Quote:
|
Why would Wikipedia be taken down? They have a pretty good system to ensure that copyrighted material is properly cited or a fair use statement is published.
|
When you have a situation in which due process is ignored and the the accused is forced to prove their innocence rather than the accuser(s) prove their guilt, there will always be dangers. Imagine a situation where some individual with clout, say a media mogul, or some government agency takes umbrage at something posted on Wikipedeia, even if the posting is a true statement of facts. The person or agency could fish about on Wikipedia for some copyrighted bitthey 'own' posted on Wiki and, under SOPA/PIPA file a complaint. The wheels would be set in motion to implement all of the sanctions allowed under the laws and the website would be shut down and, possibly, the Wiki principals (and, perhaps, those individuals who contributed to the offense). Punitive actions would take place before there is even a trial or proof of legal guilt. If there is a trial, the onus would fall on the accused to prove their innocence rather than the state prove guilt (somewhat in the fashion of federal tax matters). A trial and the processes entailed could drag on for years, particulary if the one making the accusation is a private entity with an army of lawyers. If the accused is found not to have breached the law, the damage is already done, financially and in terms of reputation, etc. It all becomes, for the accuser, just a case of "Oops, my bad"...