Unless something really exceptional takes place, it isn't necessary to literally hold the floor and read names (or anything else) in order to filibuster. There is effectively a gentleman's agreement that if there's the intent to filibuster, it's as good as doing the deed.
No, I mean there literally isn't an opportunity. The bill won't be scheduled for a vote if he has a hold on it. Should he filibuster an unrelated bill?
This is an honest question that I realize will seem very tin-foil hatty, but I can't seem to brush it off.
Does anyone ever worry that doing something like this (supplying your name, email, etc.) will come back to bite you later? Say, in 15 years if the American government by some twist outlaws decent. Does anyone worry that you might be persecuted?
If things ever get to the point where the US Government is actively rounding up people for having their name on a list because they oppose "Protect IP", I like to think I will be too busy actively revolting to worry about my name being on this list.
That would be an example of an ex post facto law — punishing behavior that occurred before such behavior was made criminal — the creation of which is explicitly forbidden to the Congress in Article 1, Section 9 (and to the States in Section 10) of the US Constitution.
That's not to say your name wouldn't end up on a list of people who should be watched for further seditious behavior or something, but I'm pretty sure that kind of thing already happens, and has been for a very long time, anyway.
I think the possibility that OP is worried about (making dissent illegal) is probably at least as radical as overturning the clause against ex post facto law (both would require Constitutional amendment AFAIK). So given the level of paranoia required to worry about the possibility that free speech will be gone in the US, the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws isn't really responsive.
I suspect it would be much, much easier to convince Americans to give up the ex post facto protections than the first amendment. This can simply be done by focusing anger at a series of high profile scummy but completely legal actions, and a proper amount of demagoguery against the "damn liberals and their ex post facto bullshit". Once that goes, the rest is easy to deal with.
This can simply be done by focusing anger at a series of high profile scummy but completely legal actions, and a proper amount of demagoguery against the "damn liberals and their ex post facto bullshit".
You could probably start with the MySpace bullying case. Add in some Wall Street bankers for good measure.
Further, retroactive punishment (in the form of harassment, being put on watch lists or no-fly lists, etc.) can still occur even in the absence of any specific ex post facto law.
Finally, with the retroactive extensions granted to copyright holders, the potential for this has already happened -- publishers have released new editions out-of-copyright works, only to find those works later placed back under copyright protection.
No. So many people have signed so many petitions, and the people who organize the petition drivers are often tricky, so the average person isn't quite sure what they signed up for. And many people sign petitions because their friends (or a hot girl outside the grocery store, or..) asked them to.
I would only worry if I planned to run for public office, and didn't plan to stand by my current beliefs.
Organizing an effort like this, yes. But mostly because it shows that you are an activist and can make things happen when you don't like the status quo. And I think the benefits of developing that reputation outweigh the drawbacks.
Thanks. All the answers have been helpful, this one is perhaps the most pragmatic. I've signed as well, I suppose it wouldn't really matter in any case, as if the US was headed down that path I think I'd just jump ship.
1: Any time I go through a border I have the expectation that an immigration officer (from any country) has access to my online activity. This could be a quick google search, but more likely I've been run through an automatic system to detect any red flags prior to arrival. A future government may see your actions now as 'unpatriotic'.
2: When we are not in our native countries (and even then) our rights are essentially 100% in the hands of the immigration officers whilst at a border. Read those immigration cards sometime.
3: In any country a Law Enforcement Officer can google you and can also use a 3rd party summary service to find out about you. So you you get arrested then anything you have online is available to be used as evidence against you.
4: When the rule of law applies, and decent people are enforcing the law, then none of this matters if you behave in a legal manner, even if you are fully exercising your right to free speech. However LEOs like the rest of us are human and have bias. So expect the worst at times. As we have seen recently a few bad actors can bring an entire force, state or even country into disrepute.
5: We should have the expectation that anything put into a computer, certainly written online or even said in a call can and probably is being captured. It's one of trillions of data points and ignored, but if you ever become famous, infamous or under suspicion then the data is there.
No. I'm proud to affix my name in opposition to SOPA, if descent is outlawed my opposition to this bill will be the least of my problems, because I'll oppose that law with every once of devotion I can bring to bear.
As a non American, this confuses me. If I've understood it correctly, a filibuster is a way to suspend the normal democratic process when you don't like the way a vote is likely to turn out. I just can't find a way to think of that as a good thing. Am I missing something? Why do people like filibusters?
You have to remember that the framers of the US Constitution were terrified by tyranny of the majority, where majority can be defined as a majority of the people or a majority of the States. The House of Representatives was devised to be the majority for the people while the Senate was devised to be the majority for the States. This was done so the Senate could put the brakes on the House ramming through what the majority of people wanted, while the House could stop the Senate from jamming through what a majority of the States wanted. Because of this dynamic the Senate is usually seen as the body that is more careful and deliberate in their business.
Keep in mind the Senate was not elected by direct vote until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Instead it was up to each State to select their two Senators and was never meant to be a democratic body.
