search
top

Inconsistency in Some SOPA Opposition

Eugene Volokh notes the hefty amount of corporate free speech going on today, and points out that many of the SOPA opponents were derisive of the idea that corporations can have protective speech. I generally think it’s poor business practice for corporations to get involved with controversial political issues, but in the case of something like SOPA, which has little if any real grassroots support, it’s probably safe. But while I think it’s a poor idea for companies to insert themselves into politics, I believe they have a right to speak.

2 Responses to “Inconsistency in Some SOPA Opposition”

  1. Robert says:

    Generally, companies involving themselves in politics that don’t concern them can be bad for business, true. But when the legislation directly affects them (like SOPA/PIPA does for Google), it is right and proper for them to make their position known, just like it would be for anyone else. Otherwise, we’re silencing the people who will be directly effected by the legislation, and that’s no way to run a free country.

  2. David says:

    Remember, those companies are made up of hundreds of thousands of people who will suffer if the dolt in D.C want to stifle innovation and freedom. Not to mention all the stockholder who will also suffer. What the tech giants are doing is absolutely right. It was funny watching Lamar Smith defend this bill against Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin. Smith should have realized that he was feuding with three PhD’s and, you know, the guys who created Google.

top