2/20/2012
Irving, Tx

Grecia
Bradley/Nimitz High School
Honestly, I think the bills to stop internet piracy is foolish and not the correct way to try and solve the problem. the only thing these bills would accomplish is anger and even more rebellion from the people affected by these bills, which is everybody. I am aware that piracy is a huge issue that does need to be resolved, but by punishing illegal actions of users, it would only cause users to find even more secretive ways to illegally do things online. In a way, these restrictions would certainly violate the First Amendment because people would lose the privilege to exercise their right to say whatever they want, and express their opinions. I did come across some blacked-out websites and I was very annoyed and irritated. I couldn't see a thing, I use Google for almost everything when it comes to searching anything I need, when I saw how it was taken away for that day, I found myself having a difficult time finding anything I needed to complete assignments, or just search for anything I needed to know. I think it would be a great mistake to try PIPA and SOPA, it won't completely stop every piracy going on online.

---

2/20/2012
Irving/Texas

Michael U
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the bills to stop internet piracy was a bad idea. The bills were proposed to tackle online piracy, specifically on websites where the people who use them control their content. Yes the website should be punished for the illegal actions for their users. The Internet is one of the extremely efficient tools that people use to get there jobs, work, writing ,done on time.. It also helps us communicate which each other learn and so much more. Sorry to say these.. although some users don't use the internet to learn, all do there school work. I still think that the bill to stop the internet piracy was a bad idea, because those users who use it for something else, are cheating or doing themselves. In Real life internet helps our work more easier.. Example: If you were giving an assignment to do a research for someone, you are allowed to use the internet to find some information about him or her. Just make sure that you put the website that you got the formations on, so that you won't be cheating. Websites should have more secure locks on them so people can't copy and paste or take pictures from the site without permission. I'm not sure if there can be a compromise between the anti-piracy side and the anti-censorship side. I came across Wikipedia and I clicked on the link and it said that the website was down for the day. Which means you can use it, and will not open.

---

2/20/2012
Irving/Texas

Melissa
Bradley/Nimitz
Even though I am the last person to ever illegally download music or movies, I am against PIPA and SOPA. I think it's ridiculous to ban certain websites because certain people use them for the wrong reasons. I agree wholeheartedly that piracy is terrible and people should actually pay for things, but those laws are just not the way to go. There's other ways that these things can be handled. Shutting down entire sites that are actually helpful will just upset people even more. I'm sure I'm not the only one who still goes out and buys actual copies of movies or music. I don't think there will ever be a compromise between the websites and the laws. I know it seems bad, but even if they did shut down those websites, people will still find a way to distribute things to others. The only website that I noticed was Wikipedia. I was aware of what was going on prior to it actually happening and I just wanted to see if it was really shut down.

---

2/19/2012
Irving/Texas

Lauren
Bradley/Nimitz
These proposed bills address the relevant, prominent issue of internet piracy that threatens individuals' property. The problem is that they address it incorrectly. SOPA and PIPA cannot expect to gain support by threatening to punish websites for the content that their users post. For example, the makers of Wikipedia hoped to share information with the world by allowing others to help update information. It is well know that anyone may edit a page and, therefore, there are chances that someone may abuse that right. In this case, it would be wise for their inappropriate or illegal work be taken down and that user punished, but the government cannot extend their power to punish Wikipedia as well. I don't really even think the First amendment applies here because that user is breaking the law by posting illegal content or illegally sharing media that belongs to someone else. It's hard to believe that there is no solution to this disagreement. I think it would still be wise to address piracy but it is necessary to work with websites, not against them.

---

2/17/2012
Irving/Texas

Yasmin
Bradley/Nimitz
I do agree that online piracy is not right and that it should come to an end, but the way the government is handling it, this problem won't be solved as fast as the government is wanting to. SOPA and PIPA are proposing to punish a certain website if there were to be one repercussion in that certain website. But that wouldn't be efficient, just because one person is a part of online piracy it doesn't mean everybody using that certain website should be punished for online piracy. If SOPA and PIPA are decided to be tweaked then maybe they could have an affect on the online piracy problems.

---

2/11/2012
Irving/TX

Dalena
Bradley/Nimitz
I quite honestly believe that the bills to stop internet piracy is completely ridiculous and unconstitutional for it violates our First Amendment rights. The internet is an extremely efficient tool that we have in our society today. The internet helps us communicate, learn, shop, work, and so much more. Websites shouldn’t be punished for what some users do on these websites because these websites have no control over their users’ actions. I personally came across a few websites that were temporarily shut down by this and I was pretty annoyed. A good example of how we should compromise is if one wants to upload a mp3, it should be allowed. However, it should be pended as to whether that mp3 will be uploaded or not, and during the user’s wait, the mp3 could be reviewed to either allow or deny the user the right to upload that mp3.

