Thanks (albeit I must say I dislike talking-head video speeches like the first link. It would be so much easier and faster for me to just read the speech as text.).

I think In Finland we already have a list managed by the police that ISPs here can use "voluntarily" in order to fight "child porn", ie. the list is supposed to consist of sites which our dear police thinks includes child porn, and the ISPs can block those sites.

Naturally no one else besides the police (and ISPs) can see what sites have ended up on that list (other than trial and error), and like one would expect, some sites which have nothing to do with child pornography have ended up in that list, e.g. some Thai royal family web site, the Finnish site which was criticizing that list, etc.

It is not far-fetched to think that the next step would be to include any copyright infrigement sites on the same list, maybe sites with "hate speech" (against the government?) etc. The good old proverb about giving your little finger to the devil, and he takes the whole arm.

Anyways, many have pointed out that it is quite simple to circumvent that list (use an anonymous proxy server which is based outside Finland), and I think in the end the ISPs here have made it optional for their customers to decide whether they want to activate the filter list or not. Maybe someone else here knows the current situation better.

There definitely is push among even Western governments to try to enchain the free-roaming beast known as Internet. Even the news papers seem to hate internet because it lets people to voice their opinions and share information without channeling it through the news papers; the news papers have lots of articles on how "free Internet" is the haven for hate-speech sites etc.

So it’s another badly worded bill that could potentially even make a sidewards glance at copyrighted material a criminal offense? And something about a company’s having many powers to take down a website if they see fit. So youtube, google or indeed anything that allows uploads or hosts certain material could be seriously fucked. And the worst part is it would have a real tangible effect on those outside of the US who have near enough no say on this.

:|

If the government wants it passed, it will be passed, whether people complain, protest, or sign petitions. Sad but true

In this case though there are even powerful parts of the government that don't want it passed - for instance those in the House subcommittee in charge of cybersecurity are apparently unhappy because SOPA goes counter to their efforts of making the internet more secure from hackers and cybercrime.

If it does pass hopefully either the Supreme Court will strike it down as well or Obama will veto it, assuming that the checks and balances designed into the system still works. For those that don't know, the way the US Government was set up is that each of the three branches of government has a special set of powers to override and supersede the other. This is supposed to keep the integrity of the system in check by setting the branches against one another. About.com has a good article covering the basics of this: http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/checks_balances.htm

Although, I don't have much faith in the integrity of the system judging by the how far that monstrosity got as far as it is, among other things...