Conflicting Arguments Revolving Around SOPA and PIPA.

To all of those who almost saved the day, I welcome you.  As I am sure you already now there were many protests and displays against the now shelved SOPA and PIPA bills over the last few days.  What I have done below is taken three sources (all written before the shelving of the bills,) each providing their own information about the bills, and analyzed each one in order to determine what each of the articles was trying to “do,” and how exactly they went about doing so.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/248298/sopa_and_pipa_just_the_facts.html

In the article “SOPA and PIPA: Just the Facts,” Jared Newman tries to inform the general public about the SOPA and PIPA bills which are going through the House and Senate respectively.  Throughout the article the author tends to maintain a generally unbiased  point of view, only informing about what exactly the bills are and what arguments have been raised by the two side of the issue (whether we should support the bills or oppose them.) 

The article is organized in such a way to first give the reader an overview of what the bills SOPA and PIPA stand for (Stop Online Piracy Act, Protect IP Act) and what they were intended to do.  The article then organizes its information by creating several subheadings to first explain the basics behind the bills and the pros and cons of SOPA.  The article then gives both sides of the issue, in a compare and contrast structure, providing examples of those who support the bill and their arguments along with arguments from those opposed to the bill.  Organizing the information in this way was very effective in that it was able to sum up the two bills within the first few paragraphs, gradually going more in-depth near the end of the article.  This particular arrangement allows any reader to be informed about the topic right away by putting the bulk of the information at the beginning, however if the reader is interested by the topic and decides to continue reading then they are able to obtain a more complete understanding of the topic due to the article having more in-depth details farther along in the piece. 

This piece maintains a very professional tone which is not intended to lead the readers to think in a certain way; but instead keeps the readers interested while informing them of the topic at hand.  In addition to maintaining a very professional tone, the author uses no noticeable slant in their writing which may imply a bias.    Due to the fact that this article was written in order to inform the readers about SOPA and PIPA, there is no evidence which may conflict the authors opinion, (which is not shown in the first place.)   However, because this article does inform its readers, it does present both sides of the issue whether or not to support SOPA and PIPA, which do conflict each other. 

The accuracy of this article appears to be relatively solid at first glance; however there are some aspects of the article which puts its true accuracy into question.  For example, pcworld is a somewhat well known and respected site which generally provides quality information and articles; however the author, Jared Newman, while a frequent producer of quality articles revolving around internet-based topics, is by no means a politician who is experienced in the process of writing and submitting bills such as SOPA or PIPA.    This could be both good and bad because if the author is not a politician then he would not have any political standing on the bills based on party, however due to the fact that he is indeed an internet user, he may have some biased against the internet censoring SOPA and PIPA, which would make it possible for the government to censer and regulate sites.   Also, while there are many links within the article which take you to other sources, there is no clear bibliography to show where the author obtained his facts and data.  However, the article does appear to be recently updated, last being edited on January 17^th, meaning that the information presented is at least up to date.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/20/opinion/smith-sopa-support/index.html

In the article “Why We Need a Law Against Online Piracy,” Lamar Smith, attempts to persuade any and all citizens of the United States that we need the upcoming SOPA and PIPA bills to pass in order to stop illegal trade over the internet.   The author viewpoint on the SOPA and PIPA bills is that they will only benefit us as a county, and that all the negative attention they have been getting is simply misinformation. 

This article is much centered on “logos,” in that it constantly uses facts and logical information and arguments in order to persuade its readers to agree with the author.  This text is organized in a very descriptive manner, immediately giving the authors viewpoint and philosophy on the two bills, and then going into why the author is correct and how people who are against this bill are providing us with “misinformation.”  This way of writing is very effective when it comes to persuading because the article is able to constantly bombard the reader with facts in order to make them think in the same way the author does.  For example, in the article it states that SOPA could stop the traffic of stolen or counterfeit products, this fact may persuades readers to agree with the purpose of SOPA and thus support the bill as a whole.  This author clearly has a bias in that he is supporting SOPA one-hundred percent.  This bias is not only shown through intense slant within the article, but also by the presentation of very one-sided facts and opinions.  An example of the slant in this article is seen when the article states how “America's most profitable and productive industries are under attack.”  The use of the words “under attack” to describe the state of some American industries over phrases such as “in economic hardship” shows that this author is trying to make this websites appear as horrible as he possibly can in order to turn people away from those who believe we should “Stop SOPA.” 