The power of a filibuster is that it forces the opposition to experience pain, slowdown, and increased public scrutiny. It prevents bills from being passed quickly and silently. However, it's a risky move on the part of the filibustering senator, as continued use will cause the lawmaking process to grind to a halt and potentially cost you the next election. It's thus only wise to use it sparingly and when the public is clearly on your side.
This isn't necessarily true. The senate has a 'two-track' system that allows them to move on and address other issues where they have two bills on the floor at the same time.
If I remember correctly the filibuster is a way for a very large minority to protect itself from the (potentially just above 50%) majority. In other words it is undemocratic in the same way the admemdments to the constitution which protects the individual/minority against the tyranny of the majority.
The founding fathers were very, very, very well educated so they pretty much found all the ways liberty had been subverted throughout history from Greece through the Roman Republic (the Romans themselves were extreemly paranoid about one person holding power) and its fall into the Roman Empire, all the ways the kings of England had subverted the people liberty (fun fact, you can plead the fifth, have a the right to speedy and public trial, etc as a way to prevent another Star Chamber).
In summary, yes it is undemocratic. But democracy is potentially at odds with liberty and freedom. And the Founding Fathers backed liberty over democracy.
It seems like you know about filibusters, but not about Cloture. A filibuster can be ended if a 60% supermajority of the senate votes for Cloture. Basically, what the filibuster does is prevent the passage of any bill that 41-49% of the senate really, really does not want passed.
People like it because it makes the distinction between having a majority (51% of the Senate) and a mandate (60% of the Senate).
A filibuster can be used to block legislation that only has a bare majority of support in the Senate. If legislation has the support of more than 60 senators then no filibuster can stop it. It can be a good thing in that it raises the bar for passing legislation and protects minority but still popular opinions.
The Senate is seen as the place for reason to hold over the demands of the common people. In other words, the senate is more conservative (in the Burke not Reagan sense). What the filibuster does is makes America more conservative by requiring a super majority (60%). New laws by very nature are liberal (in the Burke, not Reagan sense again) and this is why conservatives tend to like it.
The major benefit of it is that it prevents (in it's present day form) small majorities from passing important legislation. You need at least 60% in the Senate.
GP meant conservative in the "don't rock the boat" sense, which is very confusing and misleading in the context of politics where the word "conservative" generally means something else.
Sure, I get that. The irony I see is that in the same breath he ties "new laws" to an increase in liberalism. Which is either a gross misestimation of the nature of most new laws or a gross perversion of the very idea of a "liberal" society. More so if we take the more classic meaning of the term (in the Locke, not Clinton sense).
Watch the movie Mr. Smith goes to Washington for an example of a filibuster in action (and to see a great movie, too). James Stewart as a freshman senator holds the floor to try to stop a political machine's crooked scheme. It's a Frank Capra movie, so take it with a grain of salt.
It can be thought of as a tactical nuclear option. You don't want to do it, but in critical situations where the passage of the law needs to be halted for a time for debate and backroom wheeling and dealing....
A filibuster calls scrutiny on the law in progress and being able to run a filibuster signifies strong support.
In principle, you are right, a filibuster seems to run counter to democratic principles.
However, given the realities of how Congress works, I personally have no trouble using the instruments available to stop the even more undemocratic influence of money in politics, which IMO is what this whole process is all about.
I'm an American and I've never understood this either. It's been around since the start of our democratic process, but these days it just seems like a counterproductive tactic.
It's weird and kind of annoying, but it's the only real counter against somebody ramming a bill through Congress. Having a perfect Congress would be more optimal, but you know, you make laws with the legislators you have, not the legislators you wish you had.
Agreed. I added my name even though it is very unlikely to get this far. But on the off chance that he'll actually be required to take the floor, I'll be watching C-SPAN.
i don't know how i would feel if someone stand up to speak against some law i sympathize (eg reduction of political benefits) and waste days reading cookbooks just to fuck everything up.
Then you shouldn't comment on it and thereby make it more popular.
But in all seriousness, of course there is a bias here. That's not a bad thing by itself. If you never read biased articles, I have to wonder how you form an opinion on anything. No offense intended, but all you've just said is that you have a prejudice against something you admitted to not reading.
If only they'd let you sign up for these things for only the immediate purpose and not be sent other "important campaign" emails. I would be cool with someone reading and trying to pronounce my name (incidentally, failing miserably) as part of a filibuster here. But I wouldn't want a single other email beyond that point.
If you're a campaign manager, the reason you run a "sign my petition" appeal like this is usually to build up a mailing list, not because you think anyone with power will actually care much about your petition. Petitions are cheap.
Then you execute step two, where you leverage that list to get people to do things that you think will actually affect the issue, like making phone calls (to legislators or to voters) or sending in money for media buys.
It is true that getting all that email is irritating. But if you're the average busy citizen, the best way to help is to find a group of organizers you trust, get on their list, and then do the little bite-sized things they ask you to do.
Politicians use them to collect email addresses. I don't think they have to operate under the same anti-spam rules as the rest of us. So they use big issues like this to harvest emails.
