SOPA is unconstitutional prior restraint

[Guy Fawkes]

This not only violates basic principles of due process by depriving persons of property without a fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, it also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that governmental action suppressing speech, if taken prior to an adversary proceeding and subsequent judicial determination that the speech in question is unlawful,[2] is a presumptively unconstitutional “prior restraint.” In other words, it is the “most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,”[3] permissible only in the narrowest range of circumstances. The Constitution requires a court “to make a final determination” that the material in question is unlawful “after an adversary hearing before the material is completely removed from circulation.”
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/onl...break-internet

[John Galt]

SOPA Bill Protest: Will Facebook, Google and Twitter 'Blackout' the Internet?

"Mozilla had a blackout day, and Wikipedia has talked about something similar," Erickson told FoxNews. "A number of companies have had discussions about that."

With the Senate set to debate SOPA legislation in January 2012, the blackout would be an unprecedented but potent move by Internet giants like Facebook and Amazon.

CNET called it "the nuclear option," and said the effect would be far more wide-reaching than previous efforts like Tumblr's American Censorship Day and yesterday's Dump GoDaddy Day.

"When the home pages of Google.com, Amazon.com, Facebook.com, and their Internet allies simultaneously turn black with anti-censorship warnings that ask users to contact politicians about a vote in the U.S. Congress the next day on SOPA," Declan McCullagh wrote, "you'll know they're finally serious."
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2747...le-twitter.htm

[SOPAFighter]

(1/2/12): “The criticism of this bill is completely hypothetical; none of it is based in reality. Not one of the critics was able to point to any language in the bill that would in any way harm the Internet. Their accusations are simply not supported by any facts,” {House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)} said in a statement.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/online_...-211304-1.html

[3261Fighter]

Well, at least someone gets it:

"WASHINGTON - Wisconsin’s First District Congressman Paul Ryan released the following statement regarding H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act:

"The internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House.""

http://paulryan.house.gov/News/Docum...umentID=274134

[Seldon]

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), a major opponent of the Stop Online Piracy Act, announced Monday he is bringing in the techies to hold a public hearing highlighting the online security implications of a proposed bill that would force changes to internet infrastructure to fight online copyright infringement...

“An open internet is crucial to American job creation, government operations, and the daily routines of Americans from all walks of life,” Issa said in a statement. “The public deserves a full discussion about the consequences of changing the way Americans access information and communicate on the internet today.”

Issa is the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The hearing is set for Jan. 18.

The legislation mandates that ISPs alter records in the net’s system for looking up website names, known as DNS, so that users couldn’t navigate to the site. Or, if ISPs choose not to introduce false information into DNS at the urging of the Justice Department, they instead would be required to employ some other method, such as deep-packet inspection, to prevent American citizens from visiting infringing sites.

ISPs, could, for instance, adopt tactics used by the Great Chinese Firewall to sniff for traffic going to a blacklisted site and simply block it.

Among those scheduled to testify are Stewart Baker, the former Department of Homeland Security policy director, who has said SOPA “would still do great damage to internet security.”

Also slated to testify is DNS expert Dan Kaminsky of DKH. Putting false information into the DNS system — the equivalent of the net’s phonebook — would be ineffective, frustrate security initiatives and lead to software workarounds, according to a paper co-signed by security experts Steve Crocker of Shinkuro, David Dagon of Georgia Tech, Danny McPherson of Verisign, Paul Vixie of Internet Systems Consortium and Kaminsky.

Others expected to testify include Brad Burnham, Partner at Union Square Ventures; Michael Macleod-Ball, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union; Lanham Napier, chief executive officer of Rackspace; Leonard Napolitano, director of the Center for Computer Sciences & Information Technology at Sandia National Laboratories; and Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit.com.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/geeks-sopa/

[FreedomFighter]

This is the logical development of IP law. Copyright is censorship.

[PETER QUINCY TAGGART]

KEEP UP THE PRESSURE, NEVER RETREAT, NEVER SURRENDER!