Chris Hayes's introduction was excellent. The guy Alexis was up against is assine. He stuck to his talking points, as instructed, which many are blatantly inco

Chris Hayes's introduction was excellent. The guy Alexis was up against is assine. He stuck to his talking points, as instructed, which many are blatantly incorrect, but were portrayed in a way that joe public is able to understand and get behind. During these kinds of talks, I'd like to see Alexis point out more how this is censorship in it's highest form, and list the reasons/examples why. Impassioned approaches are great, but the moment you step on the big stage you have to become cold blooded and go for the jugular. A big part of what I like about Alexis is that he's not that kind of guy. However, if he's going to be representing us in this fight then he needs to arm himself with the same drivel and talking points that his opponents have. Otherwise, he himself is just a tool to help drive home the point of the SOPA-PROS. It's because of the capricious nature of this bill that we are left with the prospects that this could be used as a method to squash speech deemed undesired by those with the power to control it. Pointing out a hypothetical case where someone in an elevated position, like Rupert Murdock, could have had (online/third party) magazines, who were reporting on their recent phone tapping scandal, shutdown for any number of reasons would be a perfect example. Many of us agree that piracy is primarily a service problem. The fact that Netflix makes up over 30% of the United States nightly internet traffic is proof. That's a whole lot of bandwidth that people are using because of the convenience. However, this can't be the only argument we make to say why this is poison legislation. That said, I'd also like to have the talk that this legislation is still easily circumvented not even mentioned. It's worth noting, but once again it can't be a talking point as to why this legislation is bad.