> Now suppose someone had asked you: "do you want legislation against these foreign illegal drug sellers?" Surely you'd say yes. Heck, I'd say yes.
Let me stop you there. I'd say no, because I feel that in many matters, especially those concerning the Internet, legislation is about as effective as politely asking the rain not to drip through your leaky roof.
Even for the sake of argument assuming legislation is the right answer here:
The problem with SOPA is not so much what can be done to stop "bad guys", but how it can be done, namely without a court order, and only based on "reasonable belief".
It is massively chilling by virtue of causing large liabilities if someone don't act, even if/when they don't or even can't know for sure if the claim made is true, while granting immunity if they do act.
It creates a de facto assumption of guilt by creating a strong incentive to act without evidence of any wrongdoing.
I searched scholar.google.com for the word law and the quoted phrase "reasonable belief". The results were interesting to see, it seems "reasonable belief" has a lot to do with a lot of laws.
Let me stop you there. I'd say no, because I feel that in many matters, especially those concerning the Internet, legislation is about as effective as politely asking the rain not to drip through your leaky roof.