You make a lot of valid points, but I don't think OP knows the answers to those things either. Maybe he is just opening up discussions and that's were I don't agree with you; as a tool to make people think he shouldn't have not written the article; it worked. People are reading it on HN and thinking about it.
I do think it helps. But it's very difficult to see what helped in the end. There were a lot of 'uninformed' articles about SOPA, especially in the big news outlets; I'm willing to bet (but have no proof) that those made the outcry larger than the technically correct and informative ones on HN etc.
But it's hard to tell what makes the pendulum swing and better researched at this time is better, but nothing at all is worse.
By this logic (something is good by virtue of the discussions it starts over and above its inherent truthfulness) I could make up BS about any worthy cause and claim that the ends justify the means.
OP asserted the judge is corrupt. Not that there is evidence that he is corrupt, but that he is corrupt. By stepping so far so early he is essentially playing the analogy of the Tea Party card - rally your base, i.e. those who already agree with you, while alienating the centre. It's immature righteous indignation instead of reasoned rhetoric.
It's ironic that OP misrepresents the facts in order to condemn a party for misrepresenting facts.
I do think it helps. But it's very difficult to see what helped in the end. There were a lot of 'uninformed' articles about SOPA, especially in the big news outlets; I'm willing to bet (but have no proof) that those made the outcry larger than the technically correct and informative ones on HN etc.
But it's hard to tell what makes the pendulum swing and better researched at this time is better, but nothing at all is worse.