SOPA and PIPA vs. The World

It is likely that anybody who used the Internet on January 18^th found they were unable to access numerous websites, most notably Wikipedia, which “blacked out” in protest of proposed legislation being pushed through both houses of Congress.

These bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) are intended to protect the copyrights of corporate companies from Internet piracy. However, the bill has received strong opposition from citizens, claiming that the bills border on censorship and infringe upon the first amendment right of free speech.

This may lead one to wonder what the bills would actually do that could possibly be that detrimental to the freedom of Americans. SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department the ability to block access and funding to any site that “enables or facilitates” copyright infringement. This is aimed at non-American websites, but also leaves the possibility of shutting down American websites as well.

This may seem like a logical thing to do, after all, piracy is a problem. And what better way to eliminate the problem than by removing access to it completely? The argument above indicates how word-choice can appeal to the logos of citizens and make SOPA and PIPA an appealing tool.

However, opponents of the bill point out that the wording of SOPA and PIPA are so vague, that it could lead to uncertainty of the fates of sites like YouTube. How could this be? Well, YouTube allows its members to upload their own content onto the site. If the content in a video contains copyrighted material, then the government would have the right under SOPA and PIPA to block access and advertising to YouTube. This is unlikely, as YouTube is an internet staple, though it could easily destroy an upcoming company before it can become successful.

Opposing arguments to SOPA and PIPA also use numerous rhetorical choices to make its point. First, the arguments appeal to the pathos and ethos of citizens. They appeal to pathos by enraging citizens by informing them that the government is attempting to spread its power beyond its means, an issue that has been a hot button topic as of late. Also, this is done by comparing America to places that have media censorship, like China.

They appeal to ethos by asking citizens if it is morally right for the government to take away a forum for expression just because a company doesn’t want to lose money. In these hard economic times, “exposing” greed is one of the easiest ways to destroy the moral image of a person (or thing), which is exactly what has occurred to SOPA and PIPA.

To continue the protests, websites that shut down encouraged citizens to call their representatives and tell them to vote “no” on both acts. Somewhat surprisingly, many members of Congress valued the opinions of the citizens in this debate, and have decided to vote no on both SOPA and PIPA.

This highlights a major point of rhetorical thinking in debate. In Greek and Roman debates, opinion was held in high regard during arguments. This has dwindled over the years, and opinion is rarely accepted as a valid argument (as compared to facts). However, opponents of the bill do not have factual evidence that the bills will cause citizens rights to be impeded upon. Rather, it is their opinion that the government will abuse their power if the bills are passed. By listening to the opponents, and voting against the bills, many in Congress are approaching the SOPA debate in a manner that better resembles the thinking of the Greeks and Romans.