[UCIMC-Tech] [Imc-web] Q: should we blacken our homepage t in protest of SOPA tomorrow?

[Brian Dolinar]

I think it's a good idea. BD

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Danielle Chynoweth <chyn at ojctech.com>wrote:

> Should we black out our ucimc.org site tomorrow? Wikipedia, Reddit and
> many of our allies in media justice have already gone dark with messages
> about the dangers of SOPA. Thoughts? - Danielle
>  Momentum Builds Against SOPA and PIPA Tomorrow you might be wondering
> who turned out the lights. Don’t worry — it will simply be one of the
> biggest days in the history of the open Internet.
>
> Thousands of websites — including Wikipedia, reddit, BoingBoing,
> FreePress.net and SavetheInternet.com — will go dark<http://sopastrike.com/>to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA),
> bills in the House and Senate that could open the door to widespread
> censorship online.
>
> Meanwhile, hundreds of supporters of the open Internet will gather outside
> the Manhattan offices of New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten
> Gillibrand to urge them — both are sponsors of PIPA — to change course and
> oppose this legislation.
>
> Millions of Internet users have succeeded in slowing down the
> Hollywood-funded momentum of these bills. A House vote on SOPA has now been indefinitely
> postponed<http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found>.
> And the mainstream media, which had largely failed to cover<http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/12/01/17/blog/12/01/09/news-networks-sopa-blackout>what is arguably the biggest tech story of the year, are finally waking up.
> Last weekend, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes devoted an entire segment<http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/15/10161056-debating-sopa>to a debate on the legislation. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry
> Reid defended PIPA <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/> on *Meet the
> Press* last Sunday (hey, at least it got covered!).
>
> Just in time for tomorrow’s blackout, the White House has announced its
> opposition<https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition-tool/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet>to provisions in both bills that pose a threat to free speech. And even
> Google is altering its valuable homepage<http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57360223-261/google-will-protest-sopa-using-popular-home-page/>to include a note protesting SOPA and PIPA.
>
> A casual observer of all this activity — Wikipedia is really going dark?
> Google is really changing up its homepage? — might wonder what all the fuss
> is about. Here, in a nutshell, is why tech companies, individual Internet
> users, members of Congress and the White House have all expressed grave
> concerns about legislation that could usher in a new wave of online
> censorship.
>
> Supporters claim that SOPA and PIPA are the only way to effectively fight
> online piracy. But while the rights of content holders need to be
> protected, these bills are the wrong way to address this issue. If they are
> passed, corporations (with the help of the courts) will become the arbiters
> of what is and isn’t lawful online activity, with millions of Internet
> users swept in their nets as collateral damage.
>
> Both bills are said to target only foreign websites that are explicitly in
> the business of promoting copyright-infringing content. But they would do
> much to harm the global Internet<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech>,
> and a provision in both bills would allow tampering with the Internet’s
> technical infrastructure in a way that Internet engineers agree would harm
> online security<http://boingboing.net/2011/12/15/internet-engineers-to-congress.html>
> .
>
> Another provision would empower private companies to go after any website
> — lawful or otherwise — they accuse of infringing on their copyright. Those
> companies could work with service providers and financial institutions to
> shut off access to the potentially offending sites, with no repercussions
> at all if the accused site is later judged to be lawful. Meanwhile, a
> falsely accused site could go belly up from all of the legal fees needed to
> defend itself.
>
> Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?
>
>
>
>     --
> Josh Levy
> Internet Campaign Director
> Free Press :: www.freepress.net
> 413.585.1533 x208
> Twitter: @levjoy
> *
> reform media. transform democracy.*
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   If you wish to unsubscribe, please send a blank message with the
> subject "unsubscribe" to info at media-democracy.net
>   *MADCoList* | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/140611/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/140611/14630052-cc6ad710> |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=14630052&id_secret=14630052-a9eb9dbd>Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-Web mailing list
> IMC-Web at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web
>
>


-- 
Brian Dolinar, Ph.D.
303 W. Locust St.
Urbana, IL 61801
briandolinar at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/imc-tech/attachments/20120118/29fa5448/attachment.html>