Wow. I hate SOPA. But I'm sorry, you are so wrong about some of your Constitutional reading. I'll ignore the remarks about economic disruption because of regula

Wow. I hate SOPA. But I'm sorry, you are so wrong about some of your Constitutional reading. I'll ignore the remarks about economic disruption because of regulation because they seem to veer a bit too far from the topic at hand. “Regulation of the internet, or communications of any kind, is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government. This means that when the federal government does this, it is doing it without authorization.” What? In what universe could the Internet NOT be considered interstate commerce? Or international commerce? It is both! There is no argument whatsoever that you can make that says it is not Constitutional for Congress to pass laws about the Internet, especially piracy, which is the very essence of interstate and international commerce. “Further, the Bill of Rights forbids congress from engaging in censorship. SOPA clearly authorizes censorship so they're also in violation of the Bill of Rights.” Unfortunately, this isn't as straightforward as you make it seem. The Constitution doesn't just say you can't limit speech. There are years of jurisprudence and years of common law precedent that form the true vision of what the First Amendment means today. The fact that you can't falsely yell fire in a theater is a typical example. And there are even other parts of the Constitution—including the right to pass laws to protect “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. All of these temper the First Amendment, as the First Amendment tempers them. You can't just ignore them because you disagree with a law. Thus, while I think SOPA is a terrible, terrible law, and that its implementation would be catastrophic to the very progress that the Congress is claiming to promote, I don't know that it is unconstitutional, if they truly believe (as some may well do) that it will promote this progress. To ignore this gray area dilutes one's argument to the point of being inconsequential in a true debate about this horrible piece of legislation. “I think that the only possible solution is a technological one. I think that the only way to to fight them is with technology and disobedience to the very idea that they have the right to restrain speech or control the internet.” I agree that disobedience is a solution. Indeed, it is and has always been the ultimate and only solution when the government ignores and harms its people. "Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." Thus the irony that groups have never successfully lived without one for any measurable period of time. Government is another word for hierarchy. We may be approaching a time when we can break free of hierarchy, but I do not think we are there yet.