---

2/10/2012
Irving, TX

Jocelyn
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that the fact that they want to pass bills against piracy is a great idea, but I believe that they haven't looked at all of the options. You can't make the website owner be punished for something that a user did because that is an action that is completely out of their hands. It is up to the user to decide what to publicize on the website. The best thing that should happen to websites like Wikipedia should be to have a general monitor that will approve changes and additions to their informational web pages. If SOPA and PIPA are passed then it would most definitely violate the first amendment which states freedom of speech, and press.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/California

Jeremy
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
As an avid user of the internet, I feel that there are quite a few boundaries being crossed by these bills. I have read up quite a bit of information concerning SOPA and PIPA, and it begs me to say, "What is this country turning into?" The bills would employ the same censorship programming that China uses to filter out information from the outside world so it is "safe to view" for their people, so as far as I see it, that is just one more step we're taking away from our civil liberties as American Citizens. Do I think that the government will try and filter the media and "brainwash" the whole of America? No, I don't. But I sure think there is a better way of handling the problem of piracy online than to simply censor the internet. Also, punishing websites for the illegal actions of their users is just ridiculous as well. That would force every website to try and filter everything submitted to be posted, and for high-volume sites like Tumblr or Facebook, that would require trained people to individually sift through thousands upon thousands of posts every hour. That would either slow the sites to a crawl, or require the employment of thousands to do it. As far as violating the First Amendment, it is much more debatable. Although the First Amendment guarantees the ability to "speak freely," using the internet to infringe copyrights isn't really speaking. There isn't much compromise between the two sides, so I feel it is unlikely that a good resolution will ever arise, and there will always be a conflict over the subject.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville, CA

Rebecca
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
I believe that Americans strongly value their First Amendment rights, and will do almost anything to protect them - especially Americans on the Internet. I agree with the majority response to these bills, that they are a violation of First Amendment rights and are doomed to fail just by their nature. Punishing a website for posts by its users is ridiculous. In fact, most websites have in their EULA that when you create an account, you make an agreement to not illegally share copyrighted material. Naturally, many users violate this agreement, and most websites have moderators who surf the site and crack down on copyright violations, removing user content that violates the site's EULA policies (and the law). SOPA and PIPA were unnecessary privacy violations when you think of this aspect of the Internet. Then you get to the other end of the spectrum - the perspectives of the creative minds who produced the pirated material on so many sites. Some, like Minecraft's Markus Persson, or "Notch," actually encourage users to pirate their material, and to pay for it later if they decide they like it. Other artists see Internet piracy as the monster that is siphoning away the royalties they earned. SOPA and PIPA wouldn't care about the viewpoint of the person who created the copyrighted material, though; the laws would punish any website and any user who hosted any copyrighted material. It wouldn't matter if the artist thought that pirating was a good way to spread their sound to new ears, or teach new people about indie video games; all of it would be stopped abruptly. I'm not saying that piracy is a good thing, but in some cases it can have good results. Many musicians got their start singing covers of copyrighted songs on YouTube; SOPA and PIPA would potentially sentence those musicians to up to five years in federal prison for illegally distributing copyrighted material all of those years ago. On the whole, the bills are well-meaning, but their approach is all wrong.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/ CA

Jalei
Hawkins/ Buckingham
I honestly think that these bills should have never been brought to topic. Technology is too big of factor in today's society. We use it for everything from social networking and homework to business and personal creativity. If something doesn't load when we want it to or work fast enough, we find a way to make it work to our own satisfaction. I think that the explanation is simple. Don't post anything on the internet that you don't want others to use for their own ideas. The internet is a place where a lot of people go to expand their ideas and start creating something that works for them. If you have a problem with someone else publicizing what you post, then don't post it. The day that the blackout happened, I ran into the participating cites like google and tumblr. I wasn't familiar with what was going on so I did a little research and found out. I do think that if these bills had to make a compromise, websites could be responsible for the users they allow to update information or post their own things. If there was a case where a user was caught for copywright, then the creator of that site should be responsible for turning them over to the authorities. Overall, I really don''t think that anyone should be limited to what they choose to post and people shouldn't care about what others say or share. Our first amendment allows us the freedom to post freely and share any ideas or links that we choose. The internet is almost uncontrollable nowadays and there isn't anything anyone can do to stop it from expanding.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Karen
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
I believe internet piracy is a prevalent issue in today's society, but these bills are not the solution. The risk of abuse by government officials, who are only human, is too great for these bills to work efficiently and appropriately. I believe SOPA and PIPA would only violate citizens First Amendment rights and not decrease the amount of pirating. Websites try to prevent pirating, but no system is perfect and there are always loopholes. It is not fair to punish a website for an illegal action of its user when that user found a loophole that was believed to not exist. What a user does on a website is out of a company's control. They simply can report whatever they find to the authorities and attempt to block the user from doing that illegal action again.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville, CA

