*Written by Rob Rimes.

Today is a great day for liberty. As I write this it is January 18^th, 2012 and the Internet is ablaze with anger towards SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). Not only was The Swash down in protest of these dastardly bills but Internet giants Wikipedia and Reddit were down as well. Shit, even Google participated in this blackout with a unique graphic on their page that lead to information about these two horrible laws and what you can do to fight them.

I was more than ecstatic today when I signed into my Facebook account and was overwhelmed by all the people who blacked out their own photos and had status updates and links protesting SOPA and PIPA plastered all over the home page. The impact of this protest is literally reaching further than any other online protest I’ve ever witnessed or been a part of. In fact, in just a few short hours, the tide has turned and the pimps pushing this law are now starting to run like the two-faced pandering bastards they are. I guess when you shine a little light the cockroaches scatter.

One of my favorite punching bags, Marco Rubio – the Republican senator form my home state of Florida, was a co-sponsor on one of these evil bills but he has now come out against it. This is because Rubio is a dickbag, a panderer and a wolf in Tea Party clothing. This “noble” act doesn’t excuse the fact that he co-sponsored PIPA and was also a champion for the insanely tyrannical NDAA bill, which just passed recently. Don’t get excited and let Rubio fool you, when this dies down, he’ll help reintroduce the bill with a few modifications and continue on his fascist path.

Conservative darling Paul Ryan just wrote this status update on his Facebook:

The Internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House.

While that sounds all fine and dandy, Mr. Ryan doesn’t fully oppose the idea of the bill and chances are, if it was tweaked and the opposition towards it died down, he may just very well vote for it.

Senators Jim DeMint, Robert Menendez and others have come out against this tyranny. Another co-sponsor, Arizona congressman Ben Quayle has withdrawn his support. Freedom fighter and libertarian leaning Michigan congressman Justin Amash continues to speak out against this, as does Kentucky senator Rand Paul and his father, Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul.

The opposition to these bills has grown so quickly in the last several hours that six Republican senators wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The letter states:

We have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights.

For those of you who have been in the dark, I’ll break down what these bills are. In a nutshell, what they are supposed to do is to protect copyrighted material and eliminate piracy. What they actually do is a different story.

Basically, these bills give the entertainment industry the power to censor the Internet and breed a whole new type of crony capitalism while forcing us into a digital police state. You see, private corporations want to be able to choose what can and cannot be censored on the Internet. These corporations are trying to protect their property, which is understandable, and since the Internet is a bastion for downloading music and movies, they want to be able to tighten their grip and control how the whole system works. Considering that many of the sources for this copyrighted material exists outside of United States jurisdiction, these laws are being put in place to give the government and their corporate buddies an easier way at stopping copyright infringement. Again, that is understandable but the methods about doing this are just awful.

The first thing that this does is it gives the power to United States based ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to have special access at blocking infringing domain names. This also gives companies the power to sue websites, bloggers or whoever until they remove links or information directing Internet users to anything that they deem as infringed upon property.

Secondly, the government and their corporate pals would also be given the power to cut off funds to any websites that they believe are infringing on copyrights. Essentially, they can forcibly cancel infringing websites accounts with financial services and advertisers.

Now even though this all may seem somewhat proactive, one has to look at what actually constitutes copyright infringement. The description that they provide is so broad that if you technically upload a video to YouTube and there happens to be a piece of a song playing in the background, even if it’s just on the radio while you’re talking to the camera unaware of it, you have just infringed on copyrighted material and could face some serious penalties. This is just a small example but think of all the things you come across on the Internet on a daily basis that could technically be considered as copyright infringement. Violations are pretty much fucking everywhere! Hell, the whole Internet is a violation!

Besides all that, if there is a will there is a way. These laws won’t stop Internet users from finding music and movies to download illegally. In fact, even if a URL is blocked, an Internet user can still access the site via its IP address. Hell, this might start a revolution in web browsing and millions of digital pirates will be navigating the Net with IPs as opposed to typical URLs.

