[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 9 (Monday, January 23, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H84]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FREEDOM AND THE INTERNET, VICTORIOUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, long ago, Jefferson warned: ``The 
natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to 
gain ground.'' The exceptions to that rule have been few and far 
between recently; and they ought to be celebrated when they occur, as 
one did just this past week with the announcement that the supporters 
of the so-called Stop Online Privacy Act and the Protect Intellectual 
Property Act have indefinitely postponed their measures after an 
unprecedented protest across the Internet.
  SOPA and PIPA pose a crippling danger to the Internet because they 
use legitimate concern over copyright infringement as an excuse for 
government to intrude upon and regulate the very essence of the 
Internet--the unrestricted and absolutely free association that links 
site to site, providing infinite pathways for commerce, discourse, and 
learning. It is not the Internet, per se, that sets the stage for a 
quantum leap in human knowledge advancement but, rather, the free 
association that's at the core of the Internet; and this is precisely 
what SOPA and PIPA directly threaten.
  But as dangerous as this concept is to the Internet, it pales in 
comparison to the danger it poses to our fundamental freedoms as 
Americans. It is true that rogue Web sites operating from offshore 
havens are stealing intellectual property and then selling it. We 
already have very good laws against that, as evidenced by the arrest 
yesterday of Mr. Kim Schmitz and his associates in New Zealand who 
stand accused of operating one of the biggest of these rogue sites.
  Theft of intellectual property is fundamentally no different than the 
theft of any other kind of property. It should be taken no less 
seriously than the thefts perpetrated by the likes of Bernie Madoff or 
John Dillinger or Willie Sutton. It is no different, and it should be 
treated no differently. In every such case, it is the individual who 
commits the theft; and it is the individual who is culpable and the 
individual who is accountable to the law; and it's the individual who 
is also accorded the right of due process, including the presumption of 
innocence while he stands accused. That's what SOPA and PIPA destroy.
  Upon mere accusation, these measures would allow the government to 
shut down Web sites, ruin honest businesses, impound property, disrupt 
legitimate speech, and dragoon innocent third parties into enforcing 
laws that may or may not have been broken.

                              {time}  1210

  When property is stolen, we hold accountable the individuals who 
knowingly commit the act and place the burden of proof on the accuser. 
The accuser must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the jury that the 
defendant stole property or that he received property that he knew was 
stolen.
  Yes, it is a ponderous system. Yes, it means you actually have to 
provide evidence. Yes, it means you have to convince a jury. Yes, it 
means that we can't catch and successfully prosecute every criminal. 
But the experience of mankind over centuries has proven that this is 
the best possible way to protect the innocent and protect our freedom 
while also punishing the guilty. In part, we punish the guilty to 
discourage others that we might not be able to punish.
  As the arrests yesterday in New Zealand prove, it works. Let Mr. 
Schmitz and his confederates be extradited, and let them have their day 
in court. Let evidence be presented. Let a jury be convinced of that 
evidence. And if convicted of one of the greatest thefts in human 
history, let us mete out the full measure of punishment provided by the 
law to stand as a fearsome example to others.
  This doesn't and won't stop all theft, and it isn't perfect. But to 
replace it with one where mere accusation can bring punishment or 
inflict ruinous costs upon innocent third parties would introduce a 
despotic and destructive concept that is antithetical to the ancient 
rights that our government was formed to protect.
  The developments of the last few weeks have saved the Internet and 
saved these fundamental principles, at least for now. But Jefferson was 
right that the natural order is for government to grow at the expense 
of liberty. That's why we have our Constitution.
  As to the protection of that Constitution, the Internet has now 
empowered its rightful owners--``we, the people''--to defend it more 
effectively than ever before, which leads me, Madam Speaker, to 
conclude that because of the events of the past week, we will see many 
more victories for freedom in the days and years to come.

                          ____________________