Please, someone tell me where this is going to break the internet. It is absolutely clear that this law only applies to sites committing piracy and theft. There is a burden of proof on the state to appear before a court and justify a request for an injunction. There is an appeals process that includes unreasonable economic burden of compliance (Sec 102 (c)(4)(C)).

Why is everyone so insane about this? Can anyone explain it to me?


SOPA (H.R.3261) in a nutshell:

102 (a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
102 (a)(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
102 (a)(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
102 (a)(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.

102 (b)(5) RELIEF- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the foreign infringing site or a portion of such site, or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site.

102 (c)(4)(A) IN GENERAL- To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief--
102 (c)(4)(A)(i) against any entity served under paragraph (1) that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection to compel such entity to comply with such requirements; or
102 (c)(4)(A)(ii) against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection, to enjoin such entity from interfering with the order by continuing to provide or offer to provide such product or service.
102 (c)(4)(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The authority granted the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be the sole legal remedy to enforce the obligations under this section of any entity described in paragraph (2).
102 (c)(4)(C) DEFENSE- A defendant in an action under subparagraph (A)(i) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection.

102 (d)(2) RELIEF- Relief under this subsection shall be proper if the court finds that--
102 (d)(2)(A) the foreign Internet site subject to the order is no longer, or never was, a foreign infringing site; or
102 (d)(2)(B) the interests of justice otherwise require that the order be modified, suspended, or vacated.