In case you missed it, the first save-the-internet declaration kicked off in Silicon Valley this week and was quickly countered by a conservative alternative. Soon after, the United Nations weighed in with a manifesto of its own.

This burst of political energy shows that the internet may be the next ground zero of revolution and that we may need a Constitution-like document to define its values.

For confused internet warriors or those who simply want to stay out of the way, here’s a quick look at the new movements:

Movement #1: The Declaration of Internet Freedoms

What it is: A statement of five principles — Expression, Access, Openness, Innovation and Privacy — intended to keep the internet safe from censors, tyrants, plutocrats and the government.

Brought to you by: Silicon Valley tech and media types; the folks who brought down the SOPA anti-piracy bill

Pros: Nice idea, backed by folks who make cool web stuff and haven’t done you any harm

Cons: Preaching to the converted; hippies; shaky legal foundation (see Elie’s Constitutional mark-up here)

Movement #2: The Technology Revolution: A Campaign for Liberty Manifesto

What it is: A libertarian proclamation to protect the internet from censorship and the “collectivist-Industrial complex — a dangerous brew of wealthy, international NGO’s, progressive do-gooders, corporate cronies,” and to ensure that telecom and big data companies aren’t burdened with regulation.

Brought to you by: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), end-the-Fed folks, the ghost of Ayn Rand

Pros: Backed by political pros; laissez-faire outlook

Cons: Gives Microsoft, Comcast et al keys to the entire internet; possibly catastrophic for privacy and the poor

Movement #3: The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet

What it is: A UN Human Rights Council consensus resolution that affirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognizes the internet’s role in promoting a right to media and expression

Brought to you by: The foreign minister of Sweden (via the NY Times) but also the fine governments of China, Cuba, Congo, Kyrgyzgstan, Nigeria, Uganda, Russia and Saudi Arabia (full list here).

Pros: Ringing affirmation of free speech and media across borders

Cons: The new world order; rabid anti-Americanism

Who do you cast your vote for?

In a perfect world, a future “Constitution of the Internet” would represent the idealism and tech savvy of Silicon Valley, the political experience of Ron Paul and the global community of the United Nations. But is this even possible? Some people may embrace this rush to stand up against threats to the internet — while others may be more alarmed by the internet’s self-appointed protectors.

(Images by Rob Kints, fourb, patrimonio designs limited and Oleksiy Mark via Shutterstock)

The revised bill passed by a vote of 248 to 168, with 206 Republicans voting in favor of the bill and 140 Democrats voting against it. Earlier today, we published this FAQ, which examines the issues surrounding the bill and its potential impact on the technology and media industries.

Proponents of the bill have framed it as an “information sharing” measure that is necessary to protect companies from hacking and the country form cyber-attack.

“This is not a perfect bill, but the threat is great,” Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), said on the House floor on Thursday.

Ruppersberger is one of a handful of key Democrats who are supporting the bill. His words are likely to provide fodder to critics who complain that politicians are once again using fear tactics in an effort to ram through questionable legislation.

While cyber-attacks have been a real issue for companies and government agencies, the CISPA bill contains measures that may be broader than what is needed to do the job. The White House, civil libertarians and Republicans like Ron Paul have said the bill makes it too easy for companies to hand personal data about consumers to the federal government.

The most significant part of the bill is a provision that says “notwithstanding any other provision of law” — this would override a number of laws that have been in place for decades that force companies to safeguard personal information. Under the bill, companies are allowed to pass on data only in a limited number of circumstances — such as cyber-security or child pornography — but critics worry these categories will become broad loopholes.

Today’s surprise vote came after the passage of several last-minute amendments. The most important of these was a sunset clause which means the bill will expire in five years unless it is renewed. The members of the House, however, rejected a number of other amendments that would have provided new privacy protections.

The bill is far from certain to pass the law as it faces White House opposition and must pass the Democrat-controlled Senate.

To learn more, see your plain English FAQ about CISPA.

In an order issued yesterday in San Francisco, US Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James said the impostors had not used Paul’s name in a commercial fashion — meaning his trademark claims were ineligible.

The Paul campaign first filed the lawsuit in January after a person or group named NHLiberty4Paul put out a YouTube (NSDQ: GOOG) video that suggested formal rival Jon Huntsman was a Chinese agent. Huntsman dropped out of the race after the primary in New Hampshire.