Luke
Mr. Hawkins, Buckingham
I do not believe that the government should stop Internet piracy because what is to stop them from just doing that. If the bills were to pass and the government was to start censoring the internet, in time, they would want to further their restrictions. SOPA and PIPA are just the first bills to really infringe upon the internet, but if they pass the government will eventually want to restrict it more. As it is, I already believe that SOPA and PIPA are invading our First Amendment because it is preventing freedom of speech. Instead of the government censoring Internet Piracy I believe that it is a right of the organizations themselves to prevent their product from being misused.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Samantha
Hawkins/Buckingham
I believe that the bills, SOPA and PIPA, should be back on the table.These bills would help out a lot of websites and damage a lot also. Websites should be punished for the illegal actions from their users. For example, Wikipedia lets anyone type in what they want to say. The information can be wrong. The website should not let other people change the information. They are false advertising and someone who is doing a project and needs to look up something, they will not know if the information is correct. Websites like that need to be punished. If they could come to an agreement where they didn't allow people to post things and didn't change the information, then the bills can be re-written to make those changes. There needs to be boundaries on certain websites.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/California

Brent
Hawkins/Buckingham Charter Magnet Highschool
Even if SOPA and PIPA were passed I don't believe the internet can be successfully censored. Websites should not be held responsible for the actions of their users as long as their user agreement contains clauses that restrict copyright infringement and other such things. Censorship would definitely violate our first amendment because it restricts what we can "say" online. I think the compromise between anti-piracy and anti-censorship is for websites to have stricter user agreements becuase is someone doesn't agree with the user agreement they don't have to use the site. I did not encounter any blacked out websites because the majority of the blackout occurred while I was sleeping.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/California

Michael
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham
I think the SOPA and PIPA act are trying to do a good thing to stop internet piracy, but are approaching it the wrong way. Website administrators shouldn't be punished for the content the users post. The person who posts the illegal content should be held responsible for their actions, not the owners of the website. The only way to stop piracy is to take it down at the source (uploader), not at the place where it is being uploaded. I personally encountered the black out while trying to use Google and became outraged becauseI was unable to gain the knowledge I needed. We have the right to this free information found on the internet. Piracy itself is bad, I agree, it takes money away from the talented people who created the material, but we can't all be punished for other people's ignorance.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville, CA

Kayonna
Mr. Hawkins, Buckingham Chater High School
I believe that SOPA and PIPA have good motives in protecting the rights of the original producers by putting an end to piracy. Nonetheless, it intrudes upon the rights of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment gives freedom of speech. By setting laws that do not allow people to post information on the internet is unconstitutional. It benefits no one. It does not benefit the original publisher and/or artist because it does not allow publicity. It does not benefit the consumer because they are denied knowledge. In many ways it violates the purpose of internet. The internet is a mass source of free information. Without that free information it is pointless to have it. Not only does it defeat the purpose of internet; if these laws were put into place it would not be possible to stop piracy. The internet is known for its many loop holes. There will always be a person hacking something or exposing private information to the public. There is no stopping it. If there was; it would still be a negative outcome.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Tom
Hawkins/Buckingham
I think that the bills that are supposed to stop Internet piracy are too broad in their intentions, with SOPA and PIPA the government could potentially shut down practically any website, as many big websites are based around users who share information. The Internet is the new medium for information; during the times of cassette tapes and CDs industries complained that the music industry would die as a result of being able to share CDs with friends and the like, but as we can see the music industry is still here and still complaining. The truth is, it is impossible to stop piracy, on the internet or anywhere else. People can get around laws or regulations and in the end the only thing that will be destroyed will not be piracy, but our freedoms under the First Amendment. Concerning the protest I did encounter some blacked-out websites, but I was not surprised because I knew about the bill. It was a little annoying not being able to do much work because of some major sites being down, but I thought that the result of their actions far outweighed my temporary aggravation.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/California

