There is an interesting meta-discussion here, that ought to take place. Is this "bullying"? Whether or not it is, is it a good thing to do? Honestly, I'm not su

There is an interesting meta-discussion here, that ought to take place. Is this "bullying"? Whether or not it is, is it a good thing to do? Honestly, I'm not sure. ---------- An argument in one direction: Say there is a bill before Congress that requires that I be shot. The manager of my grocery store announces that he supports it. I announce that I am no longer shopping at that grocery store. Am I being a bully? Is the situation with SOPA really qualitatively different? If you think that's a bit over-the-top, then tone it down a bit. The same argument can be made, rather straightforwardly, using any number of different scenarios. ---------- In the other direction, it gets more subtle: Law is complex. Pretty much everyone thinks there ought to be some copyright enforcement (e.g., if we don't enforce copyrights, then we don't enforce the GPL). Any enforcement is going to be detrimental to someone; we disagree on who that someone ought to be and what form the enforcement should take. Given that, do we really want to brand some company as "bad" because of one position on one bill, which, itself, is long and complicated, and hardly reducible to a bumper sticker? ---------- There is a school of thought that essentially says that no moral issue is resolvable, since we all have different ideas. I very much disagree with this school, and I don't like the fact that I might appear to be pushing it, above. But I honestly don't know how to respond to the ideas presented in the posting. I would welcome others' thoughts.