That is a poor approach to drafting legislation, at best. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 19/01/2012 04:37:37 PM
A suggestion was made, and it went too far. Why not just cut out the parts that people keep pointing out as problems? If a law goes too far, then obviously things need to be removed from it. The removal is part of the revision process. It isn't necessary for new things to be suggested as additions if the removal of certain things is the only thing those protestors see as needed.
Plus, you realize that you are setting a double standard? You say industry lobbyists demanded certain points, and now they're getting them in law, but isn't that the same thing that sites are doing now? Demanding certain points, only in this case to be removed rather than added. But for some reason of the latter you expect a brand new law that will be perfect and satisfy everyone, while the former get away with just listing their demands.
Plus, you realize that you are setting a double standard? You say industry lobbyists demanded certain points, and now they're getting them in law, but isn't that the same thing that sites are doing now? Demanding certain points, only in this case to be removed rather than added. But for some reason of the latter you expect a brand new law that will be perfect and satisfy everyone, while the former get away with just listing their demands.
No, it is NOT the same thing that sites are doing now, and that is precisely the problem: The media industry made a series of suggestions and, rather than making counter-suggestions, critics are simply cherry picking the ones they like and trying to discard the rest. Know why that is not a credible way to proceed?
Citizen: I like and support all traffic laws, except speed limits, stop signs and traffic lights; those intolerable infringements of my rights MUST go.
Government: People like you are why speed limits, stop signs and traffic lights exist; next....
The best way to convince government Big Media are the knowledgeable responsible parties here is to let them hand craft new laws, then demand Congress remove the parts that happen to affect you. Whether or not that is the intent, it is the perception. When Congress hears people say they support bans on PCP and crack but think marijuana should be de-criminalized, the impression is not "many people think laws on 'soft' drugs are too strict," it is "potheads want pot to be legal badly enough to throw crackheads under the bus."
Even were that impression not made, if you wait for others to petition Congress for a bill then simply object to the parts you dislike, it suggests the first group are the ones with deep comprehensive knowledge of the situation and you are the one with deep knowledge (possibly) of your own narrow interests. If you want to be taken as seriously as people who have contributed to the process, contribute something to the process, rather than simply waiting for them to do so, then objecting to some of THEIR contributions.
That is just not productive or constructive. I know Washington has reached the point that shouting, "NO, NO, NO111" is considered "debate" and "YOU CANNOT MAKE ME111" counts as "compromise," but how well has that worked? There is a very good reason Obama publicly requested people suggest what they DO want instead of just what they do NOT want:
Cook: What do you want on your burger?
Customer: No pickles.
Cook: ... OK....
*five minutes later*
Customer: THIS BURGER HAS ONIONS, AND WHY IS THERE NO BACON?!
Cook: Because you cannot articulate what you want.
Waiting for other people to demand legislation, then picking and choosing which parts of it you will accept, is NOT helpful. If you want to get involved, GET INVOLVED.