[celoyd]

How can the messaging be improved? How can it be made more compelling to resonate more with laypeople?

Explain SOPA as (1) censorship and (2) a heavy burden on legitimate business. These are honest ways of describing it in everyday terms, and at least one of those points should resonate with almost any American, whatever their political identity.

Given the time to lay out a clearer case, explain that even if you agree with some of the intentions behind SOPA, it’s unlikely to be effective at stopping piracy. If passed, it would probably have to be at least partly rolled back.

And explain that the kind of highly creative, small-time artists whom people instinctively want to defend are, in general, hurt by draconian IP policy.

I think this is realistic and counteracts the impression that people who object to SOPA are all Professor Frink.

[ericb]

Censorship is the wrong approach. Our current regime is anti-civil liberty (free speech included). You need to use the right language against them.

SOPA regulations will increase the size of our government, cost millions of jobs, and billions of dollars in market value, while destroying America's technological edge. The legislation hurts small businesses(how can they have blog comments without being sued under SOPA). Also, you need to find a way to call the bill a tax increase.

[evolve2k]

SOPA 'Technology Tax' will push innovation offshore.