Another thing to mention is that these laws are incredibly bad for business. Essentially, they will cripple and stifle startups as corporations will have the power to sue any company that they feel isn’t properly protecting their interests. In a classic case of crony capitalism or corporatism, this allows the giants to stay on top, where they can look down and crush any growing company that may become a viable competitor for their business. Basically, these bills will create and perpetuate monopolies. When large corporations have the power to bankrupt new search engines and social networking sites, there really isn’t room for growth or innovation. We might as well just go back to the days of dark dingy uninspiring chat rooms.

The scariest thing that these laws will do is tamper with the Internet as a whole from the backend. By messing around with the Internet’s vast registry of domain names we could very well end up with a World Wide Web that is less stable and less secure. At the end of the day, these laws won’t stop piracy, as they claim and they will just create an environment for a new type of corporatism while leaving the Internet less secure and less reliable than it has ever been.

The Internet has already become a playground for government and corporate meddling. Hell, they already have laws in place to protect copyright infringement yet they want to push the envelope as far as they can. As of right now, the government and corporations already have the power to block any site just off of one infringing link. Social media giants like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and others are now forced to censor their users because if they don’t, they become liable for the material their users upload and could be forced to shut down. On top of that, an ordinary Internet user could already be sentenced to prison for up to five years just for posting any copyrighted material – this includes someone like Tay Zonday who became an Internet sensation for singing pop song covers.

This situation is incredibly fucked up and it is just one more battle in a long line or tyrannous laws that the government is trying to impose on us. Just add this ingredient to the same bowl of tyranny punch that already consists of the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, indefinite detention, Homeland Security, the TSA, previous Internet censorship, FEMA, etc. The list goes on and on and hopefully people’s distrust in government has grown to the point that all future legislation the tyrants bring forth will be scrutinized and passionately opposed as much as SOPA and PIPA.

In the end, we’ve got to chain these bastards’ feet to the grill and turn up the fire until they do what we say because frankly, that’s their damn job.

It’s on — at least partially: Reddit has announced that it will be going dark for 12 hours to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has said that he hopes to coordinate with the site so that Wikipedia does the same. Will other sites join in? Should we prepare for the Great Internet Strike of 2012?

Writing that it’s “not taking this action lightly,” Reddit announced on Tuesday that it will blackout its site on Wednesday, January 18 for 12 hours, starting at 8:00 a.m. Eastern time. During that period, the site’s content will be replaced with “a simple message about how the PIPA/SOPA legislation would shut down sites like reddit, link to resources to learn more, and suggest ways to take action.” The company will also run a live video stream of that day’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on Internet security, intellectual property and economic growth.

On the site’s blog, the Reddit team admitted that “We’re as addicted to reddit as the rest of you,” but explained that “We wouldn’t do this if we didn’t believe this legislation and the forces behind it were a serious threat to reddit and the Internet as we know it. Blacking out reddit is a hard choice, but we feel focusing on a day of action is the best way we can amplify the voice of the community.” The company admits that support for a blackout isn’t unanimous among the Reddit community and it’s asking for the community’s input as it decides what to do next.

(MORE: At the Top of Congress’ New Year Agenda? Regulate the Net)

If support isn’t unanimous within Reddit’s community, it’ll be interesting to see how things go for Wikipedia if that site follows suit. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales writes ”it would be great if we could act quickly to coordinate with Reddit,” thought adding the community needs a “thumbs up/thumbs down vote” on whether or not to participate, and “we don’t have the luxury of time that we usually have, in terms of negotiating with each other for weeks about what’s exactly the best possible thing to do.” I suspect the ratio of those in favor of a blackout to those opposed would be greater for a more activist site like Reddit than one that’s more mainstream (and let’s be honest, passive) like Wikipedia.

Something I appreciate about Reddit’s announcement is that they’ve factored in the importance of educating would-be visitors to the site about why they’ve decided to go dark, what SOPA is and why it’s so important. I can only assume Wikipedia would do the same thing, should the site community decide to go dark on the same day. After all, protests only work when people understand why they’re happening.

