A Strategy, RE-branding and Mission Statement

RE-branding and Strategic Mission Statement:

The People For Free Speech on the Internet (this should be our new organization name and this organization will be forming two distinct operations) is a grassroots non-partisan political organization with one goal, and one goal only: To prevent SOPA and like legislation from passing in either the house or senate. SOPA is legislation that enables censorship of free speech on the internet.

The current strategy for achieving this is to focus our efforts on a non-partisan reform movement to send a message to all political representatives that the public will not tolerate legislation that infringes on freedom of speech.

The execution of this strategy will be to focus our efforts on disrupting the stability of a campaigning incumbent DEM and REP who support SOPA and similar legislation chosen by the following methodology:

1. Up for reelection in 2012

2. Currently supports SOPA and similar legislation

3. Is politically vulnerable (in a swing state, doesn’t win by a landslide etc.)

4. Can be replaced by an eager candidate willing to come out against SOPA (Hopefully we can reach out to Erik from Redstate to help with this in selection of a target/replacement on the DEM side)

5. If all criteria are met, than candidates are selected based on their level of involvement with SOPA etc.

If you already agree and are on board this train and are for the cause, you should support a non-partisan two candidate strategy. By being inclusive instead of exclusive we could potentially double our size and half our focus for at least a wash or net gain.

I see a lot of people commenting that they “won’t replace such and such” with a republican and this is exactly the type of rhetoric we need to avoid. We are already asking the conservatives in here supporting this (yes there are some, and from reddit as a whole) to make the same sacrifices. Erik from Redstate seems fully willing to make that sacrifice as well. http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/stopping-sopa/

Even if it is a wash, to go after two candidates it allows for one more advantage: The ability to control our message as a non-partisan message and not allow it to get hijacked or lost in the political back and forth the public/media has grown accustomed to. Another reason I suggest this rebranding is to accomplish this.

The people for this legislation were smart enough to come up with the name SOPA for the legislation that already frames it in a positive light to the uninformed, and the supporters are spending money on ad campaigns to enforce this perception, and politicians to buy influence.

The three rules of engagement to ensure the maximum amount of success and message control:

1. Set your alternative political motivations aside.

2. We must be very careful that any communication of our message comes across as non-partisan pro-free speech only and not pro-piracy

3. To defer claims made that we are pro-piracy we should cite the least aggressive stance on the issue and reply similarly to Rob Zerban when questioned about the issue

EDIT:Changed to reflect new evidence of Zerban's support:http://redd.it/nveew

This is just my suggestion but I think it will enable us to be the most effective if our true goal for this is to beat SOPA.

EDIT: I realize this just addresses SOPA and not the NDAA. I agree it should be both so I'll go back and fix the wording later to reflect that.