That seemed like pretty standard reporting to me. They explain what’s happening and bring out the position of each side, with an emphasis on presenting the views of those who take part in today’s protest.
There is also a disclaimer, though you might argue it’s a bit far down.
From my understanding SOPA doesnt require an order from a judge but rightsholders, ISPs, or the government could shut down sites with accusations of infringement, and without real due process.
SOPA does require an order from a judge.
Aforementioned disclaimer: "SOPA's supporters -- including CNN parent company Time Warner and groups such as the MPAA -- say..."
While you can report something primarily using quotes in a biased manner. I'm with @ugh, this was relatively well done.
If anything, continued or increased economic slowdown will increase piracy, as people have both less disposable income and less regard for increasingly abused intellectual property rights.
I think you may be right, but only if you consider piracy to not be part of "the economy". My understanding at least is that it very much is.
It's insidious and infuriating.
edit: Also as the other comment points out, the bill is ostensibly an anti-piracy bill.
PS: I could continue but those are literally the first picture and first sentence of the article.
And being wrong about one inconsequential detail doesn’t mean they are misrepresenting anything. They made a stupid mistake, that’s all.
I don’t want to defend CNN but I think it’s about time turn confirmation bias down a bit.
—
† A link: http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&...
SOPA makes Internet companies liable for their users actions by removing safe harbor provisions. The only could is 'could be held liable' in a court of law. They also avoid mentioning how many websites are protesting SOPA. If this was breaking news that would be one thing, but they have had significant warning that this was going to happen.