Tell a Congressman ...
January 12, 2012 4:56 PM Subscribe
Tomorrow morning my district's congressman is going to hold a town hall meeting and I'm going to talk to him about SOPA. How can I best convince him that SOPA is a Very Bad Idea?
My congressman, I must mention is Very Conservative (he has a youtube video of him discussing the War On Christmas on Fox News proudly embedded on his house.gov page) so I need to keep it as far "right" (or politically dry) as possible. I'd also like to keep hostilities to a minimum. (this takes place in the morning, so I think people will be too tired to get all fighty)
I think I can make the following arguments
I know why SOPA is bad, but how do I best approach this with my congressman? What sort of conversation can I start that will get him against the bill, or at least thinking about it?
My congressman, I must mention is Very Conservative (he has a youtube video of him discussing the War On Christmas on Fox News proudly embedded on his house.gov page) so I need to keep it as far "right" (or politically dry) as possible. I'd also like to keep hostilities to a minimum. (this takes place in the morning, so I think people will be too tired to get all fighty)
I think I can make the following arguments
- Were SOPA to have passed 10 years ago Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, and the thousands of jobs that were created with it, would not exist
- SOPA will cripple the tech industry, because of the legal liabilities that come with it
- It's an example of "big government" interfering with small business innovation
I know why SOPA is bad, but how do I best approach this with my congressman? What sort of conversation can I start that will get him against the bill, or at least thinking about it?
There's lots of information out there amongst libertarian and conservative blogs.
For example, Volokh.
Or here.
posted by dfriedman at 5:04 PM on January 12, 2012
For example, Volokh.
Or here.
posted by dfriedman at 5:04 PM on January 12, 2012
Best answer: how do I best approach this with my congressman?
By reframing your goal. It isn't your job to convince him that SOPA is a bad idea, or a good one. I don't mean that you can't or couldn't. You obviously want to, and you might well be capable. But if he's like many representatives, then he won't be especially open to hearing that from you—because it's not your job. He relies on other people for that.
The purpose of these town-hall meetings is to touch base with the needs of constituents. Reframe your goal: Your message is, "I am one of your constituents, and I want you to oppose SOPA."
It's a great idea to shore-up your reasoning on why SOPA is a bad idea. Maybe he'll engage with you on the topic, and you'll be prepared to discuss it. You may indeed be able to get him "thinking about it." But don't walk in with that as your primary goal. Keep your eye on the ball: You are his constituent, and it is important to you that he oppose SOPA. That's how you can be most effective.
posted by cribcage at 5:07 PM on January 12, 2012 [12 favorites]
By reframing your goal. It isn't your job to convince him that SOPA is a bad idea, or a good one. I don't mean that you can't or couldn't. You obviously want to, and you might well be capable. But if he's like many representatives, then he won't be especially open to hearing that from you—because it's not your job. He relies on other people for that.
The purpose of these town-hall meetings is to touch base with the needs of constituents. Reframe your goal: Your message is, "I am one of your constituents, and I want you to oppose SOPA."
It's a great idea to shore-up your reasoning on why SOPA is a bad idea. Maybe he'll engage with you on the topic, and you'll be prepared to discuss it. You may indeed be able to get him "thinking about it." But don't walk in with that as your primary goal. Keep your eye on the ball: You are his constituent, and it is important to you that he oppose SOPA. That's how you can be most effective.
posted by cribcage at 5:07 PM on January 12, 2012 [12 favorites]
Have you seen this? The presentation grates, but the content seems to make a good point.
posted by dirm at 5:18 PM on January 12, 2012
posted by dirm at 5:18 PM on January 12, 2012
The latest news: Lamar Smith (R-TX), who authored SOPA, would be liable for prosecution for using an uncredited photo on his website if SOPA were currently law. Yes, Smith made a mistake by not providing a credit for a photo he used, but should he really go to prison for five years and have his website shut down over what could have been a simple oversight? Surely that can't be what "Very Conservative" congressmen can rally behind?
