As far as all the whining about “censorship” goes, tell me this: How exactly is SOPA censorship? I posted a couple days ago about how there’s a broad and a narrow defintion of censorship. Not sure if you saw it.

We all saw, and the example was just as flawed then as it is now.

Basically, my argument is that SOPA is not about censorship in the narrow sense, which is how I think most people use the term. Censorship under this view is when the government regulates the subject matter or the viewpoint being expressed. For example, government regulation of what people say about same-sex marriage would be censorship–the bad kind of censorship that China has…

Let’s get one point out right off the bat… this narrow vs broad definition argument you are using is yours alone. This is not a commonly acknowledged distinction, so please do not try to present this as something that everyone knows and that Mike is (insert whatever insult you’re slinging today here). Censorship means the government restricting/ceasing speech, and that is THE definition. SOPA is censorship by the actual definition no matter how you’d like to narrow YOUR definition to suit your argument.

Not that we’ve gotten that point clear, let’s address your actual example. You are saying that there is a difference between “broad” and “narrow” censorship. You use the example of a city noise ordinance law as a form of censorship in that it prohibits you from saying that which you would otherwise be able to say unless its decibel level remains within a predetermined threshold. I would disagree with you that this is censorship because it does not restrict what you can say, only how loudly you can say it. You can stand on your soapbox and say all of the positive or negative things about same-sex marriage that you would like, and as long as you don’t violate other laws (not pertaining to the content of speech) no one can stop this speech. Censorship is the restraint of speech and city ordinance laws do not retrain what you can say. They may place restraint on how and when you can say it, but not on the content itself. Essentially your example is not accurate to the situation.

To be clear, censorship is a restraint on speech… and to say it simpler, it is the government saying WHAT you can or cannot say. Laws that potentially effect how, when, or where you can say something are not a true restraint on speech as they do not limit the speech themselves. Dajaz1.com is perfect example of actual censorship. The entire site was removed from the internet for a year with restraint on tons of legitimate and protected speech. This is the true face of censorship that we are worried about with SOPA and past events have shown that the government is willing to do it.

I really don’t follow your distinction between this “broad” and “narrow” definition of yours, and your soapbox/noise ordinance example certainly does not support this example. Maybe if you would define censorship in general, I’d have better understanding of this distinction. The common definition of censorship put in layman’s terms is when the government removes or blocks speech from the public. Your soapbox example doesn’t address the restraint of speech. As I stated above, the noise ordinance does not place any restraint on the speech as it is totally agnostic to the content. Simply put, it says that no speech may occur above this decibel level after that hour of the day. Comparing this example to Mike’s opinion that SOPA (which does have the ability to retrain speech) is censorship (whether you want to use your “broad” or “narrow” distinction is fallacious and a false comparison. SOPA has the ability to remove speech and that meets any definition of censorship that you can come up with… PERIOD. Abrahams himself admitted that SOPA WILL result in first amendment violations, he just didn’t care about those instances (most likely because he was being paid not to care IMHO).