The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is on the minds of many since the bill was introduced into Congress late last year, and the numbers of those against the bill moving forward are rising. Not only has the president spoken out against the bill, but a number of major websites will be going dark on Wednesday for 12 hours or more to protest it. Check out the (growing) list below.

• Wikipedia
• I Can Has Cheezburger network
• Reddit
• Google
• The Oatmeal
• Wordpress
• Tumblr
• MoveOn.org
• Mozilla
• TwitPic
• BoingBoing
• Minecraft.net
• Riot Games
• Epic Games
• 38 Studios
• Red 5 Studios

Know of any sites we missed? Let us know in the comments!

The Internet is abuzz today regarding SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, that is making its way through congress. This act may be seen as a well-intentioned copyright bill that can take down sites that host pirated content, but when you dig deeper, sites like Twitter, Facebook, and others could be subject to its regulations. Essentially, the US government and entertainment companies — like Warner Bros. or Sony Music for example — would be allowed to censor sites that "engage in, enable or facilitate" copyright infringement.

Companies would have to submit a claim that a website is infringing on its copyrights, then the website in question would have five days to comply with the takedown, or issue an appeal before power is given to the attorney general to cut off a site's domain, listing in search engines, advertisers, and payment processors, essentially blacklisting them from the Internet.

Why It Should Matter to You

Lobbyists for the bill say that SOPA will be used to stop "rogue sites" from seeding pirated content around the web, but essentially, any website that hosts, links to, or posts pirate-friendly content can be shut down. Embed a lip dub of a Lady Gaga song from YouTube, or post a copyrighted image on your Tumblr? You're also at risk. Heck, YouTube would probably be censored in a matter of minutes if this bill goes through.

Why SOPA Is Flawed

Proponents of SOPA say that this will help decrease pirated content from around the web by blocking domain names so users can't get to the site. However, you can still access the site if you know the IP address. So really, this bill won't do anything to stop pirates, "rogue sites," or anyone else from pirating content or accessing sites that are blocked. Basically, it's a legal way for the entertainment industry to bully websites by blacklisting them and taking away their streams of income (if they use advertisers or payment processors). Twitter, Google, and Mozilla have already spoken out about the bill, which could affect them in big ways if SOPA goes through.

Here's another reason to password-protect your mobile phone: California's governor just recently vetoed a bill that requires a court-ordered warrant in order to search mobile phones upon arrest. This means that if you get arrested in the state of California, the arresting officer can search your smartphone — which gives him access to emails, call logs, texts, location data, banking apps, and more — without needing a warrant.

Governor Jerry Brown says the issue is too complicated for him to make a decision about and has upheld the supreme court's recent decision on warrentless searches that include mobile phones.

Password-protecting your smartphone isn't just a good idea in everyday practice, but it will also require an arresting officer to obtain a warrant in order for you to hand over the password.

Though the ease of online communications can be a tempting way to vent or make new friends, sometimes it's best to resist, as was the case for a recent juror in Texas who Facebook messaged a defendant, then found himself guilty of four counts of contempt of court. We may be used to sharing every thought in quick, two-sentence missives online, but here's what not to do when serving time in the court room.

1. Don't friend, follow, circle, like, stumble, or tumble anyone related to the case. Take a dose of willpower and don't even search for their online persona. When there's the possibility of any sort of legal ramifications involved, err on the side of social media caution and steer clear of online involvement with an offline court case.
2. Keep those witty thoughts about how boring the trial is or the guilt of the defendant to yourself. A juror who posted a Facebook status declaring themselves "sitting in hell" at jury duty was kicked off a trial. Similar is the juror required to pay a fine and write an essay on the constitutionality of a fair trial after she was caught telling the Facebook world the defendant was guilty.
3. Don't use a smartphone, tablet, or other type of mobile computer for reference in court. A Florida case was found to be a mistrial because a juror searched the definition of the word "prudent" on their phone and shared the meaning with the rest of the jury. Why is this a big deal? The term was used throughout the case and was given significance in the jury instructions from the judge. Defense attorneys were able to argue the jury's new view of the term affected the verdict outcome, and a mistrial was declared.

Basically, if your normal instinct is to turn to social networks or your phone in a dull moment (and we can all agree jury duty has those moments), for the sake of the trial, your tax dollars, and avoiding a personal run-in with the law, take a digital vacation until the end of jury service.

Talk about being a sexy, savvy celebrity. A friend just passed along this interesting tidbit about Gerard Butler — the fine-looking 300 actor was trained as a lawyer! This hottie earned his law degree at the University of Glasgow, and was even the president of his school's Law Society. It seems like being an actor was more his calling, and after being fired from his trainee lawyer job, Gerard decided to switch career paths.

It's pretty inspiring to see him jump industries — it kind of reaffirms the fact that if there's a will, there's always a way! Take it as another story to inspire you to chase your dream career.

Yesterday, Arizona became the first state to make abortions based on sex or race a felony. But there's no evidence selective abortions are actually happening.

Most abortions take place before doctors can determine the sex of a fetus. As for race, Republican lawmakers argued the law was needed because a large percentage of abortions are sought by minority women, implying that minority women abort fetuses due to their race. That's some serious twisting of logic. The higher number of abortions among minorities just couldn't have anything to do with low access to birth control or a higher rate of poverty, could it?

So what's the real motivation for the law? Opponents argue the intention is to create obstacles for minorities seeking abortion. And by creating categories of criminalized abortions, all Arizona women might now have to justify their abortions. It also gives rights to a fetus which opens the door for criminalizing abortion in general.

A statement from the governor's spokesperson on the law suggests that's the goal, "Governor Brewer believes society has the responsibility to protect its most vulnerable, the unborn."

What do you make of the new law?

Last week a Texas Senate committee passed a bill to require doctors to perform sonograms and describe the fetus to women. The bill could be on the state senate floor next week, and a decision could soon follow.

The idea, of course, is that women will be so moved by the little mass growing inside them that they'll stop the procedure and have the baby. Eighteen other states already have similar laws — and crisis pregnancy centers notoriously show women sonograms — but research shows women do not change their minds afterward.

To be fair, this research has been done by pro-choice organizations, but bias can only go so far. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care found that 72 percent of women opted to see sonograms, 86 percent called it a positive experience, and none canceled the procedure. But the difference between this study and what Texas is proposing is that women have a choice. The bill states women can "avert their eyes," but it is not clear if they'll be able to opt out of hearing the description of the fetus.

What will Texas get out of showing a woman a sonogram she doesn't want to see? At best, an extra-unpleasant abortion experience? At worst, a mother who doesn't want, or can't handle, a child. And maybe a dangerous message for other women that DIY abortions aren't such a bad idea.

Last week, the British president of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall, said the UK needs legislation to protect the 2.3 million unmarried, cohabitating couples if they split up. Not to get all conservative, but I always thought the whole point of marriage, in the most unromantic sense, is to legally bind assets and receive protection if the marriage dissolves. It's the legal fine line between being married and living together.

Same-sex couples who can't marry aside (they deserve protection), I don't see legislation like this coming to the US anytime soon, nor should it. However, it does stir up age-old questions about cohabitation. Janet Street Porter writes in the Daily Mail, "Cohabiting is a status that favors men — that’s why so many of them refuse to marry and women comply in order to remain with the person they love."

This echoes the controversial interview we did with Mark Regnerus, author of Premarital Sex in America last week. Read what he said below.