Michael
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham
I think the SOPA and PIPA act are trying to do a good thing to stop internet piracy, but are approaching it the wrong way. Website administrators shouldn't be punished for the content the users post. The person who posts the illegal content should be held responsible for their actions, not the owners of the website. The only way to stop piracy is to take it down at the source (uploader), not at the place where it is being uploaded. I personally encountered the black out while trying to use Google and became outraged becauseI was unable to gain the knowledge I needed. We have the right to this free information found on the internet. Piracy itself is bad, I agree, it takes money away from the talented people who created the material, but we can't all be punished for other people's ignorance.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Robert
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham High School
I feel SOPA and PIPA were a good idea but they need to be revised. I do not think that the website itself should be shut down because of what one person does. I feel that the person who is sharing things illegally should be punished not the whole website itself. If you shut down a website for one persons stupidity then you are punishing everybody else that legitimately uses that site. I feel these bills are trying to control an uncontrollable force instead of trying to compromise with it.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Brenda
Mr.Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
I personally believe that SOPA and PIPA should keep trying to stop online piracy but they should not go as extreme as completely shutting down a website because of the actions of other internet users sharing others information. Websites should have more secure locks on them so people can't copy and paste or take pictures from the site without permission. i think that in some ways the website is at fault for letting people have the chance to steal information in the first place but it is not their fault when the people do steal it because the website didnt tell or force them to do that, users should be aware of the fact that they are not to steal information from a website because it is online piracy and plagiarism and the user should be tracked and receive consequences. I personally didn’t really react to the black out much since I only looked up wikipedia to see what this whole ruckus was that every one was talking about so I didn’t look it up in time of need and I wasn’t aware that other search engines were down and blacked out. Although I think if the SOPA and PIPA restricted our freedom of knowledge on the internet, it would make school a lot harder along with those who work on computers for a job/living.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville, CA

Austin
Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
People have the right to their own property. Internet piracy is wrong, because it allows for stealing such property. Websites should have filters, but individuals are ultimately responsible for what they post, because filters can only do so much on such a large platform that is the internet. I think SOPA and PIPA have been shot down because people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. The freedom to information can still be maintained while standards are imposed to at least make an attempt to tackle internet piracy. But again, it comes down to personal responsibility --even if the bills are rewritten and do pass, I'm sure people will find a way to get around them; that's just carnal human nature. Imperfect people have imperfect government. Hopefully we can compromise and find a resolution that establishes justice for both sides.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville, CA

Ali
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
I think that SOPA and PIPA will quickly dwindle. The internet is vast and humans are determined to learn and put things on the internet. People will quickly find ways to 'break down the wall' and get around the rules. What happened to our First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and press? The internet is our number one source for learning...it should not be restricted. We should be able to put anything on the internet. Restriction violates our First Amendment rights. I do not think that websites should be punished for illegal actions of their users. If someone puts something on the internet they should know that there is a great chance that their ideas will be stolen or replicated. I think that entertainment companies are mad that movies and music are being pirated only because they want more money. You know the phrase, "you never know what you have until it is gone?" Well I learned that when the blackout occurred. I never realized how much I loved and used Google until it was gone, I use Google and Wikipedia for everything! I think that the government would be making a huge mistake if they try to put PIPA and SOPA into action.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Corin
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham Charter Magnet High School
SOPA and PIPA wouldn't really work in today's society, everybody pretty much uses the internet in their daily lives. These bills would be disasterous for everyone because someone could easily upload illegal content to any website, and since under these bills the site would also be penalized, their would be a lot of unhappy people. The idea of stopping internet piracy is good, but the way that they are trying to stop it would do more harm than good. I don't think that the internet will ever be censored without some kind of conflict arousing. Although you can't make everybody happy, I believe that internet censorship will be bad no matter what circumstances.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Melissa
Mr. Hawkins/ BuckinghamCharter Magnet High School
I think that SOPA & PIPA would not succeed in stopping the nation of Internet piracy. Many people now how to get passed the blocked pages, wheather its at school or at home. The Internet was created with the purpose of sharing information, so if it was created with this purpose then it should have the restrictions and the penalties for not following the restrictions in bold, so that these types of problems will not keep arizing. I think that there is a limit to the limitations posted on a website, but I also belive that if there are limitations that he shoudn't be hiden, they should be visible in plain sight. As to where they aren't thats where the trouble starts. There are many people that use the Internet, and that is hust to many people to keep track of. On the other hand, if a compromize was made, being fair and resonable, than maybe the bills wouldn't become a negative thing to the eyes of the people.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville, CA

Cheyenne
Hawkins/Buckingham Charter Magnet High School
These bills are both good and bad. I feel that the people whose property is being pirated deserve to be paid, therfore, piracy should be stopped. However, the way SOPA and PIPA have gone about trying to stop piracy is not the way to do it. If the U.S. Government blacklists every site with pirated goods it would do more harm then good.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Cody
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham
I think that the bills that were proposed by Congress to stop the major issue of online piracy - SOPA and PIPA - had good intent, but inferior means of execution. The ways in which both bills aimed to eliminate this not only nation-wide but worldwide problem probably wasn't going to solve any problems anyways, as many citizens realized; by imposing these restrictions on websites, and having the ability to restrict the freedom and flow of information on a front as large as the internet, not only is the First Amendment of the Constitution violated, but many other problems would arise which essentially negate the positive intent of the bill. For example, users of Youtube would no longer be able to view an extremely large fraction of the content that Youtube is used for, and therefore the site would be rendered more useless in the eyes of its consumers. Not only this, but an internet "black market" would likely form, in an effort to work around the bills' abilities. Websites cannot be held responsible for their users. It is theoretically impossible to completely control so many people, and invariably, there will be at least one person contributing what would be considered "illegal content" on a website that is completely legitimate. The black-out response of the most major websites utilized by the world, such as Wikipedia and Google, should be a testament to how much more thought should be put into this decision before it is even proposed to any user of the internet, let alone anyone that respects their right to the same freedoms that all of the citizens of The United States should have.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Cameron
Hawkins/Buckingham
I think these these acts are a waste of time for the government. The government is wasting their time trying to pass laws that are going to casue so much problems in the US. If these laws were ever passed the government would hear a lot of complaints from the American people. Also if the bills were passed people would find ways around it. i think websites should not be puished for what their users post. i did encounter some websites that were blacked out. one of the big name ones is google. If the world did not have google people would not function it todays world. Google is a big part in peoples lives. People look up infomation like how to cook to how to tie there show or music. I think the government is making to big of a deal about these bills.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville CA

