At the time of publication, the bill’s fate is unclear. Many would-be supporters are reversing their support for the bill, after massive pressure from voters, and online giants like Wikipedia, the sixth most viewed site in the world. Wikipedia, blocked access to its own site, and displayed an emphatic message, “Right now the US Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open internet.”

These recent events underscore a power shift that is happening more quickly every year. An historic transformation in the distribution of information and of individuals to project their voices is developing. This new power does not signal a new “informational monarchy” in today’s body politic. Instead it represents a small threat to corporate/traditional media’s exclusive power to control the conversation and to create “leaders.”

These new developments do not mean that the CNN’s and the ABC’s of the world do not have powers similar to those that they had before the advent of the internet. It just means that their power is no longer exclusive. The power to choose alternative information sources means that people who are mildly interested in politics need not even watch the nightly news in order to satisfy their mild interest in politics. More saliently, everyone might understand by now that in order to enjoy music we are no longer required to purchase CDs at all. It is only a matter of time before artists find new ways to distribute their music and cut the roles of labels very deeply, if not completely.

It is easy to overstate the impact of internet and new technologies. It will give concerned individuals the ability to have greater influence than they would have otherwise. It won’t give such individuals the power that corporate broadcasters had prior to the advent of cable television. But when the people, regardless of their political leanings, all stand in solidarity, as is the case with the opposition to SOPA, these new technologies do enable the people to project our voice in ways that we didn’t have before. It is precisely these threats, the threats to music labels, news corporations and other traditional power structures that make this bill simply corporate welfare.

There are already laws in place that protect intellectual “property” like music. Corporations have the absolute right to pursue people who “steal” their music via civil litigation. Litigation, however, is simply expensive and time consuming. Further, by the time the corporations win their court battle, dozens more of other similar sites have popped up, as was the case with Napster and Limewire. This new SOPA bill takes the burden off of the corporations and places it back on the taxpayers by ostensibly authorizing new regulatory staff positions. Perhaps the corporations should simply place more faith in the legal justice system; just as us minorities are asked to do, despite our experiences. If it doesn’t work for us, why should it work for them?

While most people who oppose SOPA care very little about the effect such regulation will have on online pirates, most are convinced that the precedent of federal regulation of the internet will inevitably lead to more and more regulation, eventually infringing on the traditional free speech. This is especially so in this political climate. One online facebook comment by Karla Aguilar underscores these concerns, “banned (Chicano studies) books, censored websites, indefinite detention, warrant-less spying of communications, easily hacked paperless voting machines, highest ratio of citizens behind bars ever, corporations calling shots in government…welcome to USA 2012.”