I'm glad you stated that argument, because it's kind of what I suspect a lot of people think so it gives me something to attack ;). My specific concerns are:

I'm glad you stated that argument, because it's kind of what I suspect a lot of people think so it gives me something to attack ;). My specific concerns are: a. I think politicians can ignore something that "a majority of the Internet-using population" knows. As long as the "mainstream" media (i.e. television) chooses not to pick it up, the politicians won't be forced to answer for themselves. b. If there is opposition to SOPA, either the public media spin will be controlled by politicians announcing that the draft law has been modified "in response to" the concerns/opposition/protests, or "SOPA" will be defeated but the powers that want it passed will regroup and send it through again next year under a different name. c. If there's room to argue that Wikipedia is exaggerating the threat, then that is what will be publicly argued when this story breaks. This might not turn out so positively for Wikipedia (or negatively for SOPA): after all, which side has more experience and resources to put towards controlling the public debate? And that's before we consider the possibility that someone will seriously suggest that it would be better for Wikipedia to be censored. Don't read (b), in particular, as defeatism: I understand that this is a war and that we have to fight the current battle as well as future ones. I claim only that in the cost–benefit analysis, the utility of defeating this particular incarnation should not be approximated by the utility of being free from SOPA-like law for ever.