Here's a little snippet for all to read which explains the Due Process issues with the legislation, which says it better than I can:
DUE PROCESS PROBLEMS
The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment prohibits prior restraintlimiting access to speech before a court has provided due process to the defendant. In particular, as a letter signed by dozens of law professors pointed out, speakers are entitled to tell their own side of the story to the judge before their content is taken down. And if a defendant loses, he is typically given the opportunity to exhaust his appeals before his speech is censored.
The sponsors of SOPA and PIPA appear to have ignored these concerns. Both bills allow the attorney general (and, in some cases, private partiesmore on that later) to request a takedown of an overseas site based on the legal fiction that the website, rather than its owner, is the defendant. Because a website owner isn't technically a party to the case, the judge can issue an injunction before he has even heard the defendant's side of the case. And the attorney general can have the target website cut off from access to search engines, advertising networks, and credit card payments.
Website owners can intervene to overturn an injunction, but the bill envisions this adversarial process happening after the injunction has been issued and the site has already been removed from search engines and had its funding cut off.
To see how this can burden free speech, we need only look at the case of rojadirecta, which was seized by the government last year. The Spanish sports site has been declared legal under Spanish law, but it has taken the site months to get a hearing in an American court. Whether or not the seizure of rojadirecta is declared legal or not, the site should have had its day in court before it lost its domain. SOPA and PIPA would make this problem worse by extending similar procedures to ad networks, payment networks, and search engines.
I am never confident when our government passes laws that come even close to violating our Constitution, and I am leary of any new legislation passed that could provide even a hint of eroding our freedoms even a little bit. Scott seems to be very confident that our government has our best interests in mind, but this is often not the case. All too often the government has the SPECIAL INTERESTS and their own interests only in mind. The interests of the people are the last thing they consider.
The very quick capitulation of senators and representatives that supported this bill also proves that they are inept and clueless, and didn't practice "due diligence" before offering their support - they just "signed on" because the lobby and the money for support got to them first.
Never quit til you have a swing you'll never forget!