You're watching...
FBN’s Judge Andrew Napolitano questions whether the Stop Online Piracy Act infringes on the 5th amendment right to a trial.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Last week web sites like Wikipedia read it and others went dark to protest to stop Internet piracy act or rush toward acronym -- soap up.
The bill would decide to stop the spread of pirated copies of movies music other online content but some say -- acting -- would make it easier to censor the Internet.
Terming out sort it all out is Fox News senior judicial analyst most of freedom watch -- and would -- -- and judged.
First of all let's start with.
If if fight steel.
Some music or movie or wherever might be on the Internet right now isn't there already a law or something that is under some to re court to.
-- American what what was already a half dozen laws the most recent of which is media online digital protection law.
Enacted in 1998 which basically says yes and it tells lawyers what to do you send a notice -- -- a copy of the notice to this person.
And if the offender doesn't stop you going to court immediately.
And present evidence immediately.
And get an immediate ruling from a judge.
That's what we call due process.
A judge is deciding is there enough evidence here from which a jury after a full blown blown trial.
Is likely to conclude.
That the defendant is an offender.
And offender meaning a person violating.
Copyright or other laws that protect the product from being -- -- -- -- what's the what's the move behind all of -- well because the that Hollywood community and I don't wanna blame just them.
Basically wants the government to do its work for it because this -- would eliminate the most important part.
Of this stopping the violation of of copyright which is due process.
No longer what a judge be involved you would simply tell the Justice Department that's my product -- -- was running.
And the Justice Department.
Without any evidence without any due process without any hearing about -- -- fairness without even any notice to the alleged offender.
Would shut down the offenders website.
Now that is power in the hands of the government that the constitution doesn't permit.
And federal law doesn't contemplate and would be contrary to our values our values are somebody's doing something wrong they get their day in court.
You don't take their business away from them over night.
Sorry but a lot of people are not big Hollywood movie studios in right and and don't have the money the time the -- sources.
I've got to hire a lawyer I've got I've got a I've somebody stole my property you said you can do would immediately but isn't -- going to be one of those where it really is.
Cost prohibitive.
To go after somebody.
Well it's cost prohibitive to go after somebody that's harming -- yes that's one of the prices that we pay.
For freedom and our society.
The government doesn't slap your wrist and the government doesn't cut off your hand without due process of -- mean.
Being a a trial before a judge.
If if if this is going to be changed.
Then where will this change and I'll give you an example.
-- guys robbing a bank and he's -- and the bank with a bag of money.
Over shouldering an investment space sort of like the comic book image of a bank robber from the thirties and forties is -- -- trial.
-- be punished rate then and there on the spot.
The constitution says he's entitled to a trial yet but that mindset that says well there that running a copy of my movie we should shut and then immediately -- say this is obviously the Robert let's -- on the spot so.
Where will this denial of due process and -- one argument.
The other argument is why should the government be doing Hollywood's work.
For it why should federal agents be protecting movies.
When they should be protecting banks.
But but -- five got stolen merchandise.
And -- stolen all the things from your house and I've set up shop over here on first and main.
And you call the police and say hey Ed Sullivan is still in mind -- merchandise over there were two main go get them.
There has to be some evidence to support that before the police are going to stop Solomon from selling -- is my merchandise.
Look.
No one is can -- owning copyright violation.
If XYZ production company in Hollywood makes a movie.
That product is -- and it is for them to decide how that movie will be distributed they're entitled to compensation whenever it's distributed.
The question is are -- entitled to the free services of the FBI.
And are they -- -- of the cut holes in the constitution.
In order to protect our product -- now they're our insurance companies that can protect the product they're also insurance companies and and and businesses business associations.
But the Sullivan's of the world can join who will protect their rights so they don't have to hire their own lawyer lawyers -- will do this for members of the association.
You'll I don't want to protect the constitution you know that and from a slippery slope of the destruction of our.
Last question then if if this goes through.
Then are you expecting all kinds of lawsuits from different groups.
But to do to basic limited constitutional argument of I think because we're having conversations like this members of congress are having their eyes so I don't think it will go through.
But if it does go through I think it will be in joined immediately by the first federal judge before -- is challenged because it violates the Fifth Amendment on its face.
That amendment -- of the government wants your life or your liberty or your property.
It can't take it without a trial -- You always exporters are well you're -- provide that gets out thank you.
