Content is, too, I imagine.

Disagree with both of you. Video and audio are both smooth and free of dropouts, and the testimony of this attorney (who is she, btw?) is clear and informative.

Compared to some other hearings, the reps asking questions seem legitimately interested in making the bill suck a lot less. Time will tell, I suppose, and it sucks that this bill made it this far, but I'd highly recommend watching the feed if you care about the outcome.

For example, your next letter to your elected representative could reference specific content of the discussion rather than rehashing something that was talked about. Nothing says "I care" like "I cared enough to sit through the same hearing you did."

> the reps asking questions seem legitimately interested in making the bill suck a lot less

That seems like a large part of the problem; they treat it as a foregone conclusion that the bill will pass, perhaps with a bit of tweaking. This bill needs to die. All bills should have the presumption of failure, with a very high bar to get them to pass, not the other way around.

The problem is the "think of the children" argument will come back to haunt them come next election season.

They really should. Should the 10 year old girl that posted a video on youtube of herself singing along with a Justin Beiber song be considered a felon and put in jail for 5 years?

And should one person doing so cause YouTube to get shut down?

"Think of the children" is the politician's version of buying IBM. Nobody ever lost an election because they thought of the children.