A portion of the show focused on the power of the internet as a recourse for the dissatisfied consumer. Viral videos on YouTube, websites with evidentiary audio and video, and social media networks have provided positive results for consumers who had previously been successfully stonewalled through companies’ resolution channels.

So, if SOPA allows the arbitrary censorship of sites containing protected material, it may cross over to blocking sites containing videos that are used to complain about improper business practices – with the only out being parodies. That would give power back to businesses that currently are finding consumers speaking out on the net.

The kind of money he is anticipating making dwarfs what he is making in campaign contributions.

The Democratic challenger is Elaine Henderson http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Elaine_Henderson

I am unable to locate a website for donations to her campaign.

edit: I’ve contacted info@traviscountydemocrats.org for more information.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

A good example of the sloppy, and unnecessary nature of the document can be found in SEC.202 TRAFFICKING IN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS GOODS OR SERVICES.

Basically, this entire part of the document does not need to exist. It’s a rehash of Section 2320 of Title 18 (it even says so!), with the only major change being an added stipulation that someone who “intentionally imports, exports, or traffics in counterfeit drugs or intentionally participates in or knowingly aids drug counterfeiting,” is also to be considered under the new Section, and not under some other part of law. It’s basically a really vague rehash of a really clearly written law that even bothered to include the statement: “(f) Nothing in this section shall entitle the United States to bring a criminal cause of action under this section for the repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended to deceive or confuse.”

I recommend you read and compare both.

Here’s Title18, Sec. 2320
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00002320—-000-.html

I should probably mention at this point that big pharma seems to be heavily invested in the whole thing. Another section (105 IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES THAT ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH.) is written specifically to allow providers to cut off service to sites that are selling prescription drugs “sans prescription” or counterfeit drugs without repercussion. (I honestly hope this is an attempt by the FDA to control counterfeit drug manufacturing – although it should be written in to the original Title if that’s the case.)

The ultimate goal of H.R. 3261 seems to be to make a catchall that gives the Attorney General super powers when dealing with domestic and foreign Web issues. The laws that they want to enact are for the most part in some minor place, or should be dealt with as independent issues. They are not that simple!

If you want to see who the other interested parties are: check out SEC.106 GUIDELINES AND STUDY. That Section confirms that the Attorney General runs things, with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement studying who’s stealing from us to report it all back (on behalf of “the United States and other stakeholders”) within two years to the Register of Copyrights. This really is all about tightening the grip.

Basically the end-game for SOPA is to destroy the Internet as America knows it. Meanwhile, the IP-hoarding industries (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) are working on trying to manipulate the laws of sovereign nations to pass similar laws, so they can destroy the Internet there as well, since they know US law will largely be ignored for being out of jurisdiction.

Smith’s district was significantly altered in the 2003 Texas redistricting. While he lost most of the Hill Country to the 23rd District, he picked up a significant portion of Austin, including the area around the University of Texas, a traditional bastion of liberalism. Smith won re-election with 62% of the vote, Smith’s lowest winning percentage since his initial run in 1986.

Hello?  Austin?  C’mon, you guys can do better than this!

I like that; it completely ignores that *that’s not how language works.* Or reason.

Similarly, given “The following sentence is true. The preceeding sentence is false.” I cannot point to a single sentence that is obviously incorrect.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/how-wireless-mesh-networks-work.htm

Think about that…In a so-called FREE COUNTRY… you’ll have your house raided and get arrested for simply having a router in your home.

This isn’t a free country.  Tyrannical corporatists are running the show.

It’s time to destroy them with everything we got, Americans.