(This is just my opinion.) I would argue that a company that comes out against the SOPA does it more out of interest in having control over its content, what it

(This is just my opinion.) I would argue that a company that comes out against the SOPA does it more out of interest in having control over its content, what it does and not having a monopolistic third-party shut them down. They do it for survival of themselves first. I'm sure that most of them care about internet freedom (after all, companies are composed of people who have their own freedom of expression); and if it didn't affect them whatsoever, I'm sure that many companies would take a stand against the SOPA and we'd be in the same position as we are now. Of course, companies that have supported the bill have done so out of interest in having control of their 'material.' So we have two different points of view, one for and one against. However, both come from a need for control of content (some would call it greed, but that has negative connotations which I don't feel like addressing.) My comment that you replied to has nothing to do with companies supporting or not supporting the SOPA, for freedom or not, but rather that some politicians (see the ones who support the SOPA) see things from an individual standpoint: i.e., they support business freedom except when it interferes with either their supporters (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) or what they 'believe' in. In other words, they want their cake and they want to eat it too.