Would SOPA blacklist tobacco websites?

[Nachman]

There is a new law before Congress that would give the Feds the authority to block web sites they deemed bad. It is called SOPA. The stated goal is to stop piracy of intellectual property. If they pass it, how long will it be before they will block other "objectionable" sites like those that sell tobacco?

[Pale Horse]

The power grabs that have been made recently are disturbing. Read up on the NDAA 2012. Essentially we are only a couple blinks away from an authoritarian government.

[Tashaz]

A big stretch Nick but I agree, be wary! There is a motion to outlaw tobacco worldwide & I for one think that this in itself would be a travesty as it takes away the rights of the general populace to enjoy a legal product that indeed has been proven to have calmative effects. There is proof also that tobacco enjoyment leads to a more balanced population and it has very substantial benefits in regards to productivity & alertness, the anti smoking lobby choose to ignore these facts though. We talk about the slope re falling down it, maybe we need to get our cramps on & start climbing back out of this abyss that we have allowed ourselves to be slowly thrown in.

[szyzk]

Nick, without getting too technical and into too much detail, what SOPA is proposing is to essentially block "domain names" from sites they deem objectionable... So, while you couldn't go to "nicksfavoritetobaccostore.com" anymore - typing that in to your web browser would give you a big picture of a middle finger with the SOPA logo - the website itself wouldn't necessarily be shut down. You would still be able to access it via the website's IP address (for example, "111.11.1.1").

I assume that if things progressed to where retailers were being blocked, the retailers would be sending out mass emails to their customers with instructions on how to access their websites.

[REDROMMY]

Welcome to the People's Republic of China.

[Ducrider]

My understanding of the bill is that it allows law enforcement and owners of IP to seek court orders shutting down or blocking websites that facilitate IP infringement. Its a hammer against IP infringement, not a bill to censor objectionable content.

Not that I agree with it...

More info here:
How SOPA would affect you: FAQ | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

[Spyderturbo007]

Odd that you bring this up, because I ran across this the other day when I was going to watch some TV on my lunch break.

ChannelSurfing.net

Apparently it was seized by the Department of Homeland Security. Seriously?!? Seizure of a domain name for rebroadcasting TV shows by Homeland Security. You can't tell me they don't have better things to do.

[Arnie]

It's my understanding that while there is no specific language in the bill that speaks to censorship, there is plenty of grey area that would make it all to easy for the government to censor tobacco sites. But they wouldn't do that, would they??? I mean, tobacco is legal isn't it? They wouldn't ban smoking would they?

Seems as if it is Hollywood and the music industry that is behind this in a big way. It is way too vague and gives the federal government yet more power.

Anyone remember in 2008 when Hillary said that the internet needs a gatekeeper? Well, this might be it.

PJ Media » SOPA and PROTECT-IP: A Line-By-Line Analysis of the Bills We Must Kill

[Engineer99]

SOPA would never stand up in court. If it indeed does go through, expect a firestorm of lawsuits, since there is no way this is constitutional. These legislators have a knack for being excessively myopic and have no idea what effect this will have on our "free" society.

[HugSeal]

Good news: SOPA is"put on a shelf"
Bad news: From my understanding what will happen is that therewill be a vote regarding a revised version.

Political Animal - Putting SOPA on a shelf

[Arnie]

SOPA would never stand up in court. If it indeed does go through, expect a firestorm of lawsuits, since there is no way this is constitutional. These legislators have a knack for being excessively myopic and have no idea what effect this will have on our "free" society.

I agree, except that the constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. I wouldn't put it past them to find some legal reasoning to say it is just fine.

[Null]

Nick, without getting too technical and into too much detail, what SOPA is proposing is to essentially block "domain names" from sites they deem objectionable... So, while you couldn't go to "nicksfavoritetobaccostore.com" anymore - typing that in to your web browser would give you a big picture of a middle finger with the SOPA logo - the website itself wouldn't necessarily be shut down. You would still be able to access it via the website's IP address (for example, "111.11.1.1").

I assume that if things progressed to where retailers were being blocked, the retailers would be sending out mass emails to their customers with instructions on how to access their websites.

According to this article on CNET, the RIAA claims it can be used to block IP addresses.

Cary Sherman, the head of the Recording Industry Association of America, wrote in a guest column for CNET that SOPA could be used to force Internet providers to block by "Internet Protocol [IP] address" and deny "access to only the illegal part of the site." The RIAA, along with the Motion Picture Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, strongly supports the legislation.

[TommyTree]

SOPA's dead in the water right now, but it's "sister" bill, PIPA would do roughly the same thing. The law is meant, basically, from going to torrent sites where they can download movies and music for free. (The poor movie industry is one of the few industries that grew throughout the recession, and the music industry is just trying to distract people from the fact that their deal with Ticketmaster ruined their primary source of revenue, concerts. I wonder if they really want this to pass, because they'll have to actually accept reality once there's no boogieman to blame.)

The problem isn't really SOPA or PIPA themselves. It's what can be done after the fact. To my knowledge, there's nothing that specifically permits or prohibits the government's use against anything but torrent sites, but, as we saw with the Patriot Act, it doesn't take all that much to change the intent of a law or the entire law with the uninformed consent of a legislature that would likely otherwise have objected. That's a lot of words to say that what our leaders want to do with a law is almost never what they say they want to do with it.

[Just1ce]

You give them an inch, and they keep on taking inches. Big brother is watching you.

[jdfutureman]

Welcome to the People's Republic of China.

Will, nuff said. We can talk about what it does or doesn't do until we're blue in the face. Bottom line is they don't care about no stinking laws and if they want to do it they will.