Recent news articles point to a pair of bills that are on hold named SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act). They have generated a fair amount of fuss.

What's all the fuss about? Opponents of the bill cite provisions that allows the government to blacklist web sites in an abusive manner. Supporters claim that it is only blacklisted if there is reason to believe that the web site is selling counterfeit goods or promoting the transfer of copyrighted material.

The blacklist would prevent access to web sites by stopping traffic at your Internet Service Provider through removing entries or routes to these web sites. Doesn't so like a bad idea, right? Wrong. The DoJ has messed up before at severe expense of legitimate businesses (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml). As the bills are currently written, opponents fear that even greater abuses will be committed. Imagine squelching a political opponent because of an abusive interpretation of what is copyrighted material or a counterfeit good (or idea).

On the flip side, supporters claim they are merely seeking to prevent these types of illegal activities from happening as these type of activities in the Internet age can be hosted or promoted from foreign lands. Web sites within the United States can already be shut down as needed.

And now for the moral argument...thou shalt not make thy neighbor do thine own job.

Supporters also wish to put the burden of finding illegal content on those that operate web sites. That's like asking the phone company to listen in on conversations to find conspirators to illegal activity. The cost of doing such a thing is tremendous and the phone company has a moral obligation not to monitor phone calls in this manner. Phone companies are obligated to help law enforcement when wire taps are legally produced and provide phone records as needed, but to force phone companies to regulate what people pass across their lines to each other, is profoundly absurd.

Suppose that the phone company was able to censor a phone number because of suspected activities. What is to prevent the same abuser from getting another phone number? Imagine that principal being applied to web site operators. The phone company is merely a connection with a people and doesn't promote illegal activity.

Of course, if any illegal content is found on most web sites, the operators should be obligated to remove it. If that operator happens to run into what is know to be illegal content, then it should be removed. Yes, web site operators should warn their users about uploading illegal content in plain and bold letters as a condition for using the service.

To summarize, the most effective technique continues to be to pursue those that create the injustice by actively monitoring their activity, not forcing third parties to monitor everyone's activity. There are those that currently run that pursuit prefer that the cost of business be passed onto someone else, but the pursuers of this quest need to protect their own bottom line with the help of law enforcement and not force their neighbors to carry the primary burden.