Well, we can at least arm you with all the helpful information we can dig up. Personally, I would hammer on a few main points: SOPA is ineffective, expensive and dangerous. Build from there. Lead with your best arguments, cull the weak ones, hammer on them with the points they're least able to refute.
* Ineffective
Australia had a bill like this (which is dead... for now), but also did some trials. Read the reports to see how big a failure that was (scroll down to "Live filtering trials"):
As you of all people know, these new requirements would be incredibly taxing for startups, preventing new jobs from being created. This would require every site to implement filters, slowing everything, raising costs and blocking innocent things by mistake. The CATO institute has shown, using the MPAA's own research, that it won't even save one job all told:
How much will this cost? I could make up a number. Indeed, a lot of numbers have been made up in support of SOPA already. We've already established that it will be ineffective, so the benefits are approximately zero, making it difficult to justify any cost. So rather than inventing numbers, I will point instead to what I do know, that these are the people who will be paying the price:
Whether they're trying to hijack DNS requests or web pages, censoring firewalls are bad for security, because if you control the device doing the hijacking, you can use it for whatever. Incidentally, existing products like SmartFilter already perform MITM attacks every time you try to visit an https page. In theory, the organization is supposed to add their key to everyone's computer and then they sign a bunch of fake sites with the firewall. When they don't bother doing that, you see it attempting to hack your connection all the time.
You're welcome. I've been following this news for a lot longer than most, so if there's ever anything I can help with, feel free to ask.
Ars & TorrentFreak probably have the most complete original coverage of this stuff if you're ever looking things up or want to find more meat to add to an argument.
Yeah, they're another good source. I wonder if it would be feasible for you to talk to some of their reporters who cover this beat? Some of them have talked to a lot of people and they remember a lot. One of the articles at Ars went over how Hollywood has predicted "DOOM!" for every new tech, including the copier & VCR.
The best serious scholarly legal works are by a guy named William Patry. His books _Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars_ and _How to Fix Copyright_ are the two most relevant here, though it's quite a long read given that you have like 3 days. You may or may not know that name, but he wrote a huge series on copyright law (_Patry on Copyright_) that lawyers use as a reference. He also worked for Google, though he's sick of hearing crap about that. He had exactly the same opinions about copyright law before & after being hired; namely, that they should promote progress. Congress, meanwhile, cares more about money issues, as always. Still, that's a point you probably do need to keep in mind when talking to them.
Hollywood is posting record profits, BTW. I think TF had an article about that a month or so back. Their numbers are all ass-pulls, not unlike their crazy accounting techniques. Might be worth hitting them on their lack of math, because they've screwed more than a few artists that way. Our problem isn't with the artists, it's with the industry.
Might also want to come up with some soundbites. Find some questions you're almost sure to be asked and have short, witty replies waiting for them. Bounce them off some friends/supports in private first to make sure they work, though. We'll be rooting for you.
I know your personal convictions in crowdsourcing this kind of stuff may be completely opposed to my recommendations... but please consider contacting specialists who you may know by their contribution to social sites instead of relying on crowdsourcing. It's my belief that the true power of online social communities rely on the kind of people that wouldn't interact with each other if it not where because of the internet.
I particularly think that for example tptacek or trotsky (the HN user, however she/he has himself called as in meatspace eludes me) would be interesting people, where I in your position, to discuss this with at least briefly. I myself have certain first hand experience with internet protocols, information security, and left leaning politics, and my arguments would look like crayon written babbling compared to what they may come up with in a discussion about SOPA.
What happened with the Google doc? Did it just get inundated with memes or something?
A GDoc might not be the answer here (my mind is actually drawn to Google Wave for some reason---something with a short feedback loop), and there may be no technological answer(someone smart [who may even end up being me]: this is a pain point worth pursuing), but I do know that without a core basic skeleton and background info (if all you've got so far is a list of points you want to hit, that's the "source" of your address), there's nothing the community can do.
I'm not trying to be pushy, just realistic. Good luck!
* Ineffective
Australia had a bill like this (which is dead... for now), but also did some trials. Read the reports to see how big a failure that was (scroll down to "Live filtering trials"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...
Even if you have full control of a network, it's not so easy to keep pirates off of it. Why else would there be pirates on the RIAA's own network?
https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-someone-else-is-pirating-throu...
And there are already countermeasures, so the law has been rendered obsolete even before being passed:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/285170,firefox-add-on-circumve...
* Expensive
As you of all people know, these new requirements would be incredibly taxing for startups, preventing new jobs from being created. This would require every site to implement filters, slowing everything, raising costs and blocking innocent things by mistake. The CATO institute has shown, using the MPAA's own research, that it won't even save one job all told:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/04545217274/cato-i...
Their numbers are overblown:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100801/17431810439.shtml
http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/playing-numbers-why-sopa...
How much will this cost? I could make up a number. Indeed, a lot of numbers have been made up in support of SOPA already. We've already established that it will be ineffective, so the benefits are approximately zero, making it difficult to justify any cost. So rather than inventing numbers, I will point instead to what I do know, that these are the people who will be paying the price:
https://www.cdt.org/report/growing-chorus-opposition-stop-on...
* Dangerous
Whether they're trying to hijack DNS requests or web pages, censoring firewalls are bad for security, because if you control the device doing the hijacking, you can use it for whatever. Incidentally, existing products like SmartFilter already perform MITM attacks every time you try to visit an https page. In theory, the organization is supposed to add their key to everyone's computer and then they sign a bunch of fake sites with the firewall. When they don't bother doing that, you see it attempting to hack your connection all the time.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/18075617093/former...
Or you can refer to these:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/10413817347/co-cha...
http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/managers-amendment-sopa-...
Also, it undermines our own State Department's efforts to promote freedom & democracy abroad.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120105/13282317290/us-sta...
Anyhow, I hope this is enough. Please make any use of this you can. Good luck!