Although this proposal has been deferred in it's current form, I've previously read about a sneaky device that the 'powers-that-be' in the U.S. use to push their agendas through sometimes - it's known as a 'PAPERCLIP CLAUSE', and it means that certain legislation that's been difficult to pass on it's own, could eventually have it's substance 'subtly included' into another internet-related bill proposal. A proposal that just happens to be one that politicians across the board will find reasonable to vote for/difficult to vote against.

The upshot is that the public is not as aware of the implications this time around, and the politicians end up also voting through this previously discredited aspect by default. And some initally opposed politicians could unwittingly vote for the 'main' proposal without realising the full ramifications of the complete wording on the bill.

And you can bet that law enforcement will be encouraged to crack down harder on the 'subtly included' agenda, rather than the 'main' aspect of the bill that was supposedly the target in the first place, once the powers are available.

So if the 'powers-that-be' again don't get their way on their eventual 'amended' SOPA/PIPA proposals (which will be back sooner rather than later) in future, then I've no doubt they'll try to use this method to get things 'through the back door' instead.

Having said that, with the way that 'Megaupload' was dealt with, it seems there's plenty of fire-power that existing U.S. laws already have anyway...

But wouldn't this subject be more suited to the 'off-topic' section, regardless?