Thanks for posting these up. Also, let your congressmen and senators know that you oppose these acts, too (assuming that you do).

I did let my congressman know he MUST oppose SOPA. I got a reply back, probably a chain form, which did leave me a little uneasy; he said that he sees and knows that SOPA is wrong, and gave reasons why it's wrong, but I did notice he did not openly say he would  vote against it. I'm far too distrusting and doubtful of politicians to not think twice about that, so...that concerns me...

 Supposedly, SOPA was 'killed' already, before it reached voting; do not just take that word as it is. Continue to hang on to this, spread the word, talk to people, let others know they must help you oppose this, and let your congressmen know.

And let your senators know to oppose PIPA, too.

If you will allow me, I'm going to rephrase a famous meme to fit into this issue:

Me: Vegeta, what does the counter say about the people opposing SOPA and PIPA?

Vegeta: It's over 9,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Me: What the, over 9,000?! There's no way that bill could be approved by the people!

 Soon the US won't just owe China all our money, we'll have the same internet restrictions as they do too! A piece of legislation that REALLY needs (and never will be) to be introduced by the Senate is an American version of the graphe paranomon, but too many lawmakers would be opening themselves up to prosecution if one of those was passed. =(

I'm not familiar with what you're referring to; what's that?

Rest assured though, anything that would make 'lawmakers' more open to litigation, I have no doubt will never pass.

The graphe paranomon = writ against illegal (unconstitutional) laws. A feature of the late Athenian direct democracy. Under the graphe paranomon, politicians who attempted to introduce legislation that was deemed unconstitutional by the council (Boule) and courts (Heliaea) were subject to prosecution under this law. The holders of public office were legally subject to public investigation of  actions undertaken during their terms as a matter of course, but a charge of violating the graphe paranomon could also be brought before the year (the term of office) was ended. If you weren't a woman, a slave, or a foreigner, Athens was freaking awesome. And yah, US politicians are not huge fans of democratizing measures in general; much less ones that would hold them strictly accountable for every action they make and every bill they support while in office.

Well, people do often forget that the U.S. isn't a democracy to begin with; it's a republic. But that's another discussion! You would think that a measure like that could still work in this country though, and in some ways, it does. There have been, of course, many times when the Constitution was amended and changed, but that hasn't happened for a very long time, and people are wary of ever doing that, which is understandable. Then again, clear violations of the Constitution do happen more often than we'd like to admit, SOPA and PIPA being new examples, if they do pass. One thing we can do though is vote out the assholes who do vote for these bills; essentially, fire them from office. If you ever did vote for some of them, don't vote for them anymore. Let them know their support of these bills won't be tolerated, nor will anything else they do any longer, should they vote for these bills.

Yes, US politicians love to talk about democracy and spreading democracy and then retreat behind terms like representative or constitutional republic when Americans ask for democratization. But I know that is not the subject of this thread so, I'll refrain from further spamming. < 3

I'm not sure just not voting for lawmakers who support these kinds of bills goes far enough in instances such as these that involve the corporate sector. The corporations and organizations (MPAA, Nike, RIAA, Viacom etc.) that support this legislation are using our money to pay for lobbyists to present SOPA and PIPA in as favorable a light as possible to Congress. Imo they are equally to blame. A national campaign of organized boycotts of the goods and services that are produced by the supporters of SOPA and PIPA would have a more immediate effect and might act as a preventive rather than a curative measure. Without the support of the US consumer, they (Nike, MPAA, RIAA,Viacom etc.) could not exist. They should all be forced to remember that.

Boycotts don't tend to always work that well though, and I'm usually hesitant to suggest that. I see your point though, trust me. It's....really hard to come up with things you can otherwise really do sometimes....Bleh. But voting is at least something!

Certainly something like a nationwide, open ended boycott in a country as large as the US would be incredibly problematic and difficult to organize. =(

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/pipa-support-collapses-w...

