Proposed Internet bills are ‘censorship at its best’

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Enlarge

Enlarge

Enlarge

Craigslist went black for 24 hours last week, and Google censored out its name on their home page. Wikipedia took down its site entirely, along with hundreds of other Internet sites. These events were organized protest to the proposed SOPA bill, or Stop Internet Piracy Act. At first glance, you might think this bill is about laundry detergent or beauty products. Regular citizens may not know all the specifics of this proposed legislation, but one thing is certain: this enormous collection of radical regulations will be nearly impossible to officiate.

The guise of the bill is that it serves to protect U.S. consumers while online from committing or being victimized by copyright infringement and from purchasing counterfeit goods. The reality is that it will cripple e-commerce, limit our ability to procure information and goods online, and ultimately foster more foreign resentment toward American soil and citizens. It likely will cost billions to enforce while subsequently curtailing both income and spending in our great country. What’s another zero added on to the deficit, right?

The immediate question that comes to mind is “Who exactly is seeking this regulation?” There are two main proponents of this proposed legislation: the entertainment industry, attempting to protect its rights and royalties related to movies and music; and big pharmaceutical, ultimately trying to prevent U.S. citizens from seeking alternative access to high-cost medications and treatments outside of the U.S.

Although I have never personally ordered prescription drugs from Canada or videotaped a movie in a darkened theater just to stream it online, I am alarmed that powerful entities are pursuing dangerous legislation, at my expense, just to protect their own profit margins. Don’t be fooled into thinking that this is the government’s way of protecting the consumer. This is censorship at its best, and the implications that this bill carries with it are mind-boggling.

Any site that redirects you to another site, carries advertising of any sort that may potentially offer “restricted products or services,” or uses an image or sound that is otherwise copyright-protected will be off-limits. Sites that offer compiled information, such as Wikipedia and YouTube, will become dangerous territory. Newspapers that “invade privacy” and Internet-based shopping sites such as Etsy and Craigslist will fall under tight scrutiny, eventually ceasing to exist. The fallout will be astronomical. Can you imagine sitting at your computer in the privacy of your own home, shopping or on a social networking site, all the while worrying that you might end up paying a stiff penalty for accidentally visiting the wrong site or posting an image with a logo you don’t own?

I cannot argue that the Internet wouldn’t benefit from some rules and regulations. ISPs hosting portals that harbor illegal activity should be monitored and reprimanded. Sites that promote child pornography, prostitution and other illicit activities should be held accountable and punished to the full extent of the law. Parents should monitor the activities of their children online at all times. Businesses and individuals perpetrating Internet fraud should be penalized accordingly.

But don’t take away my freedom to shop, share and search online. Don’t shut down sites that have content I may find offensive; instead, encourage me to use my consumer power to simply shop elsewhere. I choose to voice my opinion through my loyalties and my dollars. If we as consumers find something offensive, we have the ability to boycott the individual or company. I never will be convinced that we need the government or any other entity to protect us in this regard on the Internet. Our freedoms lie in the balance.

We need to be personally responsible online, making the Internet both safer and more user-friendly. If it sounds too good to be true, chances are it is. If a site you visit has the Nike logo but is offering their products for half-price, it is likely a fraudulent or counterfeit business. If you can get Viagra shipped to you at home in large quantities, at a substantial discount with no prescription, think again! If a company needs you to cash their checks for them in order to pay you a portion of the money, something is amiss!

I exercise personal Internet censorship on a daily basis. It takes a lot of restraint not to respond to many of the ridiculous posts I see on Facebook. I delete hundreds of spam e-mails I receive throughout the day. I don’t sign up to receive Tweets from egotistical, ranting superstars, or anyone, for that fact! I don’t respond to all those charming young men (and women) who want to date me online. And I certainly don’t give out my banking or other personal information just because I have won yet another European lottery. Common sense is such a practical notion, and just think – if we employ it, we could save our government millions of unnecessary dollars.

The Protect IP Act is the Senate’s version of this legislation, and it will go to vote Jan. 24, despite the protest of six senators. By the time you are reading this, a preliminary decision already will have been reached. Let’s just hope it is one that corresponds with what our great country was built upon: liberty, freedom and justice for all.