Not so very long ago, in the evenings, people who actually had leisure time and weren't still busy caring for the livestock or making quilts talked to one another, or read, or gathered around the piano and sang together. Today we have television. It's a given. 

Those among you who have dared to banish TV from your homes are rare, and your children are undoubtedly still exposed to it in other people's homes. So that's where we start: Television is a part of our children's lives and that isn't going to change, as fearful as we become sometimes when we read about how our kids are going to become overweight, stupid and violent from watching it.

What we can change are our attitudes and our vigilance. While TV may seem an overwhelmingly seductive and dangerous presence, television isn't in control here, we are. We don't let our children go to bed whenever they please, or play with whomever and wherever they please; turning on the TV doesn't mean we're abandoning them to watch whatever appears on the screen for as long as they please. And we needn't become desensitized to the sex and violence that television dispenses and fail to recognize how it might affect our young children.

I’m sure you’ve heard by now that SOPA is bad and would ruin the Internet, but have you actually read the bill? If not, it’s worth reading, for two reasons. First, if you are going to oppose a bill, you should know exactly what you’re opposing, not just the vague principle behind it. Second, it’ll provide you with a valuable insight: that these bills are written in an attempt to obscure the truth.

First off, I’m going to qualify that I’m not a lawyer. However, I am a programmer, and that’s made me pretty good at unraveling spaghetti code. If ever a bill was spaghetti, this is it. If a programmer on my team wrote code as convoluted as this bill, I would fire him on the spot. That being said, there may be provisions I’m wrong about; if there are, please do correct me. My intent is to communicate the truth of this bill as cleanly as possible.

Here is the full text of the bill, as of Jan. 15, 2012. Open a copy, because I’ll be referring to it. It helps to click the “Printer Friendly” link to access a single-page view of the bill.

The Scalpel

Section 102(a)(2) permits the attorney general to take action against foreign sites (i.e., sites that do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction) if “the owner or operator of such Internet site is facilitating the commission of [copyright infringement].”

We’ll expand on this further down, but the really scary thing here is that there isn’t any qualification that the site be solely for the purpose of theft, only that it facilitate it. Since copyright violation is ridiculously easy, any site with a comment box or picture upload form is potentially infringing. Furthermore, DMCA Safe Harbor provisions are no defense. You, as a site operator, become liable for copyright infringement committed by your users, even if you comply with DMCA takedown requests.

This isn’t quite as bad as the rest of the bill because the power lies with the attorney general, rather than the copyright holder. But it’s not good, either. The language is so broad that it could be wielded against most any foreign site the AG chooses to target.

If the AG chooses to take action against a site (either against the operator, if they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or against the site itself if no one under U.S. jurisdiction can be found), then a subsequent court order would require the following:

• Internet service providers will be required to block your access to the site (section 102(c)(2)(A)(i)) within five days.
• Search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.) will be forced to remove all references to the offending sites from their indexes (section 102(c)(2)(B)).
• Ad providers (Google AdSense, Federated Media, etc.) will be required to stop providing ad service to the site.
• Payment providers (PayPal, Visa, etc.) will be required to terminate service to the site.

Effectively, this bill gives the attorney general the power to fully censor foreign sites that the government does not have jurisdiction to take down directly. The most immediate example is WikiLeaks — under such an order, your ISP would be forced to block your access to Wikileaks. Once the technical means to do this are in place, then it becomes very easy for this power to be extended.