Just something to keep an eye on because if they did try this end run, it wouldn'r surprise me in the slightest. They will try and try again. And it is after all their way to attach turds to diamonds to get what they want, in the hopes that no one is watching too closely.
From second additional newslink....
Many people came together to protest SOPA and PIPA last week, in fact, it was the largest online protest in history and helped lead to SOPA and PIPA being tabled (for the time being). Of course, with these bills being tabled should not come peace. The most obvious course is for legislators to add the most offensive parts of SOPA and PIPA to another bill and quickly pass it.
Meet HR 1981 - "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011"
We all want to protect children from internet pronographers, right? Despite the underlying argument of the age of consent, we can all agree that there is an age in which children cannot legally comprehend enough to agree to sexual acts. So wouldn't we all want to protect these children from internet pornographers?
Of course!
No one wants to be that guy, you know, the one who votes against the children. So what's hidden in the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011"?
No one wants to be that guy, you know, the one who votes against the children.
See?
Same sponsor as SOPA apparently. Link Records you 24/7?
And apparently known as ACTA...
Stop ACTA: why the global big brother of internet censorship must be crushed
ACTA has same dangers as PIPA and SOPA
Hmmm....
www.techdirt.com...
As we noted in our post about people just discovering ACTA this week, some had put together an odd White House petition, asking the White House to "end ACTA." The oddity was over the fact that the President just signed ACTA a few months ago. What struck us as a more interesting question was the serious constitutional questions of whether or not Obama is even allowed to sign ACTA.
In case you haven't been following this or don't spend your life dealing in Constitutional minutiae, the debate is over the nature of the agreement. A treaty between the US and other nations requires Senate approval. However, there's a "simpler" form of an international agreement, known as an "executive agreement," which allows the President to sign the agreement without getting approval. In theory, this also limits the ability of the agreement to bind Congress. In practice... however, international agreements are international agreements. Some legal scholars have suggested that the only real difference between a treaty and an executive agreement is the fact that... the president calls any treaty an "executive agreement" if he's unsure if the Senate would approve it. Another words, the difference is basically in how the President presents it.
www.mobileinquirer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 1/25/2012 by ~Lucidity because: added more info
edit on Wed Jan 25 2012 by
DontTreadOnMe because: ex tags

