Shared publicly  - 
Glad to see that the fight against SOPA/PIPA is gaining traction, as individuals and companies are banding together to stop these flawed bills from passing in Congress. I'm happy to say that Wikipedia will join the protest with a black-out on Wednesday (I now work with Wikimedia Foundation as product manager). I hope this will lead to more sensible legislation, and keep the Internet free while opposing copyright infringement -- to serve the needs of all stakeholders, not just Hollywood studios.
Dan Gillmor originally shared:
Finally, journalists see the threat from SOPA and ProtectIP: the American Society of News Editors (UPDATE: corrected the name) has asked Congress to stop this runaway train. From its letter (link is a PDF):

ASNE condemns content piracy, regardless of medium. Our members consider their content to be their most valuable asset. Unauthorized use of this content has always been a problem; its impact has increased with the advent of the Internet and has certainly undercut the financial well-being of America’s news media.

However, our members use the Internet in ways that could be construed to violate SOPA, and that’s not acceptable. Whether utilizing content contributed by third parties, stepping outside the direct reporter-source interaction to acquire and use information from websites around the world, or augmenting our stories through the use of multimedia previously unavailable to print-only publications, ASNE members continue to change the way news is presented. We fear that SOPA will restrict our ability to engage in these activities and stifle our capacity to innovate when we most sorely need the freedom to do so.

Ultimately, however, it is our longstanding dedication to First Amendment rights that drives our opposition to SOPA. Navigating the balance between copyright and free speech demands precision, and in seeking to protect the interests of copyright holders, the First Amendment requires Congress to adopt the least restrictive intrusion on speech available.
SOPA fails this test. It allows individual copyright owners to effect the most onerous restriction on speech — the prior restraint — with little evidence and virtually no due process, utilizing vague and overbroad definitions in the process. While it is directed at “rogue” websites engaged in widespread piracy, the law carries the real potential to go well beyond that narrow target. Without endorsing them, we note that more narrowly tailored alternatives have already been proposed. Their existence calls into question the constitutionality of SOPA and suggests that this Committee must reject H.R. 3261 and continue to examine other, less restrictive alternatives that strike the right balance between preventing piracy and protecting free expression.
Add a comment...