Matt
Mr. Hawkins Buckingham
People will always find away around any law. It is just choosing which one you want to enforce. If they really want free music, movies, etc they will get them. The peple that would be hurt most by this bill would be students or people trying to get information.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Soleil
Hawkins/Buckingham
I realize that this is all for a good purpose, but I don’t see why anyone should even be for SOPA. SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, all the names it’s disguised under still doesn’t hide the fact that it is an object of terror among the Internet community, but also a name for misunderstanding and the government trying to halt an unstoppable force. Think about it; the Internet is the number one source for information across the globe. People rely on its sites daily not just for entertainment, but also to learn, communicate and carry out business. One should already know that if they submit anything onto the Internet, it is instantly subject to the viewing and sharing of Internet denizens. Not only is it a violation of the First Amendment, but if any of these pass, international discrepancies will arise because online privacy laws may not be so strict in other countries. Not to mention there will be an uproar because of the hardships society will have to face if the Internet was stripped of its content. Thankfully the bills have been withdrawn for now, but even though SOPA/PIPA/ACTA have good intentions, I just believe that such an imposing law should be at least refined and taken into greater consideration before it’s proposed.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/ CA

Zachary
Hawkins/ Buckingham Charter Magnet High School
I am not going to lie. I think that the ideas behind the bills is admirable. I think that in theory, the officials had really good intentions. But they implemented the ideas too late in the game. The internet has gotten too big and too out of control to attack in the way set forth in the SOPA and PIPA bills. People will find a way around the bills, and this will lead to their eventual downfall. People have already found ways around similar anti-piracy laws. Limewire and other file sharing websites have been shut down before, but there are similar sites always popping up. We just cant stop it. I actually encountered many blacked out sites on January 18 and it really upset me. Many of the sites I frequent every day were blacked out, and it really shocked me how many of the websites I use everyday for benign reasons would be affected by these bills. I think that it will be impossible to come to a compromise between anti-piracy and anti-censorship parties, because they are too far on either side of the spectrum. There is no way to stop piracy now that the internet has gotten so big. Whether or not we like it, we have made our bed, and now we have to sleep in it.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/California

Anicia
Hawkins/Buckingham
I think the bills are both good and bad. I think they are good because I don't want people giving me false information about certain things. If anyone can go edit information on a website, then everything could be a lie. At the same time, the Internet is a place to share information with people so if the bills are passed, people won't be able to share information with each other. Piracy has been a controverial topic for a long time. I don't think these bills would do anything because there will always be people out there who find a way around these so called "walls". I don't think that websites should be punished because they can't control people from going in and changing the information. Shutting down or punishing certain websites is just going to cause more harm.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/CA

Nia
Mr. Hawkins/Buckingham Charter
I think that the bills shouldn't be passed. I feel like the bills wouldn't change anything. Better piracy sites would be made and people would find ways to get around the bills. The internet is such a huge source that not all piracy acts would be caught. Even if websites do get shut down, the URL can be changed and just ike that it is up again. Also, I agree that it is a violation of First Amendment rights because after all wasn't the internet made to share stuff freely? Even if some artists music does get leaked freely, they're still getting paid for what they do wether free music is leaked or not.

---

2/7/2012
Vacaville/California

Brent
Hawkins/Buckingham Charter Magnet Highschool
Even if SOPA and PIPA were passed I don't believe the internet can be successfully censored. Websites should not be held responsible for the actions of their users as long as their user agreement contains clauses that restrict copyright infringement and other such things. Censorship would definitely violate our first amendment because it restricts what we can "say" online. I think the compromise between anti-piracy and anti-censorship is for websites to have stricter user agreements becuase is someone doesn't agree with the user agreement they don't have to use the site. I did not encounter any blacked out websites because the majority of the blackout occurred while I was sleeping.

