"The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who requests the court orders, the actions could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for 10 pieces of music or movies within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement."

And it puts the onus on the hosting services if they allow materials to exist on their platforms, gives the justice department the ability to shut a website down, interfere with contracts, tinker with search results, and if that doesn't work shut down internet providers.  It does so specifically naming music or movies as the carrot, but with a hidden salty switch at the ready, for opinion which includes perhaps copied text for reference, or up to now fair use materials that some may not like, and deem actionable.

Arguably anyone on this right-minded forum is all for protecting intellectual rights.  Its a very conservative concept.  Private property is sacred. But so is due process.  From the Stanford Law Review on H.R. 3261, and  the "Protect IP Act in the Senate:

"This not only violates basic principles of due process by depriving persons of property without a fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, it also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that governmental action suppressing speech, if taken prior to an adversary proceeding and subsequent judicial determination that the speech in question is unlawful, is a presumptively unconstitutional "prior restraint." In other words, it is the "most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights," permissible only in the narrowest range of circumstances. The Constitution requires a court "to make a final determination" that the material in question is unlawful "after an adversary hearing before the material is completely removed from circulation."

The procedures outlined in both bills fail this fundamental constitutional test. Websites can be "completely removed from circulation"--rendered unreachable by, and invisible to, Internet users in the United States and abroad--immediately upon application by the government, without any reasonable opportunity for the owner or operator of the website in question to be heard or to present evidence on his or her own behalf. This falls far short of what the Constitution requires before speech can be eliminated from public circulation."

Shoot first, ask questions later.

Any one item that is 'deemed' to violate a copyright, can result in the removal of an entire body of work without adequate defense.  Any single copy-over can give way to whole sites being taken away without appropriate arguments heard from all parties affected.  Potential?  Any powerful politician could find his likeness on a competitor's site as cause to have that competitor silenced.

And as I am writing this, I realize that even the quotes I have used in this article alone could trigger incredibly draconian action under this legislative nightmare.

For the success of those who support omnipotent unaccountable government to move their agenda forward, the constitution must be crushed.  And it may not be so difficult under the weight of foolhardy capitulating legislators and dangerously incompetent judges.  

In the end, our conqueror will be a simple civil action, re-purposed as a mute button, or rather a noose, cutting off the air of discourse, opposing views, and heartfelt opinion.