I'm really not sure what you mean; I tried to articulate my argument as best I could without being offensive (which is hard; the topics here are understandably emotional to a lot of people.) But I seem to have have only received superficial comments from you and my original post seems to be downvoted.
At the very least can I be told what my post did wrong and/or what norms I have broken to get this reception?
I posted my qualifier not because I thought it absolved me of the associations (it doesn't, the first paragraph 'poisoned the well' so to speak, there was little I could do about it without choose not to discuss it); I did it in an attempt to show I was making the argument in good faith. I don't think I was very successful however.
You can't use a slippery slope argument that begins with child pornography in this situation without supporting child pornography. I'm not saying this to try and discredit your argument by association, it's simply a consequence of trying to hold freedom of speech so utterly sacrosanct that you can't breach it under any circumstances.
Yes, it would be easier to not take a stance on things like this, because then we could argue from the superior position of "I've never censored anything (well except posting personal information...)," but that would make us complicit in the trading of child pornography.
So, instead, I say we accept that we now have the harder job of drawing lines and judging what is and not allowable. Accept that the harder thing is to go "I am against SOPA/ACTA in all its forms, but am against being complicit against the trade of child pornography and will ~censor~ it if necessary" because life isn't about black and whites, and sometimes we have to make compromises for the greater good.
(EDIT: spelling, grammar)
At the very least can I be told what my post did wrong and/or what norms I have broken to get this reception?