---

2/6/2012
Irving/Tx

Lucy
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, SOPA & PIPA would not succeed in stopping our nation of internet piracy. This is not the first time that attempts have been made to stop any illegal actions of users on the internet and have repeatedly failed. Technology has become such a huge craze in our generation, that it seems like hacking and other illegal actions have become more of a hobby than a chore. For example, my brother, who is 11 years old, knows how to hack and unblock Facebook from school. I personally have not encountered any black-out websites, but many of my friends have and sure has caused a eruption of annoyance upon my peers. We have nearly over 7 billion people....I'm sure about half, if no more, are exposed to the internet sooner or later in their life time –That's just too many people to keep track of and monitor every single action that is being done over the internet...But if a compromise is worked out and is realistic/reasonable, then maybe SOPA and PIPA won't be such a negative thing.

---

2/1/2012
Irving, Texas

Fatima S
Bradley/Nimitz
I think internet piracy should be dealt with in manner that wouldn't hurt anyone trying to gain outside knowledge. If people want to illegally download and use things like music and movies found on the internet for personal gain that is when the authorities should step in. It would be unfair to the people that follow the rules to be punished for the stupidity of others. Websites specifically state that the content provided isn't meant to be "pirated." This somewhat violates the first amendment; however, if people are using documents, media, or information as their own then that is when authorities should step in. Maybe they could have some way of monitoring the situations.

---

1/31/2012
Warrenton,VA

Samantha
Auburn middle school
Yes the websites should be punished for the illegal acts of their users because it is their website and what they put up they should be held accountable for. Also I think that the people that do the illegal acts on the websites should also be punished because they are the ones putting up the things on the website. I also think that the bills are good ones because people are only trying to protect what is rightfully theirs.

---

1/30/2012
Irving/TX

Carly T
Bradley/Nimitz
These two bills are commendable in that they are trying to protect copyrighted material, but SOPA and PIPA are attempting to put to short a leash on a dog that's never been trained. The world wide web has become a nearly uncontrollable force, and sights like Wikipedia and Google are such huge aids to the majority of Americans each day that they could practically get away with murder. On top of that, it is not justifiable to punish a website for the illegal actions of its users. Website controllers aren't liable for the posts of random internet users. That said, people who use the sights can and should be held accountable for what they post, and I believe this is where a compromise can be found. Wikipedia, Google and other similar sites should provide the anti-piracy agencies with information about the users who are posting things that violate any property rights. While I didn't encounter a black out, I'm sure a world where Google wasn't available for research would be much more difficult, and we should be careful not to censor out a largely good thing because of an undisciplined minority.

---

1/28/2012
Irving/Texas

Kacie
Bradley/Nimitz
SOPA and PIPA, although making admirable points, will fail. There have been various attempts to stop online piracy many times before this and the entire population have learned how to get around the barriers and boundaries. For example, in high school they attempt to block Facebook as well as any other websites that might distract us from getting the proper education. Even with these restrictions, the students have found various ways to get around any little “wall” that the school has tried to put up and it will keep happening repeatedly until they finally understand. On the other hand, I do agree that by stopping online piracy music artists will finally not be “ripped off” any longer because eventually SOPA an PIPA will shut down the many sites that let people download music illegally and force them to pay for the music.

---

1/27/2012
Irving,TX

Richard
Bradley/Nimitz
I can see why the government wants to stop Internet piracy, but even if the bills are passed, people will find a way to get around them. We must remember, this is the internet we're talking about. People are finding ways to get around blocked websites. If they can get around blocked websites, I'm sure they can get around a few rules and restrictions passed by some bills. The websites shouldn't be punished for the actions of their users. The websites are letting people express themselves, which we are allowed to do thanks to the First Amendment. I'm not sure if there can be a compromise between the anti-piracy side and the anti-censorship side.

---

1/27/2012
Irving/Texas

Alyscia
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't think these bills are entirely stupid. They do have some strong points. Yes, it would be a good idea to stop internet piracy, but just as before when people tried to stop it, others found ways around it. Torrents, music sharing, stuff like that. On the part of, music sharing “takes away money from the labels and artists”, I believe that, yes it will decrease the amount of money gained, it also increases the liking of the artist. By showing someone your favorite song, one hopes to get others to like it. So it can be kind of helpful. Yes, websites should be punished for the illegal actions of their users because it was done while under the websites care. If the website was secure, it could have protected people from illegal actions, but that is not always the case. No, it doesn't seem like it would restrict the First Amendment rights, because the first thing people should do is obey they law, while still pertaining to their rights. Compromises, might be like, allowing certain places to have free downlands, but with the permission of the artist, and maybe depending on the type of censorship, it seems like there should be age limits to view such things. These are just my personal thoughts, so the wording might be a little weird. I personally did not encounter any blacked out websites. I didn't even know that happened until I read about it here.

