Wikipedia goes dark in protest: Criminal justice blogger Scott Greenfield's well articulated support - adopted by the publisher of this Blog.

PUBLISHER'S VIEW: It is trite to say that without the Internet, I would not be able to obtain the necessary information and publish this Blog so it can be read by readers across the world. I therefore want add my voice to those who have chosen today to protest American proposed laws which could destroy the foundations of the Internet and place what remains under intolerable controls on the day that Wikipedia - a great source of information for this Blog and so many others - has chosen to go dark  to register its own protest. I echo the well articulated views of Scott Greenfield in his post noted below.

HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
-----------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Quod approbo non reprobo," by criminal defence blogger Scott H. Greenfield published earlier today on his blog "Simple Justice."
GIST: "Unlike others, I am not a believer that information demands to be free, in the sense of copyright being an archaic concept and infringement an entitlement. I believe that people who create content are entitled both to own it, monetize it and prevent others from stealing it. Yes, stealing it. If someone else created it, then it's not yours to do with as you please, no matter how much you want to or think you ought to be allowed to. If you want content, create your own. But believing in the virtue of protecting the creation of content does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that these shockingly overbearing laws are the means by which enforcement of content ownership should be protected. The internet has created innumerable problems with enforcement of copyright, with servers far away delivering content to any computer for the asking. It's inadequate to ask nicely that people not steal. Yet the answer to this problem isn't to wield a hammer so large and powerful that it will undermine the internet, shut down upon demand and without recourse any website, no matter how large and significant or small and inconsequential. Worse still, the hammer is placed in hands so untrustworthy, so self-serving and manipulative, that the potential for damage to digital society is beyond anything imaginable."
THE ENTIRE POST CAN BE FOUND AT:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/01/18/quod-approbo-non-reprobo.aspx?ref=rss

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;