We told you Orrin Hatch was the most dangerous man in America www.adultcybermart.com/StoryOrrinHatch.html

from www.politico.com – Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt pictured] on Wednesday said the search company would fight legislation aimed at shutting down access to file-sharing websites that offer pirated content.

He argued that it would set a “disastrous precedent” for freedom of speech worldwide.

“If there is a law that requires DNSs [domain name systems] to do X, and it’s passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it,” Schmidt told reporters at a London conference.

“If it’s a request, the answer is we wouldn’t do it. If it’s a discussion, we wouldn’t do it,” Schmidt added.

Schmidt’s comments come days after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced the PROTECT IP Act, which would allow the attorney general to seek a court order to shut down the domain name of an allegedly infringing site.

The bill is similar to a previous version Leahy introduced last session, known as COICA, but it includes a new provision that applies to search engines.

That provision in Leahy’s latest proposal would force search engines to cut off access to a site that offers illicit content if they’re served with a court order, putting companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft on the hook for taking action against infringing sites.

The bill would also make Google, which makes most of its profits from its online advertising products, stop serving ads or sponsored links to those sites.

The Guardian first reported Schmidt’s comments.

Schmidt said the act of blocking domain names was similar to China censoring its citizens’ Web searches, warning it could clamp down on free speech.

“I would be very, very careful if I were a government about arbitrarily [implementing] simple solutions to complex problems,” Schmidt said.

“So, ‘let’s whack off the DNS.’ OK, that seems like an appealing solution but it sets a very bad precedent,” Schmidt said, “because now another country will say ‘I don’t like free speech so I’ll whack off all those DNSs.’ That country would be China.”

Schmidt’s comments have already stoked the ire of the entertainment industry. The Recording Industry Association of America said Schmidt’s combative stance contradicts the more compromising tone that Google’s General Counsel Kent Walker struck with lawmakers at a hearing last month.

“This is baffling,” an RIAA spokesman told POLITICO. “As a legitimate company, Google has a responsibility to not benefit from criminal activity.”

The Motion Picture Association of America also lashed out against Schmidt’s comments.

“Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn’t follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it’s unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman’s comments, Google seems to think it’s above America’s laws,” said Michael O’Leary, an executive vice president for MPAA, in a statement.

“And the notion that China would use a bipartisan, narrowly tailored bill as a pretext for censorship is laughable, as Google knows, China does what China does,” O’Leary added.

However, a Google representative told POLITICO that the company is still working with Congress to ensure Leahy’s bill cracks down on online piracy and also protects free speech.

“Free expression is an issue we care deeply about and we continue to work with Congress to make sure the PROTECT IP Act will target sites dedicated to piracy while protecting free expression and legitimate sites,” the representative said.

Schmidt’s concerns about pending U.S. legislation stifling free speech rights echo similar statements made by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) about Leahy’s earlier COICA bill.

Wyden also warned last week that Leahy’s latest bill “would have serious ramifications for Internet speech.”

Back story: from www.mi2n.com – Senators Leahy, Hatch and Grassley are reintroducing legislation, which will impose a mandate on additional industries to enforce copyright laws. Instead of COICA, the new acronym appears to sound less controversial – PROTECT IP.

Like COICA, the new legislation would have the Attorney General serve court orders demanding credit card companies, ad networks and domain name servers stop doing business with sites that the US Government identifies as dedicated to copyright infringement. The new bill would also lean on search engines to eliminate allegedly offending sites from search results.

Another new feature is that the plaintiff complaining of infringement would be able to get a court order themselves to demand other businesses help shut down sites where people can illegally obtain material like copyrighted music, movies and software.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which is dedicated to fighting Internet filtering and censorship overseas and in the United States as well as using reasonable means to protect intellectual property, said the new legislation would be more aptly named the Internet Censorship and Control Act. The following can be attributed to CCIA President & CEO Ed Black:

“The United States Government should not be in the business of choosing what Internet content is acceptable and censoring that which it deems is not. Meddling with Internet architecture to disappear sites and even hyperlinks to those sites is an Orwellian approach to law enforcement. The solution to violations of intellectual property law is to enforce the law, not to engage in dangerous and fruitless efforts to sanitize the Internet.”

“CCIA represents companies that are intellectual property rightsholders as well as companies that would be co-opted into law enforcement duties under this measure. So while we support rightsholders and content providers making a fair profit, we can’t support Draconian measures that would break the Internet – especially when there are so many existing remedies to get infringing removed from the Internet.

“While we understand senators are trying to deliver results that big content providers lobbied hard for, this legislation will do little to really solve copyright infringement. This directive may look different than Egypt or China’s Internet filtering and censorship. But technologically speaking shutting down parts of the Internet, even for a seemingly good reason, is still censorship – no matter what new name you give it. This bill would send a signal to Internet restricting countries that they can make similar demands and use similar tools – only for more sinister reasons.

“Another dangerous precedent is the way the bill encourages credit card companies, search engines and other intermediaries to voluntarily take possibly capricious action ahead of a court order — and they would receive immunity if it turns out later that the domain in question was not doing anything wrong.

“We must also discourage attempts to deputize online intermediaries into law enforcement. If the United States cannot defend and maintain a free and open Internet, we cannot expect that any other nation will do so. Proposals to require Internet communication services to block domains or censor search results ahead of any sort of due process in court set a dangerous precedent here and a risky model for Internet governance abroad.”