---

1/26/2012
Aurora/OH

Parker
Mr. Frankmann/Harmon Middle School
I think that congress had good intentions, but they should change some things in the bill. They should not punish the websites for the illegal doings of certain people. I was really surprised when the blacked-out website came up because, as said on the disussion page, I couldn't use the internet freely. I think that congress should compromise.

---

1/26/2012
Irving, Tx

Adam
Bradly/ Nimitz
I understand that online piracy is a serious issue that is facing the internet at this day in age, it does need to be stopped but not in the way that SOPA and PIPA are proposing. By these bills passing many of the internet sites that we visit daily would be off limits due to the chance that illegal video or audio piracy could be taking place by the members on that site. I tried to browse the website, Reddit, on the day of the blackout and was given a list of links that informed me of the bill and of ways i could contact my representative. I believe that if the bill is passed it will be quickly overturned due to so much controversy.

---

1/25/2012
Irving/Texas

Marvin Garduno
Bradley/Nimitz High School
The government could pass these bills if they wanted to...only problem is it won't stop Internet piracy. People will find a way around this be it creating other websites that allows illegal sharing of music, or just post them on well known websites to be heard by everyone such as youtube.com. Not to mention that the profit made by an artist for selling their music on music websites such as itunes isn't as great as someone might assume. Each song cost about a dollar, they probably make at least twenty-nine cents. Most of the artist have even posted on their blogs that they would rather have their fans download the songs illegally. I'm sure the government is trying to do something good here, but they will really agitate those who they are trying to protect. Websites should not be punished by the actions of their users, if so there would be no websites to go to. Not everyone is mature. People will go online and post things that are very degrading and banal. It's not the websites fault that these comments are around. I really admire all of these websites that joined hands and blacked-out. Every one of these websites were huge companies that even the senators voting for this bill use. Truth is we are Americans. If something we are accustom to and have used every day of our life's is taken away, we will find a way to find a way around it.

---

1/25/2012
Aurora/OH

Trevor
Mr. Frankmann/Harmon Middle School
I do agree there should a stop to internet piracy. I am glad the bills are off the table because they need to be reworded. The websites should not be punished what users do on their website like Wikipedia. I know there are websities out there that let you download movies, songs and those shold be part of the SOPA AND PIPA bills. We all should have our right of the First Admendment but copying artists work is not right.

---

1/25/2012
Irving

Itzel
Bradley
SOPA is an infraction against the first amendment. It defeats the purpose of the internet, limits creativity, and seems to be solely to the benefit of big business. I don't think that passing these laws and acquiring these bills to pass would be the appropriate way to go forth with the problem. I honestly doubt that it will make any thing better and I can only predict the arouse of more problems in the near future, if SOPA goes forth with itself. It goes against the “ privacy” and the “freedom” that we are granted as U.S citizens. I am not saying that copy right and illegal actions are necessarily right, but I don't think they shit down all these famous websites that will cut down on other business or ways of advertising things. There are solutions for almost everything, but there is also different alternatives.

---

1/25/2012
Benson AZ

Chace aka Mutant
Marv sorenson
Thank god the withdrew those. Those were quite the broach on our rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of press. If information is stolen and pirated on the internet that's because the website didn't have good enough protection, just the same as a car getting stolen off the street because it didn't have a car alarm. Is the government going to prevent cars from being parked in public places to prevent car theft? If the government had the power to delete any website with out warning because it was broaching some set of rules, that its was providing information, that could be used by some one else, its dangerous. They could also delete any cite they wanted juts by claiming that it was dangerous, They could take away, Wikipedia, Google, you tube face book any site they wanted (S4F) because some one else could use the information. How are we going to have an internet with out using information? it would be talking away our free speech, free press, and giving to much control to a governmental with a socialist leader.

---

1/24/2012
Rudyard, Montana

Brandi
Mrs. Campbell/North Star
The bill to stop internet privacy would cause more problems then I think Congress is realizing, of course this is causing a huge amount of controversy. Mr. Reid must not understand the bill as well as he thinks he does because he thinks its being taken out of proportion. The Internet is the one thing that the Government doesn’t control, and of course they are the ones that want to change that. Going back to a Speak Out that I did early “Tweeting at the Governor: Social media and freedom of speech”, if the government wants to control on the Internet so much, if this bill is passed, those Governors who are worried about what teenagers are posting about on Twitter and worried about what people are saying about them on the Internet wouldn’t be able to do that anymore. They wouldn’t know about the things they need to work on and the things the people don’t like about them. The government doesn’t need to control everything, it’s the one last thing the people of the Untied States have where they can speak their mind and share the things they like. I get that it’s for artist and musicians, but isn’t that how their work is spread? And how people find out about what they are about? Many artists were discovered on YouTube singing other peoples songs, if they couldn’t do that anymore, talent wouldn’t be found as easy as it is now.