Paul has disavowed any association with NHLiberty4Paul which also put out a series of tweets under the same name. Paul supporters have accused the Huntsman campaign of putting out the video as a dirty trick tactic.

The Paul campaign wants to sue NHLiberty4Paul but must first obtain an order directing YouTube and Twitter to disclose the real people behind the name (the lawsuit for now refers to “John Does”).

In January, Judge James refused to require the companies to disclose then name because Paul’s first complaint had not shown “good cause.” In response to an amended complaint, James this week wrote that the campaign could not use federal trademark law — which is normally used to protects goods and services — because the YouTube video and tweets were not commercial in nature.

In her order, the judge cited an earlier case in which a Utah court refused to let Koch Industries, an influential Republican donor, use trademark law to unveil pranksters who had issued a press release stating that Koch would no longer fund anti-climate change science.

In a footnote at the end of decision, Judge James appears to suggest that Paul’s federal claims are shaky but that he could pursue his related claims for defamation in state court:

Plaintiff’s decision to not pursue this claim in state court and instead assert novel trademark claims that appear to have never previously been addressed by the federal courts requires this Court to first be satisfied that they are viable claims before permitting expedited discovery.

Ron Paul is still in the Republican primary. He has yet to win a state but has reportedly amassed 22 delegates from states that don’t use a winner-take-all system.

The judge’s order is below. Via Professor Eric Goldman’s Technology and Marketing Law Blog.

Ron Paul Order, March

A federal judge yesterday refused the campaign’s request for an order that would have forced YouTube (NSDQ: GOOG) and Twitter to disclose details about “NHLiberty4Paul.” That name is associated with a Twitter and YouTube handle, likely from New Hampshire, that issued messages suggesting former Republican candidate Jon Huntsman is a Chinese agent.

The Paul campaign, which has disavowed the allegations, responded with a lawsuit earlier this month. Here is an excerpt:

The Video also questions Mr. Huntsman’s religious faith, refers to Mr. Huntsman as “China Jon” and asks whether his daughters are “even adopted.” The Video ends with a fictitious depiction of Mr. Huntsman in a Mao Zedong uniform and the text “American Values and Liberty – Vote Ron Paul,” thereby falsely implying that Plaintiff created, endorsed or is affiliated in some way with the Video and its content.

The people associated with NHLiberty4Paul also issued a series of tweets that insult Huntsman and claim Paul is the only real conservative in the GOP race.

In a recent filing, the Paul campaign asked US Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James to grant an order that would have forced Twitter, YouTube and other third parties to provide information about NHLiberty4Paul.

In a two-page order (shown below), James stated that the Paul campaign had not met the “good cause” criteria necessary to obtain the order.

This means that the campaign can’t for now obtain the identities of the defendants who are listed in the lawsuit as “John Doe.”

Jerrold Abeles, an attorney for the Paul campaign, said in a phone interview that the order is not the end of the road for the Paul campaign. Abeles said the campaign still has the option to file an amended request seeking to unmask the John Does.

The lawsuit accuses the defendants of false advertising, trademark infringement and libel. The suit is unusual because free speech principles of American law make it nearly impossible for a national political figure like Paul to win a defamation case.

Ron Paul is a libertarian whose followers rabidly support his philosophy of small government and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Ron Paul 2012 v. Does, C 12-0240 (N.D. Cal.; Jan 25 2012)

The videos in question bear the name “NHLiberty4Paul” and malign former candidate Jon Huntsman’s religion and ties to China. The Paul campaign has disavowed the videos.

“This is a classic case of dirty politics resulting from the unlawful use in commerce of an underhanded and deceptive advertisement designed to tarnish plaintiff’s reputation,” reads the complaint (posted below) which was filed yesterday in San Francisco federal court.

The lawsuit is a “John Doe” suit in which a plaintiff initiates legal proceedings and then later adds the defendants real names once their identities are obtained (usually by means of a subpoena on an internet service provider).

The lawsuit is unusual from both a legal and political perspective. Ron Paul is a libertarian whose signature issue is individual liberties and freedom from government — the use of a John Doe lawsuit is potentially incongruous with these values.

The defamation claims are also a surprise because under First Amendment laws it is nearly impossible for a high profile politician to file a successful libel suit. The campaign may have similar difficulties with its trademark claim.

Ron Paul Trademark and Defamation claim