posted by DrGail at 5:39 PM on January 12, 2012
posted by DrGail at 5:39 PM on January 12, 2012
I think cribcage has the right idea. The thing to do here is to convince him that his constituents will not be happy if he backs SOPA. You might point out that while there is no methodologically sound polling on the issue (yet), unscientific polls like this one indicate that people of all political persuasions dislike SOPA ... a lot.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 5:40 PM on January 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 5:40 PM on January 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
I'm glad you asked this question, because I've got a chance to see one of my senators soon in a similar format. It's a difficult thing to get across because SOPA is so far over people's heads - not really difficult to understand, but we still seem to live in an age where lots of people think "the internet doesn't really affect me " (even as they use it 8 hours a day).\
I need to think about it some more myself, but the things that come to mind are:
- SOPA will create a regulatory nightmare and potentially a huge, expensive bureacracy. Who's going to enforce it?
- The legal system already has adequate tools for copyright holders to enforce their copyrights. (I think coming across as dismissive of copyright holders' rights or 'fuck the RIAA/MPAA' will cause you to lose credibility with an establishment politician very quickly)
- if you think you can get the point across (I'm still mulling that myself), the fact that SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith could have his site taken down were SOPA law illustrates the morass it will lead us to.
posted by randomkeystrike at 5:40 PM on January 12, 2012
I need to think about it some more myself, but the things that come to mind are:
- SOPA will create a regulatory nightmare and potentially a huge, expensive bureacracy. Who's going to enforce it?
- The legal system already has adequate tools for copyright holders to enforce their copyrights. (I think coming across as dismissive of copyright holders' rights or 'fuck the RIAA/MPAA' will cause you to lose credibility with an establishment politician very quickly)
- if you think you can get the point across (I'm still mulling that myself), the fact that SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith could have his site taken down were SOPA law illustrates the morass it will lead us to.
posted by randomkeystrike at 5:40 PM on January 12, 2012
The Heritage Foundation has come out against SOPA.
But beware, none of your carefully-researched objections will matter one whit if your congressman relies on the content industry for funding.
posted by downing street memo at 5:59 PM on January 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
But beware, none of your carefully-researched objections will matter one whit if your congressman relies on the content industry for funding.
posted by downing street memo at 5:59 PM on January 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
I know why SOPA is bad, but how do I best approach this with my congressman? What sort of conversation can I start that will get him against the bill, or at least thinking about it?
Does your congressman have a public opinion about the issue? Find out. If you can't Google it, call his office and ask. If you get the brush off ("Congressman X has read the bill and is still formulating a response") then he has no opinion.
If he has an opinion, then he's not going to change it for you. Hopefully it is one of being against SOPA.
If he has no opinion about the merits of SOPA, then nothing you can say will give him cause to develop an opinion - more important (to him) people than you would have gotten there already. Instead, you need to turn the argument in to one which he definitely does have an opinion on - what his constituents are thinking in an election year.
Does he have a competitor in the primary, and is he likely to have a competitor in the open? If the answer is no to both of these, then you're also out of luck. He's in a seat where it doesn't matter what his constituents are thinking in an election year.
If he does need to care about what his constituents think, then frame your argument around popular right-wing talking points. You need to demonstrate to the congressman that there is an opportunity for him to impress the crowd by agreeing with your blatantly leading questions, e.g. "Congressman X, do you think it is right that Big Government should have the power to shut down any website at the push of some bureaucrat's button, and force honest businessmen and woman to spend tens of thousands of dollars in court just to get a chance to have their case heard?".
Do not try for a tricky question. You want to offer him the easiest and laziest question possible to please the crowd. You need to prove there is political gains to be made opposing SOPA.
posted by kithrater at 6:06 PM on January 12, 2012 [2 favorites]
Does your congressman have a public opinion about the issue? Find out. If you can't Google it, call his office and ask. If you get the brush off ("Congressman X has read the bill and is still formulating a response") then he has no opinion.
If he has an opinion, then he's not going to change it for you. Hopefully it is one of being against SOPA.
If he has no opinion about the merits of SOPA, then nothing you can say will give him cause to develop an opinion - more important (to him) people than you would have gotten there already. Instead, you need to turn the argument in to one which he definitely does have an opinion on - what his constituents are thinking in an election year.
Does he have a competitor in the primary, and is he likely to have a competitor in the open? If the answer is no to both of these, then you're also out of luck. He's in a seat where it doesn't matter what his constituents are thinking in an election year.
