The buzz I have been hearing are that this bill is very likely to pass. Obama supports it.

For those not aware here's a summary courtesy of demandprogress.org:

What exactly does it do?

The bill creates a blacklists of Internet domain names which the Attorney General can add to with a court order. Internet service providers, financial transaction providers, and online ad vendors (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the list.

(The bill used to also have a second list that the AG could add to without a court order, but public pressure has gotten it removed.)

What kind of domains can go on the list?

The list is for domains "dedicated to infringing activity," which is defined very broadly — any site where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" would be blocked.

What's so bad about that?

Well, it means sites like YouTube could get censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom argue that copyrighted material is central to activity of YouTube. But under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost their case in court. If this bill passes, Viacom doesn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal -- as long as they can persuade a court that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, that's enough to get the whole site censored.
-->

Isn't the word censored a little overheated?

Not at all. In the US, the way things work is that if you're using the Internet to do something illegal, you're brought to court and the courts can shut you down. This bill would bypass that whole system by forcing Internet service providers to block access to sites that are otherwise up. People in other countries could still get to them, but Internet users in the US would be blocked. This kind of Internet censorship is exactly the sort of thing the US government has been criticizing China and Iran for -- just the other day, Obama told the UN that "We will support a free and open Internet." Now it turns out we're going to start censoring the Internet ourselves.

But it's just limited to copyright!

How long do you think that will last? Once the Attorney General has a system set up for censoring the Internet, everyone who has a problem with a website will want to get in on it. How long before it's expanded to block Wikileaks, pornography, gambling, anarchists, supposed terrorists, and anybody else the Attorney General doesn't like that day? If people are doing something illegal, the government should take them to court and shut them down -- not try to bypass due process by blocking their domain name.

Won't Internet users just work around the blacklist?

Yes -- at the cost of a major blow to the United States. Currently the United States is the global hub of Internet traffic, but if this law passes Internet traffic will be reconfigured to route around it. Companies will move their US servers and domain names overseas, Internet users will route their traffic through other countries (just like Chinese citizens have to do now!), and software will have to be reconfigured to no longer trust answers from American servers.

What can I do to stop this?

The first step is signing our petition then we'll give you the tools to share it with your friends and call your senator.

The petition in question can be found here:
http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/

This bill sounds absolutely horrible and, if passed, will potentially (and very likely) ruin the internet. If the US passes this, I'm sure countries like the UK, Sweden, France and the Netherlands will be very eager to follow

Our government has tried and is still trying to implement a similar law, also using the all-purpose argument "We have to protect the children!".

Then there was a counter initiative that claimed deleting such child porn sites would be better than just blocking them. Then the BKA (basically the german FBI) claimed that it is inefficient and that they weren't making progress. They claimed that these blocking lists would be more efficient but that the content of that list had to remain secret.

Then a few weeks ago it became public knowlede how many people in the BKA are actually working to find such sites: (Wait for it!) 6 - in words: six!!! - people for the entire republic.

I'd be more interested in a law that protects users against their governments.

Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:

If you don't like what your current government does feel free to elect another one next time.

Tried that. Didn't help.

Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
If this law only protects one child from being raped it was worth it.

With this argument you could justify a law that puts every single living person in solitary confinement for their entire life.

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
I have no desire to be in "office". And if I did, it would most certainly not be an improvement I can almost guarantee. And why should I try to impose my will on others? Let them decide for themselves.

You are quite right. Decent people don't go into politics. Hence the result.