Obamateurism of the Day
posted at 8:05 am on January 18, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Today, we interrupt this feature to remind people to call their elected officials in Congress to oppose the SOPA and PIPA bills. We aren’t going to take the site dark today, as some of our on-line colleagues will as a reminder of the power that SOPA and PIPA would give the federal government to shut down websites with no due process. We think it’s too important to keep exercising our freedom of speech, but still definitely salute those who are reminding us in their silence all to take action against a seriously misguided effort to protect intellectual rights — a worthwhile goal, but not at the expense of putting government in the position of acting as a prior-restraint gatekeeper outside of the normal due process afforded by the courts.
If we don’t take the site dark, I can at least suspend this daily feature for a day to remind people what it might be like if we put the power of SOPA and/or PIPA into the hands of an executive branch inclined to stifle criticism (it’s worth noting that the Obama administration has now expressed some opposition to SOPA, at least). We’ll be back tomorrow. In the meantime, either contact your elected representatives or sign the online petition against SOPA/PIPA.
Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.
Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Yeah one of the few places (and the AT&T T-Mo merger) that I actually agree with the Barry administration.
Defenestratus on March 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM
3 am call from Benghazi for President Obama…
….can someone unlock his phone so he can receive the call?
PappyD61 on March 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM
“What are you in for?”
“I unlocked my cell phone.”
*sissy beating ensues*
gryphon202 on March 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM
It’s rare I can agree with the Obama regime on anything, but they’re right about this. But don’t just pay lip service to the stupidity of the law. Overturn it.
Doughboy on March 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM
Oh, sorry he has those calls forwarded to the SecDef.
my bad.
PappyD61 on March 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM
What the hell kind of country do we live in?
tom daschle concerned on March 5, 2013 at 8:47 AM
One ruled by librarians.
Apparently.
And not the “naughty” type either unfortunately…
Defenestratus on March 5, 2013 at 8:58 AM
WH beats the stupid party to the buzzer again.
Red Creek on March 5, 2013 at 9:01 AM
I’m sure they will pivot right to that, after the pivot to jobs is done pivoting to the economy.
Gatsu on March 5, 2013 at 9:02 AM
FIFM
ShainS on March 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM
The first step of overturning it merely means not enforcing it. The Obama Administration has a great amount of experience in doing this.
unclesmrgol on March 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM
Maybe I’ve been caught napping, but didn’t it used to require a law passed by the legislature to make something a crime? Now rules from a library can put me in prison?
forest on March 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM
Lots of laws specifically give cabinet-level authorities the power to implement them. Obamacare is one example, with all its citations of “…as the secretary may deem.” The Library of Congress is thusly tasked with enforcing copyright laws, which in practice means they get to write the regulations.
gryphon202 on March 5, 2013 at 9:12 AM
It sure didn’t take T-Mobile long. The ink hadn’t even dried on the new regs before they announced they were considering ditching the 2-year contract. And discontinuing the subsidy. All well and good, but now, because unlocking your own phone is a felony, they’ve got the best of all worlds. They’ve discontinued the subsidy and still locked you into their service. Who can afford to pay $600 for a phone and then leave for another carrier when it is a felony to take your $600 phone with you?
rogaineguy on March 5, 2013 at 9:22 AM
Simple solution is to buy an already unlocked Google Nexus 4. Then you can walk up to T-mo and get an unlimited data plan for like I think less than $50/mo
Defenestratus on March 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM
So I guess it might be safe now to remove my mattress tag…
hillsoftx on March 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM
This ought to be a no-brainer, but…well, you know the rest.
Bob's Kid on March 5, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Yup. It’s absolutely shameful how stupid the GOP is, uh, most of the time. Firing Khanna was just beyond stupid.
Punchenko on March 5, 2013 at 9:56 AM
“It’s common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive LIGHT BULB, HEALTH CARE, AUTOMOTBILE, ENERGY, EDUCATION, LABOR, AD INFINITUM market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers’ needs,”
So what else am I missing here guys??
mgman on March 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM
If Republicans had taken the lead on this, you can be sure the White House would have gone in the opposite direction.
sydneyjane on March 5, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Obama can want legislation until the cows come home. It’s up to the House Republicans and Senate Democrats to make it happen.
The sad thing, we all know it will be stuffed into some spending bill somewhere as a political ploy.
ButterflyDragon on March 5, 2013 at 10:39 AM
May I just comment that Derek Khanna is extremely attractive? I believe I join the ladies and other homocons in saying that we wouldn’t mind if more stories were posted on this – lol
ZachV on March 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Why didn’t Republicans get out in front on this issue? A big missed opportunity. Again.