That said, now that we have a date for a potential shutdown, the question becomes “Who else will join in?” Google, Twitter and Facebook have all been rumored as contenders, in part because of comments made by NetCoalition’s Markham Erickson (when I asked, Google and Twitter declined to comment on their support for an Internet blackout). But with a real strike looming and despite attempts to push the issue onto agendas, support for this kind of action may be shifting in favor of alternative methods. Finding other ways to protest may be ineluctable — after all, we’re talking about the Internet’s most popular sites going dark for 24 hours.

Sure, there may be some disappointment that we’re not days from Temporary Internet Apocalypse To Prove a Point, but I suspect there’s relief as well. The idea of a multi-pronged attack on pro-SOPA arguments — of different flavors of activism and discussion for different people — feels like the more mature response on behalf of tech companies (who after all may not agree on what’s wrong with SOPA as it stands). Let Wikipedia close for the day and generate headlines, while others like Google and Facebook pursue alternative forms of protest that engage their respective audiences. In the end, the more people paying attention, the better.

MORE: SOPA: What if Google, Facebook and Twitter Went Offline in Protest?
Source: Tech Land.

My Two Cents: If you can’t see the hypocrisy and hilarity in this, you’re probably one of the protestors. Way to set an example guys! Deny the people who need it most while you bitch about how corporations must give you YOUR perceived entitlements. Just keep squawking to your YouTube account through your iPhone in your attempt to fight those capitalist pigs who have victimized you as you whine about the real homeless people who are actually hungry. End Two Cents.

*Taken from NY Post.

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday — because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from the Daily Caller.

The lemonade three are free.

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia dropped all charges Monday against three activists arrested in August for selling 10-cent cups of lemonade on the lawn of the Capitol building.

Will Duffield, Meg McLain and Kathryn Dill were arrested on Aug. 20 for selling the lemonade as part of National Lemonade Freedom Day — a nationwide protest formed in response to a recent rash of children’s lemonade stands being shut down by police.

Duffield, McLain and Dill pleaded not guilty on Oct. 4 to “sale of goods on U.S. Capitol grounds” — a crime that carries a maximum prison sentence of 180 days. Vending on the lawn of the Capitol is not allowed.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from the American Dream.

Are we witnessing the birth of another new political party in the United States?  The election of Barack Obama was the spark which fueled the rise of the Tea Party back in 2009, and since that time the Tea Party has become a major league force inside the Republican Party.  Now the Occupy Wall Street movement is rapidly becoming more organized and many believe that “The People’s Party” is going to be to the Democrats what the Tea Party is to the Republicans.  Others believe that “The People’s Party” could accomplish what a lot of organizations in the past have tried and failed to do – launch a third political party which could successfully break the stranglehold that the “two party system” has on American politics.  It would certainly not be an easy thing to do, but there can be no doubt that Occupy Wall Street is now a major political force in America.  The Occupy Wall Street movement has spread to 100 cities inside the United States and to nearly 1000 cities around the world.  Certainly as the weather gets colder the protests will die down, but there are an increasing number of signs that Occupy Wall Street is becoming very organized and that it plans to be a major political force for years to come.

To get an idea of what is going on around the world right now, just check out this video.  The Occupy Wall Street movement has become a lightning rod for the frustrations of millions of young people around the globe.  A number of these protests have been going on for weeks, and there are no signs that they will be ending any time soon.

So what do these protesters want and what is next for this movement?

CONTINUED..

My Two Cents: “I think that the Federal Reserve is the pet issue of libertarians that have the privilege to read and talk about that sort of thing.” Huh? WTF? End Two Cents.

*Taken from the Sydney Morning Herald.

U2 and its frontman Bono, known for their global poverty-fighting efforts, were accused of dodging taxes in Ireland by activists who crashed their performance at England’s Glastonbury festival.

The anti-capitalist group Art Uncut inflated a 6-metre balloon emblazoned with the message “U Pay Your Tax 2.” Security guards wrestled them to the ground before deflating the balloon and taking it away. About 30 people were involved in the angry clash.

Bono fan Gary Noble, 45, said he found the security response “all a bit shocking.”

