I may be something of a reluctant journalist, but like any writer I am in a lifelong love affair with the First Amendment. Free speech, with its alter ego, freedom of information, is a fickle lover - sometimes benevolent and helpful, sometimes nasty and destructive. The problem is that you can't reign in the latter without affecting the former.

Case in point: SOPA and PIPA (sounds like that honey-covered Mexican dessert, yum) - companion bills in Congress aimed at Internet piracy, the theft of intellectual property. Sounds good, right? It's a dangerously double-edged sword, said Wikipedia, which is so upset about the repercussions that it protested with a blackout of its English language website for 24 hours Wednesday. Thousands of websites followed suit. Google, Ebay, Facebook and others are directing users to information or protest petitions.

Why does the legislation have them up in arms, accusing the government of veiled censorship? Wiki and Google say by curbing users' ability to freely share music, videos, and other material, the net effect will include such a massive change in free flow of ideas and information, such as Wiki content, it will amount to a return to the "dark ages," when limited access to information made it easier to control who knew what, when, and how it was delivered. Copyright protection is understandable, but critics say this legislation goes far beyond necessity.

Finding that delicate balance between legitimate limitations on speech without violating First Amendment protections has long been the Supreme Court's special challenge. These cases are good reading; the judges go outside legal terminology and examine society's mores, benefits, and risks against a changing world, in this case (and I do believe it will reach the Supremes, should it become law), technology. Supreme Court cases tend to reflect American history.

It's true that film companies, musicians, and other artists have lost millions in potential sales, and deserve their due. On the other hand, we can't throw the constitutional baby out with the pirated bathwater. Wiki and other critics say it's not the intent they mind; it's that the "poor" language of these bills could end non-pirated sharing on YouTube, Twitter, certain self-publishing efforts, and even some business sites, seriously limiting free flow of information. Congress is overreaching, they say; write a better, more restricted anti-piracy law, and we'll support it.

More information without opinion is a bit elusive, but PC World and Britain's BBC.co.uk offer relatively straightforward facts on the current versions of the bills. BBC's includes links to the list of supporters - performing arts/publishing industry groups and government, as well as a letter outlining the critics' viewpoint. Somewhere between them is wisdom.

"In a healthy nation there is a kind of dramatic balance between the will of the people and the government, which prevents its degeneration into tyranny." - Albert Einstein

Sholeh Patrick is an attorney and columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Email sholehjo@hotmail.com