Socratease on March 5, 2013 at 10:49 AM
It’s an interesting day when I find myself in agreement with Barky…
Archivarix on March 5, 2013 at 11:08 AM
T-Mobile is only good in some areas and I don’t think AT&T supports the N4.
Dr. Frank Enstine on March 5, 2013 at 11:15 AM
I am in the middle on this issue. I agree with the Obama administration in that the federal government — specifically, the Library of Congress — should not be involved in this issue at all. Certainly there should be no criminal penalties for unlocking cell phones.
OTOH, I am a supporter of the free market. Manufacturers and cell companies can sell you a product and service under whatever terms they wish, and government shouldn’t get involved in that either. If AT&T wants to sell you a $700 phone for $200 on the condition that it comes locked and you agree contractually not to unlock it, they should be able to do so and they should be able to pursue civil remedies for breach of contract if you do unlock it. If you don’t like it, you are free to deal with a different company. That’s the market at work.
So, bottom line. Free market. No artificial government criminalizing of what consumers do with a product. But also no government telling companies how to price, sell, and license their products.
Shump on March 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM
Perhaps the Library of Congress will now track all CM10 Nightly downloads and dispatch the SWAT teams to straighten those criminals out. Only in Amerika.
NOMOBO on March 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM
The obviously liberal idiot Library of Congress obviously is a candidate for some “sequestering”. Where do these people come from?
ultracon on March 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM
Nice to know the President and his administration will be hard at work passing a law that’s nearly impossible to enforce.
Next up, pass a damnable budget, already!
Sgt Steve on March 5, 2013 at 11:58 AM
I don’t know about the Nexus 4, but the standard Nexus doesn’t come unlocked. I still had to unlock it, and install a bootloader in order to install some Superuser programs to it.
Sgt Steve on March 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM
The White House needs to stay in good graces with their internet lobby because those cool points could cost them money. Anyway, I agree the law was ridiculous.
However, what was wrong with the ATT/T-Mobile merger? The Feds should have stayed out of that, I was really excited for Verizon and Sprint to have some truly viable competition after the merger. Sprint’s well connected lobbyists prevented it from happening, T-Mobile and ATT on their own just don’t have the networks to compete. I would have kissed off Verizon as soon as the merger went through and am really sore it didn’t.
Daemonocracy on March 5, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Now if we could just get them to support being able to unlock other hardware that’s been locked up by the DMCA.
An example everyone’s probably familiar with is your home DVD player. Who hasn’t run into a case where you couldn’t skip previews or studio splashes so you can get right to the movie?
The movie studios have override command on your DVD player, and most people don’t even know it.
taznar on March 5, 2013 at 12:27 PM
Technically, that’s not considered unlocking your phone. That’s like putting Linux on your Windows laptop. (Which I’ve done.) I’ve used CM10 on my Captivate as opposed to stock AT&T Gingerbread. That’s why ROMs exist, to allow you to customize your phone.
Unlocking means making your phone work on any carrier, not just the one you bought it from.
Of course, putting a new ROM on your phone does void the warranty, so if it breaks, you’re stuck.
falcon on March 5, 2013 at 12:42 PM
As I understand it, the illegality of unlocking your cell phone comes from the DMCA and that aspect springs from the extension of copyright. In the Reason interview, it was pointed out that before you had to claim the copyright then it was made that you automatically had the copyright.
I think it was pre-DMCA (or something) you wrote a book, you had to claim the copyright to get it. After-DMCA, anything you created was automatically under copyright.
A number of exemptions were established at the discretion of the Librarian of Congress of which the non-criminality of unlocking you cell was one. That exemption was allowed to expire.
The expiration of the exemption appears, to me, to be an effort by cell phone companies to use the government and its powers of criminal enforcement to outsource something that they would have to do to enforce their “copyright” on any content they created that was on a cell phone which probably would be quite costly in comparison to what it may actually cost them in the revenue stream.
Russ808 on March 5, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Rule 1 of government by regulation: never pay attention to warnings of dire consequences; I would say “unintended” but that is only true in a some instances.
Not that you can’t have both in the same law.
AesopFan on March 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM
Well, we wouldn’t want anyone to think we don’t take copyright law seriously….
Of course, the problem is that this really had nothing to do with copyright law in the first place. The DMCA was a bad law, but it passed a Republican House and was signed by a Democratic president, because if there’s one thing both parties can get behind, it’s catering to powerful lobbies.
tom on March 5, 2013 at 3:07 PM
They didn’t earn the title The Party of Stupid in a raffle. They came by it honestly. That’s been a big part of their problem. Instapundit was urging them to take this on months ago, but…sigh.
CitizenEgg on March 5, 2013 at 7:10 PM