If he does need to care about what his constituents think, then frame your argument around popular right-wing talking points. You need to demonstrate to the congressman that there is an opportunity for him to impress the crowd by agreeing with your blatantly leading questions, e.g. "Congressman X, do you think it is right that Big Government should have the power to shut down any website at the push of some bureaucrat's button, and force honest businessmen and woman to spend tens of thousands of dollars in court just to get a chance to have their case heard?".
Do not try for a tricky question. You want to offer him the easiest and laziest question possible to please the crowd. You need to prove there is political gains to be made opposing SOPA.
posted by kithrater at 6:06 PM on January 12, 2012 [2 favorites]
Assuming he's a Republican, you can inform him that the AFL and the Teamsters (among other unions) support SOPA (true), if he's not already aware. This may feel cynical to you, but Republicans generally don't like being on the same side as unions. Now, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also supports SOPA, so it's not a classic partisan divide (and if I were your congressman, that's what I'd say in response). But if you can convince him he'd rather oppose a bunch of unions than side with the CoC, that might work.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 6:29 PM on January 12, 2012
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 6:29 PM on January 12, 2012
Not only is The Heritage Foundation against it, but believe it or not, Michele Bachmann is against it for these reasons:
"I have serious concerns about government getting involved in regulation of the Internet, and about ambiguities in this legislation, which could lead to an explosion of destructive, innovation-stalling lawsuits."
So maybe you could frame along the lines of what she's saying. Government intervention, free markets etc, etc.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:47 PM on January 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
"I have serious concerns about government getting involved in regulation of the Internet, and about ambiguities in this legislation, which could lead to an explosion of destructive, innovation-stalling lawsuits."
So maybe you could frame along the lines of what she's saying. Government intervention, free markets etc, etc.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:47 PM on January 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
When I was in law school our dean was really conservative. One day my prof, who was also conservative wanted to have the dean watch a class discussion on Lucas v. South Carolia Costal Council where Scalia held that the government could not keep someone from messing up the seashore they owned unless the state proved under its own "nuisance" standard that it could be considered a nuisance. Nuisance law varies widely state to state. Scalia really dealt a blow to government regulation of private land for environmental purposes.
I'm a liberal, but I took a different tack--I argued 50 state standards would make it hard for business and that Scalia's decision was bad for business. Predictably at the end the dean said he agreed with Scalia, but then singled my idea out as "important."
So make this about business. Explain that as businesses market, they are going to interact with customers in new and exciting ways, and people will put stuff on comments and post videos that might infringe in some small way on things. Spammers might put links from overseas hosted copyrighted materials and even clips from those materials. A small business owner in your district doesn't have the time or money to play cop for big companies in Hollywood. So you are opposed to the act--in America, a business like Hollywood needs to use self-help to catch infringers rather than making big government force local businesses to play cop for some company far off in California.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:20 PM on January 12, 2012
I'm a liberal, but I took a different tack--I argued 50 state standards would make it hard for business and that Scalia's decision was bad for business. Predictably at the end the dean said he agreed with Scalia, but then singled my idea out as "important."
So make this about business. Explain that as businesses market, they are going to interact with customers in new and exciting ways, and people will put stuff on comments and post videos that might infringe in some small way on things. Spammers might put links from overseas hosted copyrighted materials and even clips from those materials. A small business owner in your district doesn't have the time or money to play cop for big companies in Hollywood. So you are opposed to the act--in America, a business like Hollywood needs to use self-help to catch infringers rather than making big government force local businesses to play cop for some company far off in California.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:20 PM on January 12, 2012
"Why do we need to limit free speech and put a job-killing burden on technology startups in order to prop up millionaire Hollywood liberals?"
posted by anildash at 9:06 PM on January 12, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by anildash at 9:06 PM on January 12, 2012 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Well that was fun. I asked him about the bill and it turns out he already opposes it! So yay!
posted by hellojed at 7:49 AM on January 13, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by hellojed at 7:49 AM on January 13, 2012 [3 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
- government subsidy of media conglomerates
- interference with free markets
- free money for trial lawyers
posted by me & my monkey at 5:04 PM on January 12, 2012 [3 favorites]