I think proposals of this nature are not productive.

Much of what fuels anti-SOPA/PIPA sentiment is rooted in the principles of individual freedoms and the preservation of a commons that makes the exchange of information, ideas and enables commercial, individual and scientific innovation (amongst a whole long list of other awesome things that the Internet fosters). Taking retaliatory measures against those that exercise those freedoms, as distasteful as their position may be, is exactly the type of behaviour that SOPA proposes. We can each choose not to support those organizations that seek to control the Internet at the behest of Big Media and Hollywood, but to institutionalize controls constraining those that support it is, in my opinion, a victory for SOPA.

That's bullshit.

Rejecting submissions from SOPA supporters on a private website just isn't the same as manipulating the machinery of government the way bill supporters have done.

That's inflammatory.

But to your point, I wasn't commenting on the manipulation of government (a point that I also don't agree with - I think the government is complicit, not manipulated) but on the manipulation of technology to stifle freedom of expression. I don't see a huge difference between building filters that target torrent sites and building filters that target SOPA supporters. Nor do I think it makes a difference whether this is initiated in response to legislative demands, or some sense of "what is right".

YMMV.

> Taking retaliatory measures against those that exercise those freedoms

In one sense, it is a bit hypocritical. However, we are dealing with the same mentality that supported "You are either with us, or against us." The WSJ's main audience are people who don't give a flying damn about rights, they only care about money.

So you have to hit them in the money. Hard. Painfully.

I think simply ignoring or blocking anyone who disagrees with you will just lead to ignorance.

Sure we could. But then what would be the difference between us and them? Freedom of speech goes both ways and that's good. Without a good counterpoint constructive arguments can't come to life. In other words, contrast helps you see things clearly.

Rather than block those submissions why not automatically annotate/decorate them in such a way that users on the site know that the site's owners support SOPA/PIPA/Damaging the Internet

Ugh, no. Just because you disagree with them is no reason to ban them.

What would be the rationale for that?

Because in a couple years we'll have bots that can generate WSJ editorials by scratch simply by estimating what text will maximize the profits of the WSJ's old industry corporate masters?

...and if that content prompts insightful discussion that is appropriate for HN, what exactly is the problem?

It sounds like you're more concerned with censoring WSJ than maintaning the quality of HN.