  Support for PIPA is collapsing, as 13 new Senators withdrew support for it. It's looking very good! This isn't over yet, though but still, thank God! Here's hoping!

Did anyone see the blackouts that were put on yesterday by wikipedia and reddit? Pretty cool. Boooo SOPA and PIPA. I'm tired.

For anyone else who has had trouble finding the actual text of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261

I'm a cynic, but it's my personal opinion that the House and Senate are just going to wait until the public outcry on this issue has died down and then slip them through attached to some seemingly harmless public service legislation initiative right before a break in congressional session. It wouldn't be the first time.

It's already a bloodfest in the House of Congress. I hope the people that opposes SOPA inside multiplies. We need every support that we can get. 

http://www.infowars.com/sopa-and-pipa-fully-alive-and-a-new-bill-joins-t...

  I told you it wasn't over yet....Spread the word. Now.

Holy... why won't they stop? Do they really want to censor internet that bad?

the U.S. isn't a democracy to begin with; it's a republic.

That's where you're incorrect as well. It's a representative democracy. The US government took the best elements of both Greek democracy and Roman republicanism.

If it were only a republic, we  wouldn't have any control on those who represented what group, just that we were represented. If it were only a democracy, then all 312 billion of us would all have to drop what we're doing every time a new bill needed to be addressed.

 In short, yes.

  What you have to understand is that first of all, there are people who simply don't understand what these bills do, or what they can do. They don't. A lot of supporters are on board because they say 'Well, yeah, I believe that copyrights should be protected!' when they seem to be totally ignorant that there are already laws that protect copyrights online. We don't need anything futher like this. I'm still not sure why some people like this also think these measures will also somehow stop piracy, or 'severely hinder it,' or whatever. But again, it seems to largely be out of complete ignorance.

   Others still probably feel that,  because they feel they have something to protect, that this will empower them more, so they're on board for it. That's the trouble; yes, it will grant some copyright holders 'more power,' but it's power they don't need because they already have it. These bills just make it worse for everyone else. While a company has every obligation and right to look after itself and protect its property, again, this is just an unnecessary and wrong way to do it.

   And yes, I definitely believe there are some people out there who do want to have as much control as possible over what people do. Is that really so hard to believe? Opponents of these bills often point to what China does with its internet. Yes, definitely consider what China already does, as one example. Besides, people have always been like this since the beginning of civilization. That's nothing new, really. I think there are politicians who do want this for more power, because....politicians want power. What else is there to say?

   Remember though, supporters won't tell you it's 'censoring the internet' or about any such thing; it's about 'protecting IPs' and 'stopping piracy.' Just remember that, whether every single supporter intends for it or not, that's bullshit, and of course, it is censoring the internet, because it is about censoship. It is bothersome how many the bills' supporters simply do not care.

@Mr. K: I would have to take issue with your assertion that the US took the BEST elements of Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic. Imo the best elements are not represented in the American government. Selection of magistrates by lot, judging of legal cases by the demos, the limitation of the boule to the mere preparation of legislation, the graphe paranomon, 1 year term limits for political office were some of the best aspects of Athenian democracy that are not extant in the US political system. As for the Roman Republic, did you forget about the Tribunes of the Plebs? That gave the Romans control over who was representing what and who in a very real sense that is wholly missing in the American governmental system. The office was one of the longest lasting and greatest protectors of  Roman liberty. I wish we had Tribs of the People in the US today.  They could have busted into the Senate with their lictors and their great big fasces before they had a chance to pass Senate Bill 1867. That would have been awesome. Of course all 312 million of us dropping what we were doing everytime a new bill needed to be addressed would not have to be that big of a hassle. How often do they actually PASS any legislation in Congress? Switzerland manages to conduct plebiscites without any huge difficulty. I know they are smaller than the US, but I don't accept that our size is an insurmountable obstacle. It's not like we've ever TRIED to conduct a plebiscite and failed.  Put it on Twitter, and popular votes on new legislation would be trending inside a half an hour. For better or for worse.