One site in particular, however, has taken another approach. Instead of “blacking out” to protest SOPA, Fark.com has “gone white” in order to support the anti-piracy acts. In typical Fark fashion, frivolity reigns, but their message echoes what many other site owners are saying: “We don’t support SOPA,” only this time, it’s done with a tongue-in-cheek approach. Over at Fark.com, their white out in “support” of SOPA is for one reason and one reason only: the anti-piracy acts give them a perfect excuse to quit.

From Fark’s “white out” explanation:

While a bunch of other sites are going “dark” to protest SOPA/PIPA, we’re over the moon about the whole thing. Why? Honestly, we’ve been bringing you the latest news happening across the internet for 12 years, and we’re tired. And SOPA/PIPA is the perfect excuse to quit.

The Fark admins continue their lament:

While SOPA might be “almost dead,” it’s not quite all the way there, and under various drafts of both SOPA/PIPA, Fark could have its DNS assignment (the thing that turns an IP address, like 10.0.0.1, into words like Fark.com) revoked without notice simply for linking to content that could come under foreign copyright claims. This means, even if it is actual news in and of itself, if we link to it, we can be shut down. And thank God, cause we’re about ready to crack under the strain of being on top of the news all the time.

A screenshot of the Fark.com welcome screen demonstrates their commitment to SOPA support:

Offering a quality website does take a lot of work, so Fark’s position is understandable. Drew Curtis’ crew also post a video explaining why we, the people, should support SOPA. It’s some compelling stuff that we should keep in mind the next time Lamar Smith explains why his anti-piracy act is worth supporting:

It should also be noted that, unlike other sites that have blacked out protesting SOPA, you can still access Fark.com’s content, and if you navigate to the fark.com/index.html address, you’ll bypass the site’s whiteout splash screen.

This week, Google CEO Eric Schmidt addressed the American Society of News Editors. This came shortly after Rupert Murdoch started going on about blocking search engines, yet again. Schmidt hinted at new ways of making money around online news content being developed (and Google working on this itself). If you’ve got 45 minutes to kill, you can check out Schmidt’s keynote below.

With the recent release of Apple’s iPad (and even since its initial announcement), there has been a lot of talk about the device playing a role in "saving journalism." I like Drew Curtis of Fark’s take on this mentality – gluing four iPhones together is going to save journalism? In actuality, "Journalism’s fine," he said in an interview we did with him at SXSW last month:

"The problem you’ve got with journalists is, all of us have got an area of expertise we know something about, and if you read an article in a newspaper about the area of expertise you know something about, they get it wrong right? It turns out that even the journalists get the newspaper industry wrong, and they’re in it, but they’re not like making the decisions about what’s happening, so there’s not really this conscious understanding of what’s actually going on."

At the news editor event, Schmidt made some comments about blogging that got a few people riled up as he highlighted the need for editors, and while there is certainly merit to his point, Curtis’ point about journalists getting things wrong has merit of its own, and that’s why there is certainly room for both styles of reporting.

Schmidt must feel the same way, considering Google owns Blogger, Blog Search, and includes blogs in Google News. The fact of the matter is, there is plenty of room for error in either venue, and frankly, online, the lines between so-called professional journalism and blogging are often quite gray.

I think we’re going to see some more interesting and creative methods for news delivery and consumption in the not-too-distant future (here’s an interesting one that’s already out there), which is what Curtis says the newspaper industry needs, and what Schmidt seems to indicate Google is working on as we speak.

Kentucky State Representative, Tim Couch

In summary, House Bill 775 would require anyone who wants to leave a comment on a Web site to register their real name, address, and e-mail address with the Web site. They would be expected to use their real name whenever they commented. Web site operators who would not abide by the law would be fined $500 for the first offense and $1,000 for any additional violation.

Considering how powerful the issue is, the WebProNews video department tried repeatedly to contact Representative Tim Couch for a video interview. When Mr. Couch returned our calls, he declined the interview saying he was overwhelmed with the feedback this bill has brought.

Mr.Couch says his name has been slashed all over the blogosphere for this bill. I tried to persuade him the interview would give him the opportunity to explain to the blogosphere his original intentions, but he still declined saying:

“I only wanted to make a statement, and I did.”

Mr. Couch told me over the phone that he is being attacked on the Internet. He has received countless e-mails and phone calls not only at his office, but also at his home. His daughter received a call that contained severe “foul language.”

He said, “I am not a Communist,” like he thinks the blogosphere is making him out to be.

On the Lexington Herald-Leader blog, Pol Watchers, John Cheves gives the explanation that Mr. Couch was trying to protect the children in his district.

"Some nasty things have been said about high school kids in my district, usually by other kids. The adults get in on it, too."

Drew Curtis of the famous Fark.com, which is based in Kentucky, wrote, “Kentucky lawmaker wants to r-u-n-n-o-f-t largest website in the state. Drew looking forward to moving Fark to the Cayman Islands.”

Mr. Couch also told WebProNews that he does not think the bill will go anywhere especially after the strong response he’s received. He said he would like the negativity to stop, and he’s very busy at the moment working on the state budget.

NSFW, for Not Safe For Work, is one of those Internet memes that seems to have been around as long as the Web has supported image viewing. Generally, it refers to images that, if seen over one’s shoulder in the workplace by a particularly sensitive third party, could result in the viewer being fired.

Audio can be just as workplace-unfriendly as well. But sexual images hit a nerve with people, to the point where companies with Internet use policies make people agree not to view such content on their work computers.

NSFW has been around in general usage for years, but good luck pinning down the first time it was used. We can’t imagine Curtis sending out the lawyers against anyone who forwards a link to someone with NSFW tacked on to it as a warning, should the USPTO grant the trademark.

follow me on Twitter