>You can't kill every bill just because something is poorly worded
Why not? Why should we ever be OK with passing poorly thought out legislation?
Why not? Why should we ever be OK with passing poorly thought out legislation?
ANY contract can be read at least three ways. One of the comments here discusses advocacy vs scaremongering and computer science people seem particularly prone to having their buttons pushed by sloppy legalese. I wish the real world were clearer, but it just isn't.
There's no excuse for poorly-thought out legislation -- but that's why we elect representatives. You can't rally the minions every time there's sloppy bricklaying. It does not scale. And as a citizen, you need to know when to spend your limited supply of outrage.
Also killing every bill that you don't like isn't a long-term strategy. They come back. They come back hidden. They come back stronger. They come back sleazier.
Killing bills that are not perfect (obstructionism) merely pumps up the pressure cooker. This is not the path to reasonable legislation.
Sometimes the path forward is to enact a bad bill then sue to set case law.
I don't see a lot of these nuances discussed during the quarterly "this kills the internet" fire drills. Perhaps you still find them exciting? I do not.
Their strategy probably works for funding reasons, but I wish a more moderate voice would pick up the net neutrality cause, so I'd finally have a place to send my money.