The right to access information is fundamental in any open society, the and so is the protection of intellectual property. The enjoyment of one, however, should not infringe on the other. This is ex ofactly what PIPA and SOFA attempted to do. SOPA was a bill tabled in the US House of Representatives. PIPA, on the other hand, was tabled in the US Senate. Both Bills sought to prevent violation of copyrights on the internet. While the intention was noble, the means of achieving that aroused concern. Internet providers could be ordered to block the domain names of internet sites on suspicion of a violation. Various companies could also be forced to refrain from doing business with infringing sites. The two Bills failed and were not passed. This paper shows how Passing PIPA and SOPA into law could have caused gross infringements on the right to access information, and freedom of expression, The drafters of PIPA and SOPA “understood what was at stake” (Gillmor 3). Gillmor is a media expert and author of ‘Media Active’, a book about empowering people as new media users. By making such utterances, Gillmor was by no means in agreement with the proposed “fixes” on internet use. Neither did he support the alleged advantages of; “wresting control of these tools from the masses” (Gillmor 3). The bills promised a centrally controlled and more open means of communication and dialogue. These claims, made by the proponents of the two bills were misleading and did not reflect the bills’ true intentions. He argues that if the lawmakers were honest, they would have told the public the truth about their intentions. The truth, according to Gillmor, was to regain control over communications and information which the internet threatened to take away (2). Gillmor’s sentiments are on point and I agree that the intention of the lawmakers was not to “centralize open means of communication”. I add that they found the threat the internet posed to their hold over communication and information unacceptable. To overcome this threat, they had to curb the internet’s utility for everyone. The proposed restrictions threatened to create an economy based on permissions. Permission would be needed from the holder of copyright to quote anything that is protected. Requiring permission to quote or borrow from protected material would severely restrict freedom of expression. Wood argues that every internet user would be affected in one way or another (4). This move would affect users of information for commercial and academic purposes. This would have had dire consequences on the education system. For example, a UTA student quoting passages from a copyrighted book would require permission from the author to use the material in academic write-ups. It will also affect professions such as journalism which “thrive on borrowed ideas” (Wood 3). Wood’s argument that such professions thrive on borrowed ideas is narrow. It gives the unrealistic impression that journalists are not innovative and do not produce original work. My opinion is that, though they borrow and use other people’s creations, they build on the ideas to produce ideas that are understood better by their audiences. I, however, agree that the development of such careers would have been hampered. The passing into law of the two bills would have led to censorship. These are sentiments expressed by DiM