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Yahoo News.

Albert Snyder has always sworn that he wasn’t doing it for the money. He wasn’t a waging a four-year legal battle against Westboro BaptistChurch, the Topeka, Kansas-based fringe group that stages protests at military funerals, for a cash settlement. Yes, he was seeking millions in damages, but his goal was to silence the group. Westboro believes that God is punishing troops for America’s tolerance of homosexuality, and has called upon the church to spread this message. So in March of 2006, seven Westboro protestors flew more than 1,000 miles to attend the funeral of Snyder’s son, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, 20, who had been killed in Iraq the week before. They hoisted revolting signs, which said things like “Thank God for 9/11″ and “You’re Going to Hell” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

Snyder said was fighting to protect other families, already coping with the tragedy of losing a loved one, from the pain that Westboro inflicted on him. Feeling that protestors ruined his son’s funeral, held in a Roman Catholic Church in Westminster, Md. Snyder got depressed. He could no longer drive his car for long stretches, alone with his thoughts, since Westboro’s words were drilled into his mind. “To me, what they did was just as bad, if not worse, than if they had taken a gun and shot me,” Snyder told TIME during a September interview. “At least the wound would have healed.”

But now, thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States, Snyder has lost more than the money he might have gotten in damages. He’s lost the bigger fight. Westboro will only get louder. His attempt to shield its targets fell short.

In a sweeping 8-1 victory for First Amendment fundamentalists, and for Westboro, the Supreme Court on March 2nd upheld Westboro’s right to picket a military funeral. The case, Snyder v. Phelps, was among the most charged on the Supreme Court docket last year, as Albert Snyder sought to recover the $5 million in damages awarded by a lower court jury, but overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: in this case, the First Amendment shields Westboro from the torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intrusion upon seclusion. (See “The Long, Sometimes Painful History of the First Amendement.”)

The decision shocked Snyder. “It’s easy for eight justices to sit up there and take away your privacy rights,” Snyder says in an interview, “when they’ll never have to worry about that. No one will get three, five, or 1,000 feet away from the funeral of anybody in their family. So it has no effect on them. It has no effect on the politicians, no effect on the celebrities. It has an effect on us, the everyday people. And now Westboro can pretty much do, and say, and act however they want. And there’s not a damn thing anybody can do.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the majority opinion, wrote: “whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern.” And in specific case, the judges determined, the words on Westboro’s signs indeed dealt with “matters of public import,” and are thus protected by the First Amendment. Signs like “America is Doomed” and “Fag Troops” and “Priests Rape Boys,” in the Court’s view, highlight issues like “the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy.” (Matthew Snyder was not gay.) (See TIME’s top 10 gratuitously provocative acts.)

In his arguments, Snyder asked the judges to examine the context of Westboro’s speech. The church was saying hateful things at a funeral for a young man who made the ultimate sacrifice, fighting for our country. Doesn’t common sense dictate that we make a free speech exception? Don’t let the nuisance near a funeral. But to the Court, content trumps context. “The fact that Westboro spoke in connection with a funeral … cannot by itself trump the nature of Westboro’s speech,” Roberts wrote. “Westboro’s signs, displayed on public land next to a public street, reflect that the fact that the church finds much to condemn in modern society.”

Due to the nature of Westboro’s protest, the Court also rejected Snyder’s “intrusion upon seclusion” claim. Snyder cited the “captive audience” doctrine in his arguments: since he had to attend his son’s funeral, which couldn’t just be picked up and moved somewhere else at the last minute, he could not avoid the Westboro protests. In Frisby v. Schultz, for example, the Supreme Court upheld an ordinance prohibiting picketing “before or about” an individual’s residence. Since you can’t just pick up and move, you’re a captive audience.(Comment on this story.)

In this instance, however, the Court notes that Westboro “stayed well away from the memorial service” – some 1,000 feet. When driving to the funeral, Snyder only saw the tops of the signs; only later, on a television broadcast, did he see the sinister speech. The protestors gathered lawfully, on a public area under police supervision, and did not interfere with the procession or service. Snyder may have been secluded at the funeral. But the Court insists that Westboro did not intrude. “We decline to expand the captive audience doctrine to the circumstances presented here,” Roberts wrote.

