actually, you can't post what you want on the internet if it breaks copyright law. Copyright law hasn't been struck down as unconstitutional, yet it clearly prohibits me copying a book and posting it on the internet for everyone to read.

However, I do deem it unconstitutional because it prevents any other content from being posted before deaming if it is illegal or not.

Also, the act would be dumb. Site gets blacklisted, site changes domain name and IP, site e-mails all registered members, site goes live until the next time it gets blacklisted. Sites like the pirate bay have been doing this already, except they finally broke down and blocked the US because the stupid judge wanted them to record all their RAM all the time (not possible).

This. I gurantee this will not pass, or hell will raise.

By conservatives I mean the entire spectrum of mainstream corporate media and political class. Just so that's clear. So basically I agree with what has been said, barring the idea of national decay. I don't think this issue is significantly different from the time of westward expansion within the years after independence.

The already did this in here Finland. Sort of. They've been censoring child porn for a while now. There's no way to defend child porn but censorship is definitely a solution, especially since it's very easy to get around it. The ones seeking probably know a thing or two about how to get what they want on the net so I'm guessing they also know how to get around the censorship. All in all, like DRM, it only "hurts" honest, law-abiding people.

Anyway, my point is that censorship is no solution and it can't be defended at all. Even though this is not my problem (at the moment at least) since I don't live in the US, I find this very troubling news.

I'm not even sure such a thing would be constitutional... just an outright blacklist.

Well, i'm glad it was two congressmen i already hated.

I dunno.  Seems like a pretty safe bet honestly.

The GOP wants them dead, the Democrats want them dead.

There aren't enough buisness interests that could save them.

Grass roots politicians always go one of two ways

1) They get integrated

2) Their party tries to destroy and they succeed by keeping up popularity back home for a while... but eventually get destroyed.

Like that guy in PA who switched from Democrat to Republican and back to Democrat only to get defeated in the primaries causing the Democrats to let Toomey get in.

If the law is as broad as described, i would imagine so, though under the 6th amendment rather than the first. It deprives these businesses of their right to do business without due process, merely a court order required to essentially cut off one of the largest single markets for any major english-language website, instead of a move for specific evidence. The lack of a need for specific evidence would likely be seen as way too broad under a constitutional lens

Most of the sites i go to police themselves anyway (like Megaupload or Rapidshare), though the people uploading to those sites are smart enough to hide them

I was serious in that I am genuinely interested in how the tea party votes go in these cases.  I did see that some of the so-called "leaders" were coming out against net-neutrality, so that would lead me to believe they would side with the business interests in this case.

You say that as if that would stop this from being passed.