[gillygize]

That is a good point, and I agree with your argument that this boycott is a significant turning point for Wikipedia and other websites. If we think about the reason that the boycott exists, however, which is the danger that this legislation will allow Wikipedia to be taken offline without adequate recourse, then suggesting that "it is possible that someone somewhere" will die because of the blackout could similarly lead to an argument like, "if SOPA is passed, it is possible that someone somewhere will die" due to the Wikipedia (or some other website) being taken offline.

[gojomo]

You're right, but the chain of events for SOPA to kill someone requires it to pass (mixed probability), to survive an inevitable court challenge (unlikely in my opinion), and be enforced against a Wikipedia-like site (also unlikely in my opinion).

For the blackout to do harm, one of the many thousands of people searching for reliable info tomorrow just has to miss crucial information they would have otherwise quickly found. And it won't be Representative Lamar Smith, the MPAA, or the Attorney General blocking readers from getting that info – it will be Wikipedia itself.

I personally am most impressed by those who keep providing the services that they think are right, without regard to the edicts of misguided lawmakers, until the moment men with guns show up and give you no other choice. "You can have my Internet when you pry the servers from my cold, dead hands."

Not, "Oh, yeah? We'll show you, we're taking our toys and going home today. Nyah-nyah."

[jacalata]

I personally am most impressed by those who see the possiblity of people arriving with guns (or whatever hyperbolic event you wish to imagine) and then work to avoid it /today/, rather than pretending that the future is out of their hands.