Josh Hawley and other Republicans want to end special “handouts” for Disney and other companies, but as a non-political punishment (analysis)

His solution is to protect Disney’s copyrights after it ruled against the Florida Parents’ Rights Act, which opponents called the “Don’t Say Gay” Act.

In these and other instances, Heuley and others on the right have taken long-standing political debates and used them as revenge for corporate “awakening”.

One of Hull’s arguments that Disney and other companies received special benefits actually dates back to 1998: The Mouse House, along with other companies, lobbied for a 20-year extension of their copyright.

Hugh argues that the long-term copyright gives Disney a “freehold” of intellectual property. On this front, he will have some agreement among public interest groups, including the left, who have long argued that the makers of the constitution had never intended such a long period of copyright.

However, the account of hell is written in such a way that it applies almost exclusively to Disney, as if the company were the sole beneficiary of the copyright expansion. The 1998 law applied to all of Ernest Hemingway’s works, from George Gershwin’s “Rhapsody to Blue”. Მ also goes up.

Even groups that disagreed with the copyright studies found Howell’s proposal a bit absurd. John Bergmeier, legal director of Public Knowledge, a public interest group, said: “While I agree that copyright terms should be shorter, Public Knowledge does not ‘support’ such a frivolous bill. especially one who is clearly business motivated. ” .With a desire to punish. For political (and unconstitutional) reasons.

Let’s take another example from Haul: China.

Curses Hollywood for being interested in Beijing’s censorship to enter the film market.

It is not wrong. There is a long history and many examples where this is the case, sometimes to the point of embarrassment and ridicule. Over the years, the industry itself has had little say in the matter, except that it has long been global practice to edit films to local tastes.

However, the practice is not exclusive to Disney. In the 1990s, Rupert Murdoch was one of the first media moguls to impress Chinese leaders, and when he owned the studio, there were 20th Century Fox films that were cut to enter the Chinese market. Among them: 2017 Foreigners: AgreementIn which gay kisses and რები alien images have been removed.

Perhaps no element of the policy has received more recent attention than Section 230. This is a provision in the 1996 law that gives technical companies immunity from third party content moderation.

Heuley is part of a right-wing team that wants to reform or repeal Section 230 in response to Facebook and Twitter’s alleged bias against conservative views. This desire for politics crosses the guerrilla lines as even some Democrats, including President Joe Biden, want to see reforms in 230 parts, albeit for a variety of reasons.

There is also a large selection of which companies are considered favorable to American values ​​and which are not. Murdoch’s companies benefited from special FCC benefits and media ownership rights. Meanwhile, Fox Corp. offers employee benefits for sex reassignment surgery. Does this wake up Fox Corp.? The office of hell did not respond to a request for comment.