NickyP wrote:You won't find the words “suspicion” or “accusation” in the bill either. What constitutes a “foreign infinging site” is very clearly outlined in Section 102 of the bill and those criteria are not going to be applicable to too many sites that aren't dirty. The Attorney General does have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that the site meets these criteria. It's not the same level of evidence required for a murder conviction, but then that would be an unreasonably burdensome standard.
…The burden in SOPA's case is mere suspicion and accusation. Those two aren't even enough to be probable cause; you know, what's needed for a search warrants and arrests. Probable cause is a reasonable, competentlyarticulable suspicion that a crime is, will, or has occured. It's not mere suspicion or a “hunch.”I invite you to read through SOPA and find language that looks like that. Here's a hint: you won't.
NickyP wrote:The bill does differentiate between domestic and foreign infringing sites, and it's clear from even a brief glimpse at the summary or secion headings that the bulk of the problematic provisions are specifically directed against foreign infringing sites. Specifically though, I'd point out these two lines:
Because SOPA is totally limited to being used against websites that are offshores, right? No, no it isn't…
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.
It's pretty clear that the primary intent is to go after sites that, were they domestic, would already be subject to legal action in the U.S.
NickyP wrote:I'll have to stop you right there, because you've already missed the point. This law IS online, and it was necessitated by the challenges presented by the Internet. The problem with our current legal framework is that it is outdated and does not address the unique challenges presented by our newly interconnected world. H.R. 3261 is not a “magic bullet” that is going to solve all the problems, but it is a clumsy first step in the right direction.
Take this same bill and bring it offline, put it in the real world…