There are also many other clear examples of this authors opinion on the information we as a nation have been receiving about SOPA; this is best shown in the paragraph where the author states how “This information does a disservice to consumers, and it is being disseminated by those who have profited from working with illegal websites that steal and sell America's intellectual property.”  While this sentence may appear insignificant at first, it is in fact making some serious claims against many major companies.  By stating that the information presented against SOPA is only being put out there by organizations who have benefited from illegal activity the author has essentially accused companies such as Google and Wikipedia, both major supporters of the anti-sopa movement, for working with illegal piracy websites; showing us that this is an undoubtedly bias piece written by an author who strongly opposes large internet-based companies.  The author then even goes on to openly accuse Google of promoting foreign illegal online pharmacies, showing that not only is he biased in his support of SOPA, but is also openly bias against Google. 

This article is written is a very intense, almost freighting tone.  This tone of writing may prove to be somewhat useful in persuading the readers, if by doing nothing else but scaring them into thinking that we need SOPA and PIPA to pass.  The only time in this article that conflicting evidence is ever addressed is when the author is stating how all the negative information we have been given about SOPA is simply misinformation created by cites who are involved in illegal activity.

 The accuracy of this article is somewhat questionable.  While the author is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, he is also a lead sponsor of SOPA.  This means that the author would of course be greatly in favor of SOPA because of the time he has put into it.    The article was however; last updated on Jan 20, 2012, meaning that all factual information given is very up-to-date.  The article is also published by CNN, a well respected news cooperation with a fairly good reputation.  Despite the fact that this article is published by CNN, there is no apparent bibliography to show where the author got their facts, which leads one to believe that the alleged “facts” in this article are only mere opinions.

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/sopa-pipa/

            In this article by Google, titled “End Piracy, Not Liberty.,” Google attempts to persuade internet users, and anyone else willing to listen, that we need to band together in order to stop the upcoming SOPA and PIPA bills which will be going through the House and Senate respectively, on the 24^th of January.  Google believes that these new SOPA and PIPA bills would not end piracy over the internet, but would in turn; kill American jobs thus creating an era of economic downslide. 

Google presents their opinion in this article in a logos manner, stating how even if these bills are passed, they would not stop piracy due to the sites flexibility, allowing them to constantly change their URL and appearance in order to hide the piracy which the site partakes in.  Google also presents several numbers and statistics, showing that large internet based companies are not the only ones concerned with these bills, and that many representatives and entrepreneurs also strongly oppose SOPA and PIPA. 

Google’s article on SOPA and PIPA is organized in such a way so that the readers are immediately shown Google’s opinion, being that the goals behind the bills are just, however SOPA and PIPA are not the way to go about stopping piracy. The article then has several subheadings, each going more in-depth than the last.  This organization of data is very effective because the first article gives a general problem that would be caused by the bill, causing the reader to feel negatively about the bill immediately, the subheadings following the first main article then present new problems that would be a result of the first problem, thus creating a strong negative association with the two bills.  This negative feeling the readers now have about the bill has effectively persuaded anyone who reads this article to protest the new SOPA and PIPA bills. 

Throughout the article, there are some very obvious examples of slant which makes these bills appear even worse.  One such example includes how the author refers to the majority of websites (those who to not partake in piracy) as “law-abiding companies,” in order to create an elevated sense of righteousness behind the sites who would be negatively affected by the bills. The author also states how the “U.S. government could order the blocking of sites,” the use of the word “order” creates an oppressive feeling, thus turning more readers against the bills. 

There is no conflicting evidence shown throughout the piece which could support the other side of the issue.  The only evidence given which could possibly support the bills is that they were created in order to stop piracy, however the author goes then goes on to disprove this by providing reasons why the bills would, in fact, not stop any form of piracy.  This article maintains a very kind and sincere tone, which is able to persuade its readers without scaring them into hating SOPA. 

 This is an extremely credible source based on their past reputation; however this exact reputation also creates a very obvious bias.  The fact that this article was published by Google allows one to feel safe in knowing that what they are reading is not completely false due to the amazingly positive reputation which Google has built up as a company.  However other than the fact that this piece was put out by Google there is very little information which could help prove the accuracy of the article.  There is no bibliography given and no external sources given which could help prove the information provided in the article.  Also because Google is an entirely internet based company which would be directly affected by SOPA and PIPA creates a very obvious bias due to the fact that almost every internet based cooperation is against SOPA because it would cause them to lose money and issue much stricter regulations.