Some Say Internet Blackout May Spur Hill Transparency; Others Doubt Long-Term Impact

Some think Internet users showed Congress what they're capable of and have earned their place in this debate. Skeptics think the opposing side played their biggest card -- the blackout -- during the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) debate and won’t be able to rally similar support in the future. While some people think future legislation could spur more reaction similar to the blackout, others view this grassroots moment as a one-time show of strength.

Congress may be more cautious with future anti-piracy legislation after the huge display of opposition, said Public Knowledge Communications Director Art Brodsky. But legislators will always come back with more, and it’s unrealistic to expect a similar reaction with every controversial Internet bill, he said. Future legislation won’t get as big of a reaction, and bills usually don’t spur such an outcry, Brodsky said. The reason SOPA received such a bad response was because it was such badly written legislation.

The bill wasn’t as bad as everyone made it out to be, said Information Technology and Innovation Foundation researcher Richard Bennett, calling the message of the blackout “a big lie.” He said the exaggeration of the bill’s consequences is what got Internet users involved. “When policy makers deal with Internet crime in the future, they will be aware that anything they do will be misrepresented on a massive scale and will be forced to write legislation defensively,” he said.

This blackout was a “case of political information warfare,” ITIF Senior Analyst Daniel Castro said. Opposing parties accused Congress of pushing Hollywood-backed bills that would “break the Internet.” When SOPA provisions were dropped, it gave the perception that Wikipedia and other blackout participants “saved the Internet from big Hollywood and Congress,” he said.

The reaction to SOPA was a necessary message to Congress, said TechFreedom Senior Adjunct Fellow Larry Downes. But Congress didn’t recognize the role of individual Internet users in the movement and therefore don’t recognize the users as active stakeholders, he said. Congress saw the opposition as coming from groups and companies, not individual users, he said. But it was the individuals who made the difference, whether Congress saw that or not, he said, and users must remain involved in the debate in order to keep legislation moving in the right direction.

Some people may characterize the opposition as a response created by groups and companies, but no one has the power to create such a response, said Future of Music Coalition Deputy Director Casey Rae-Hunter. The Internet showed Congress that it won’t be subject to more broken law systems, said Net Coalition spokeswoman Maura Corbett. It will be hard for Congress to forget the reaction to SOPA as it moves forward, she said.

The users did make their mark, argued Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Attorney Julie Samuels. By showing Congress what they're capable of, Internet users showed Congress they deserve a place at the table when these issues arise, she said. “Hollywood has been beating up on the Internet. In order to stand up and be taken seriously, Internet users had to do something drastic.” Samuels said she hoped such drastic measures wouldn’t be used in the future.

Congress may have learned the importance of consulting multiple stakeholders on such issues, said Michael Petricone, CEA senior vice president of government affairs. The Internet is increasing the amount of information people receive, and the lawmaking process is changing as a result, he said. People can demand more transparency now, he said. “The back room way of doing things won’t work because there are no back rooms on the Internet.”