Rising protests against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) may have put a halt on this House Bill and its Senate counterpart, Protect IP Act (PIPA), for now, but these acts are a step backwards from traditional American values.
In a press release issued by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary on Jan. 20, SOPA creator Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), said the Senate’s decision to postpone the consideration of legislation was due to the response by public outcry and concern. “I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy,” Smith said in the press release. “It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.”
Smith, who also serves as House Judiciary Committee chair, according to Gizmodo, a technology-related weblog, introduced SOPA on Oct. 26, 2011. In a nutshell, the purpose of SOPA and PIPA is to combat and put an end to online piracy, however, the bills are so complex that it violates American rights, especially the First Amendment. Gizmodo reported that under SOPA, “intellectual property owners,” such as record studios, have the authority to shut down websites against “whom they have a copyright claim.” An intellectual property owner can make a request that Google remove a website that hosts content illegally, or it can go as extreme as pulling the plug on that website’s finances. Such is the case with Megaupload. The website, a popular file-hosting service, was forced to shut down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Jan. 19. In an article from The Huffington Post, Megaupload founder Kim Schmitz was arrested the day after for facilitating millions of illegal downloads of content like films and music, which cost copyright holders at least $500 million in lost revenue. SOPA can cause a major problem in the fact that Internet users would face more censorship when posting things online. For example, Gizmodo said should the bill pass, users who frequent social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and WordPress will be restricted to post certain kinds of content. Even a YouTube video could violate SOPA.
The idea is that the government will have the authority to shut down any website that contains user-contributed information. Rather than targeting the individual with illegal content, the government would censor the website itself.
This provision is a violation of the First Amendment, which protects a U.S. citizen’s right to free speech.
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales said to CNN that SOPA can have a negative impact on the online encyclopedia website. Wikipedia, which allows users to contribute and update entries, would not be allowed to even mention piracy websites. Wales said that this version of SOPA becomes problematic for the website.
“In the worst versions of the bill, Wikipedia would be defined as a search engine and we would not be able to even link to something like the Pirate Bay (an illegal torrent site) even in our encyclopedic description of what Pirate Bay is,” he said. “I think that’s a real problem. That raises really serious First Amendment issues.” To make a statement against the passing of SOPA, Wikpedia, along with several other websites, participated in a worldwide blackout. All of Wikpedia’s content was unavailable for viewing on Jan. 18. CNN reported other websites have gone dark too, such as tech blog Boing Boing and GOOD, which is known for its commentary on culture and society. Google also opposed SOPA and had a black bar on its logo on Jan. 18. In addition, the search engine website launched its “End Piracy, Not Liberty” petition, which amassed 4.5 million signatures, said the Los Angeles Times. CNN reported in addition to Google, AOL, eBay, Facebook, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Twitter, Yahoo! and Zynga have sent in a formal complaint to key House and Senate leaders.
These companies wrote in a joint letter that they support cracking down on piracy, “… the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities (and) mandates that would require monitoring of web sites.” While piracy is a growing problem, putting a halt on it through censorship has many disadvantages. The bill should be changed so that rather than punishing distributors of the information, those who are doing the illegal act of piracy should receive consequences.
Under the First Amendment, U.S. citizens have the right to free speech and freedom of the press, among others. Congress should not have to take away one of our rights to solve a problem.
The view we take is written by the editors of the Kapi‘o. We welcome all responces to this subject. Email “Letter to the Editor” at kapio@hawaii.edu