So not all of these are even second thoughts, many didn't even have first thoughts.
It's very interesting that it is turning out that many (most?) of the large number of names on the sponsors list were lies that completely misrepresented the positions of dozens of companies and organizations.
Isn't that fraud or forgery?
How many bills have been passed because of lists of sponsors that are fabricated? What an abuse of the legislative process this is.
As I've said elsewhere the Committee's page is absolutely appalling. It gives no indication that there is deliberation going on. The page is nothing but propaganda.
I would have hoped that our legislators would be performing these actions, like holding hearings and debating, for the purposes of finding the best answers -- NOT to stage a kangaroo court, pretending that they are weighing the sides.
It seems that their web page is really nothing but media-industry-supported propaganda.
In our considered opinion, the Protect IP Act and SOPA further the goal of free expression. Far from conflicting with the First Amendment, the proposed legislation will serve as an important contribution to ensuring an environment in which free speech and creative expression can thrive and flourish.
That doesn't sound like they were just agreeing with the opinion: that sounds like fully fledged support.
I think the main issue is that it's individual lawyers within these firms that endorse it, not the firm as a whole. In that case, stating that the whole firm endorses the legislation is deceptive.
It's very interesting that it is turning out that many (most?) of the large number of names on the sponsors list were lies that completely misrepresented the positions of dozens of companies and organizations.
Isn't that fraud or forgery?
How many bills have been passed because of lists of sponsors that are fabricated? What an abuse of the legislative process this is.