Snyder’s lone backer, Justice Samuel Alito, wrote a passionate dissent that accuses his colleagues of being plain mean. “Respondents’ outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered,” Alito wrote. He seems to be asking them: How can you sleep at night? “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner,” wrote Alito. “I therefore respectfully dissent.” Forgive us if we think another adverb is more fitting: angrily.

Any reasonable person, Alito opined, could interpret Westboro’s signs as personal attacks on a dead soldiers, rather than opinions about public issues. “God Hates Fags,” could have been viewed as a false attack on Snyder’s sexuality. “Moreover,” Alito wrote. “Since a church funeral is an event that naturally brings to mind thoughts about the afterlife, some of the respondents’ signs – e.g. “God Hates You” “Not Blessed Just Cursed” and “You’re Going to Hell” -would have likely been interpreted as referring to God’s judgment of the deceased.”

Roberts emphasized that the Court’s ruling was narrow. Since, at the time of the Snyder protest, Maryland law did not dictate the minimum distance funeral protestors must stand from the service, the court passed on evaluating the constitutionally of the 44 state statutes that have passed picketing restrictions.

And then there’s the wholly separate question of whether there are limits to free speece in cyberspace. About a month after his son’s death, Albert Snyder came across a posting, on Westboro’s website, which said that he and his ex-wife “raised [Matthew] for the devil.” After seeing this note, Snyder threw up, and cried for three hours. The lower court considered how this message impacted Al Snyder’s emotional state. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, did not factor this post into its decision, in part because “internet postings may raise distinct issues in this context.” Alito called this decision “strange.”

Though the majority opinion mostly avoided language with broad free speech implications, one section could set some precedence – and raises even more questions. Roberts wrote: “And even if a few of the signs-such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You” -were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.” So does that mean a protest group has license to carry one or two offensive signs that cause a person severe distress, as long as most of the other signs pertain to some public issue? And how do you define “overall thrust and dominant theme?” Can 70 percent of the signs be benign, and 30 percent offensive? Or is the split 80-20? How about 60-40?

Further, why should such a split matter? If you or a family member were verbally assaulted while in a vulnerable state, why would there be any comfort that most of the other signs were not directed at you? Why would that soften the blow? This passage clearly troubled Alito. The justice argues that even if you were to agree that most of Westboro’s signs were referring to issues of public import-and Alito stresses that he doesn’t-”I fail to see why actionable speech should be immunized simply because it is interspersed with speech that is protected. The First Amendment allows recovery for defamatory statements that are interspersed with nondefamatory statements on matters of public concern, and there is no good reason why respondents’ attack on Matthew Snyder and his family should be treated fairly.”

Westboro members boasting that the Supreme Court ruling will strengthen their cause. Margie Phelps, daughter of Westboro founder Fred Phelps, and the lawyer who argued the church’s case at the Supreme Court, vowed to “quadruple” funeral protestors. “It’s so impressive and amazing,” says Margie’s sister,Shirley Phelps-Roper, “that it compels us to go quicker. This nation’s destruction is imminent.” We shouldn’t be too fearful of these words. Westboro often talks a big game, then fails to show up at events. And according to Westboro, America’s destruction has been imminent for at least 20 years now.

Al Snyder, meanwhile, says he’s ready to move on. “It’s over,” he says. “I fought the fight.” Pushing forward won’t be easy. Especially since the Court’s decision arrived the day before the 5th anniversary of Matthew’s death. Snyder says he’ll spend more time with friends and family – “That’s been one thing I’ve neglected,” he says – and try to find closure with Matt. During these years of legal battles, Snyder never got to grieve. The legal loss will compound the sadness. “I’m just very disappointed in America today,” Snyder says. “You’ve got countries that won’t even let these people on their land [Britain banned Phelps from entering the UK for a protest], and we allow them to desecrate a Marine’s funeral. There’s something very wrong.

“We have other countries laughing at us right now.”