sound as radical as it does now.

---

Marshall Law is a beast on Tekken 6. I'd call him a top MW prospect.

---

Best game series ever.

---

Posted by DeadHead988

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by Copenhagen

---

Posted by Wallass

Ron Paul for President!!!!

---

Amen, brother!

---

+1

---

+1

---

I think Ron Paul might be one of the only Candidates ever, who is serious about the things he says. And i also think his plan would cut our national deficit the quickest.

However, i think lots of women and children would die under his administration. I'm not for completely eradicating welfare.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

Alright, that is enough.

Here is my negative one. " - 1"

This is what I think of Ron Paul. Like any other politician, he will say what the majority will like to hear. As a Republican, he is trying to pull votes from the liberals by supporting gay marriage and legalizing marijuana - in my opinion of course.

I don't know how much of what Ron Paul says is genuine but the above is my guess of the presidential candidate.

Please don't ban me. I happen to think this is educational.

---

No offense, but it doesn't sound like you know much about him. I encourage you to do some research...real research. I mean that in the best way possible...not as a dig whatsoever. He is unlike any other politician...that makes it to the highest level of politics anyway.

---

Posted by Pookie

However, i think lots of women and children would die under his administration. I'm not for completely eradicating welfare.

---

Under our current system, it wouldn't work at all. There are several other changes though that you'd have to account for so that it all comes together.

Edit: it should be noted though that the intention isn't to cancel any programs over night...so there won't be any deaths related to pulling the rug out on anyone.

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

Alright, that is enough.

Here is my negative one. " - 1"

This is what I think of Ron Paul. Like any other politician, he will say what the majority will like to hear. As a Republican, he is trying to pull votes from the liberals by supporting gay marriage and legalizing marijuana - in my opinion of course.

I don't know how much of what Ron Paul says is genuine but the above is my guess of the presidential candidate.

Please don't ban me. I happen to think this is educational.

---

No offense, but it doesn't sound like you know much about him. I encourage you to do some research...real research. I mean that in the best way possible...not as a dig whatsoever. He is unlike any other politician...that makes it to the highest level of politics anyway.

---

You are correct. I really do not know much about Paul. Everything I said was based on his appearance on the Jay Leno Show.

You got me curious and I will look him up and I may even tune in to listen to the Republicans this time around.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster
and I may even tune in to listen to the Republicans this time around.

---

let's not get carried away.....

---

Posted by Poor_Franklin

---

Posted by KungFuMaster
and I may even tune in to listen to the Republicans this time around.

---

let's not get carried away.....

---

You're right - they might just get me.