3 ms·

SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle. When a law threatens the existence of your organization as we know it, what else are you sup

by bgentry 15y ago

SOPA is awful, but political neutrality is an important principle. When a law threatens the existence of your organization as we know it, what else are you supposed to do? Would you rather have: a) a completely politically neutral organization that has silently been neutered such that it cannot fulfill its mission b) a mostly politically neutral organization that only expresses political views when the issue directly impacts their ability to fulfill their mission The readers will be able to figure out the right position, for their own interests. I don't think the problem here is whether people would be able to make up their mind if they had all the facts. The problem is that this issue has not received enough media attention and as a result very few people are even aware of it, let alone aware of its repercussions. National media outlets certainly have a reason to avoid coverage of this issue since most of their parent companies support this legislation.

gojomo 15y ago
Some roles are not 'neutered' by their commitment to various standards of neutrality, but strengthened by it. Many journalistic organizations forbid their reporters from making political donations, or holding shares in companies on which they report. This is considered a good thing. Public defenders take on clients without regard to the heinousness of their alleged crimes or the attorney's personal opinions of the defendant. This is also considered a good thing. I don't think SOPA even in its worst form would actually 'neuter' Wikipedia. In particular, if the US government ever did censor Wikipedia with force of law, that would generate even more sympathy and uproar than a merely simulated blackout. And that might be the necessary test case to get the SOPA law struck down (by the courts) or repealed (by a later Congress). That is, I don't think you can be sure that dropping one principle (political neutrality) in a dramatic gesture now will be better for the stated goal (defeating legalized censorship) than just diligently continuing to be a principled, NPOV source of reliable information. Certain activists-by-temperament always want to politicize everything – "you're with us or against us, solidarity, unity, this issue is so important everyone must take sides!" But society can often be more robust against injustice and oppression when some key institutions zealously cherish their duties of neutrality, and stay above the dirty business of politics, without applying any self-interest calculations.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  It's funny. You hold a very positive view of the people of this country. I sincerely believe that if SOPA passes and Wikipedia is taken down* that American citizens will bend over and take it. They'll cry and be sad, but they. will. do. nothing. * Wikipedia probably won't go down. It's probably too big to fall. If a just looked at exactly what the law said and completely disregarded their reputation, they would take it down, but that probably won't happen. And, this is under the assumption that RIAA lawyers would even dare go against Wikipedia. If they think they're God, they might.

by bgentry 15y ago

gojomo 15y ago

Some roles are not 'neutered' by their commitment to various standards of neutrality, but strengthened by it. Many journalistic organizations forbid their reporters from making political donations, or holding shares in companies on which they report. This is considered a good thing. Public defenders take on clients without regard to the heinousness of their alleged crimes or the attorney's personal opinions of the defendant. This is also considered a good thing. I don't think SOPA even in its worst form would actually 'neuter' Wikipedia. In particular, if the US government ever did censor Wikipedia with force of law, that would generate even more sympathy and uproar than a merely simulated blackout. And that might be the necessary test case to get the SOPA law struck down (by the courts) or repealed (by a later Congress). That is, I don't think you can be sure that dropping one principle (political neutrality) in a dramatic gesture now will be better for the stated goal (defeating legalized censorship) than just diligently continuing to be a principled, NPOV source of reliable information. Certain activists-by-temperament always want to politicize everything – "you're with us or against us, solidarity, unity, this issue is so important everyone must take sides!" But society can often be more robust against injustice and oppression when some key institutions zealously cherish their duties of neutrality, and stay above the dirty business of politics, without applying any self-interest calculations.

sukuriant 15y ago
It's funny. You hold a very positive view of the people of this country. I sincerely believe that if SOPA passes and Wikipedia is taken down* that American citizens will bend over and take it. They'll cry and be sad, but they. will. do. nothing. * Wikipedia probably won't go down. It's probably too big to fall. If a just looked at exactly what the law said and completely disregarded their reputation, they would take it down, but that probably won't happen. And, this is under the assumption that RIAA lawyers would even dare go against Wikipedia. If they think they're God, they might.