---

1/23/2012
Irving/ Texas

Ashley Lenart
Bradley/Nimitz
The bills that the government are trying to enact have good intentions. However, I do not think that putting these bills into action will necessarily prevent pirating and copyrighting. I understand that these bills were created with “doing what is right” as far as privacy goes. But in all actuality, I believe it is those who take the free services of the internet for granted that hinder the rest of the population from utilizing a helpful resource. Yes, we the people are entitled to freedom of speech, press, establish and practice religion, petition, and assembly, and I do think that these bills are on the verge of violating our rights, but we also take advantage of these rights we've been given. Instead of completely putting a website on the “blacklist” the government might give warnings saying that their website is in violation instead of automatically claiming piracy and shutting down that site. Often people find ways to hack into a site and change information, thus I don't think the websites should be held completely responsible. This issue of those who abuse internet resources is important, but I believe that the government doesn't have a right to come in and control what is rightfully the citizens resources. I myself witnessed the “blackout” protest on Google. At first I didn't think much of it, but soon realized that this large black rectangle in the place of where “Google” should be was not there on accident. Citizens should be able to freely use the internet, and I believe that these bills could largely affect the way citizens are allowed to use the internet.

---

1/23/2012
Irving/TX

Cathy
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, I think the bills to stop Internet piracy was a bad idea that caused unnecessary rage and protest. I feel as though even if the SOPA AND PIPA bills passed the House and Senate, it would not be successful. There are far too many sites and users to keep track of then there are people to supervise what they are doing/uploading. Websites should not be punished for the illegal actions of their users. Although, they should all agree on a system of tracking and supervising that can successfully charge someone for piracy on their website. Those supporting Anti-piracy and anti-censorship should compromise and cook up a plan to charge users who pirate, while keeping the website owners out of it. On January 18, 2012 I was faced with a black screen while trying to visit Wikipedia. Facing the “black out” first handed, I automatically knew SOPA AND PIPA were bad ideas. I knew a little about the bills but not enough to know how much it would effect the way the internet works. Now, being more educated about the bills, I would still agree that it would've been a bad idea. Even if the two bills were passed, it would immediately be pushed for reform after a very short period of time.

---

1/23/2012
Irving, TX

Areli
Bradley/ Nimitz
I honestly believe that these bills, besides there good intentions, are very dumb. I'm sorry for saying it that way, but it's my opinion on them. Websites should not be punished for what the users do; instead the individuals should be punished. Trying to punish a website is like trying to punish a car dealership for selling a car to someone who is going to use it it for a bank robbery. It's completely ridiculous. Not only would they be violateing our first amendment, but they will cause much outrage in people that use the search engines. A compromise could come to the anti-piracy and anti-censorship sides to just try and persuade the website companies to take off the illegal links from their pages. I for one was angry when I tried to research for school and could not go into google. Yahoo is ok, but google is much more convenient for me!

---

1/23/2012
Irving/Texas

Nicole
Bradley/ Nimitz
I do agree that internet piracy is horrible. I think that people should if they don't want to pay a lot to go see a movie or something they can just wait until it comes out at a cheaper movie theater. There are legal ways to get to watch the movies that you want and still not have to pay so much money for it. I don't think that it is the website's fault that we have childish people in the world who can't just do things the right way. I get a lot of my information for school and other things on from the internet and if they websites have to pay because other people outside of the website runners are going to mess that up then that's just not okay. I don't agree with making everyone pay for other people's mistakes. But on the other hand I don't really think it is violating the First Amendment. I think an agreement between the two would look something like the websites wouldn't get in trouble for people posting illegal things on their sites, but they would be responsible for not taking it off and not being aware of the changes that are made to their sites that are bad. I think the websites should be aware of what changes are made and if they are inappropriate or illegal the website should take care of it. I was doing research for my science class the day of the black-out and I came across Wikipedia and I clicked on the link and it said that the website was down for the day, but I was unaware of the two bills in session so I thought nothing of it I just assumed they were working on the website. Now I understand.

---

1/23/2012
Irving/ Texas

Taylor G
Bradley/Nimitz
I do not think that the bills would stop online privacy and also, they should not be punished for illegal actions. It isn't that it is a crime, in which in many cases it is, but there are no ways to punish these crimes without violating international laws or giving corporations specifically media arts corporations, the power to shut down new sites at their own will, which is very loosely defined with these bills. Simply put, even though the bills are for a good cause, there is too much of an exploitation factor for the bills to actually do any good. I do not think there is a good medium between anti piracy and censorship. The internet is not a society and most definitely not a single thing. It makes up of an international group of people that have the ability to, let's say an American, go onto a British server and post pirated information. The ability to be on U.S waters and to post on another country's site is a very tough challenge to punish. Does the U.S have a right to take down information on a British site? Can the British people act up against this censorship to have the site put back up? These questions have not been asked and not thought of thoroughly in the bills.