Congressman Proposes 2-Year Ban on Internet Related Bills
A cooling-off period would prevent the federal government from introducing new internet regulation or bills.
A congressman has suggested a new proposal should come into fruition in order to temporarily stop the federal government from producing bills and regulations related to the internet.
Recent attempts to regulate the open web in the form of SOPA, PIPA, and CISPA have all been shelved after its failure to be passed in Congress. U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, who was one of the strong supporters against the former two bills, released a draft of the proposed bill in question, titled the "Internet American Moratorium Act 2012", to Project Madison, a crowdsourcing platform.
The bill, if it did pass, it would "create a two-year moratorium on any new laws, rules or regulations governing the Internet." The Internet American Moratorium Act 2012 discussion draft states:
SEC. 3. It is resolved in the House of Representatives and Senate that they shall not pass any new legislation for a period of 2 years from the date of enactment of this Act that would require individuals or corporations engaged in activities on the Internet to meet additional requirements or activities. After 90 days of passage of this Act no Department or Agency of the United States shall publish new rules or regulations, or finalize or otherwise enforce or give lawful effect to draft rules or regulations affecting the Internet until a period of at least 2 years from the enactment of this legislation has elapsed.
Following the proposed bill being posted to Project Madison, Issa linked the draft bill on Reddit. He said on the aggregation site: "Together, we can make Washington take a break from messing w/ the Internet."
"After SOPA and PIPA (the Senate's similar Protect Intellectual Property Act), it became very clear that we needed a cooling-off period to figure out a better way to create policy that impacts Internet users, job creators and all Americans," an unnnamed spokesman for Issa told CNN.
A recent bill, if passed, would have given the feds unprecedented, warantless access to American users' email accounts, as well as other private data such as Google Docs files and Twitter direct messages. Following an uproar, the congressman amended the bill for the second time and reverted it back to serve its original purpose of protecting privacy.

"Supporters against"? Not "opponents of"? Tisk. Journalists and their poor grammar.
"Supporters against"? Not "opponents of"? Tisk. Journalists and their poor grammar.
A. Re-elect this guy.
B. Help him to understand that this bill should be for over 9000 years.
C. Pass the bill.
D. Buy Black Ops 2 and start playing Tranzit.
So thats why you have this bill for 2 years in the probable hopes that the Dems win back the house in 2014...
Good Luck Jim >_>
Clever.
Democrats are the ones who try passing bills like SOPA and PIPA in the first place.
Hopefully we'll have a Republican controlled Senate within a couple of years. They'll be able to stem the tide of retarded ideas streaming from our out of touch Democratic President and Congressman.
So quit believing everything the biased liberal media tells you and start thinking for yourself.
PIPA was introduced by Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, and that bill was stopped by Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon.
CISPA was introduced by US representative Michael Rogers, Republican from MI.
If you all are going to start throwing out political blame for these bs bills, at least do a little research, instead of automatically blaming Democrats for stuff.
It took me less than a minute on Google to find this info.
A. Re-elect this guy.
B. Help him to understand that this bill should be for over 9000 years.
C. Pass the bill.
D. Buy Black Ops 2 and start playing Tranzit.
Why re-elect him? I say get rid of all of them. He might hold a positive opinion on this issue but on a whole slew of others issues (including Women's Rights) Issa is a retarded step monkey.
Hopefully we'll have a Republican controlled Senate within a couple of years. They'll be able to stem the tide of retarded ideas streaming from our out of touch Democratic President and Congressman.
I see... I wonder who pushed for the Patriot Act? For the invasion of Iraq? For the FISA bill? Democrat or Republican... both are corrupt parties. It is a false dichotomy to assume that they're not "alike" or are the only choices at our disposal.
So quit believing everything the biased liberal media tells you and start thinking for yourself.
Biased Liberal Media? How about simply calling it what it is. The Corporate Media. Each Corporate Media Institution having a different internal policy re: Ethics & Morals. What we see, on TV, is not only the "news" but the "news" through this Corporate Prism. These Corporations are welfare Queens suckling at the Tax Payers teets. They lobby and get their way. In fact in this case we're talking about large Media conglomerates lobbying Congress, Senate etc in order to pass strong laws to regulate the Internet on the argument/principle of Patents and Intellectual Property rights (which are illegitimate... there is no such thing as an Intellectual Property Right). The Media is owned by those very same large Media Conglomerates. Therefore is it really any wonder why the Media Institutions tend to support regulating the Internet?
Liberal Media? No... Corporatist Media.
With Fox News you get Pro-Oil, Pro-War and Anti-Union, Anti-Women's Rights, Pro-Racism rhetoric etc (the interests they represent). For CNN you get a Pro-War, Both ways on Unions (trying to find a Middle Ground), Pro Women's Rights, Anti-Racism in a way that is racist (splitting up America into Colors like Black America, White America etc). MSNBC is like Fox only with a penchant for Facts (cept when it comes to Economics) rather than bullshit. Problem is that even if you're right... doesn't mean you have the right to force your views onto others.
So I don't get the logic of your world view. You don't seem to actually factor in Economic principles (Homesteading, Property Acquisition Principles or otherwise). Rather you seem to simply regurgitate talking points from pundits that actually are not in keeping with Freed Markets principles.