Since I am personally acquainted to the office and Sen Bennet, (D-CO) whom I am personally knowledgeable that Sen Bennet is personally big on protecting free speech and esp the Internet, so it was surprising to learn he was a co-sponsor. So talking in detail with the constituency director who was unfamiliar with the measure or issue she looked it up in summary form.
Here is what I see is the problem; it reads in the beginning that is something reasonable or normal but once you pry the politicians don't know A from B or a bit from a byte.
When I quoted some stuff out of Wikipedia as to the opposition
"The bill attempts a radical restructuring of the laws governing the Internet," Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association. "It would undo the legal safe harbors that have allowed a world-leading Internet industry to flourish over the last decade. It would expose legitimate American businesses and innovators to broad and open-ended liability. The result will be more lawsuits, decreased venture capital investment, and fewer new jobs."[12]
"The definitions written in the bill are so broad that any US consumer who uses a website overseas immediately gives the US jurisdiction the power to potentially take action against it," said Art Bordsky of Public Knowledge.[13]
According to co-sponsor Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Intellectual Property sub-panel, SOPA represents a rewrite of the PROTECT IP Act to address tech industry concerns. Goodlatte told The Hill that the new version requires court approval for action against search engines.[14] The Senate version, PROTECT IP, does not.[15][16]
"The language of SOPA is so broad, the rules so unconnected to the reality of Internet technology and the penalties so disconnected from the alleged crimes that this bill could effectively kill e-commerce or even normal Internet use. The bill also has grave implications for existing U.S., foreign and international laws and is sure to spend decades in court challenges. Fortunately, this is the House version of a Senate bill called the Protect IP Act (S. 968) that is very different. As a result, both bills if passed in something resembling their current states will have to be considered by a conference committee," said a news analysis in the information technology magazine
Then there was more with this:
"The techno-ignorance of Congress was on full display. Member after member admitted that they really didn't have any idea what impact SOPA's regulatory provisions would have on the DNS, online security, or much of anything else", said Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center.[101] "One by one, each witness—including a lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America—said they weren't qualified to discuss...DNSSEC", technology news site CNET reported.[42]
'“I don’t think this is a balanced story,” Lofgren said. “We have no technical expertise on this panel today.” Lofgren also said: “It hasn’t generally been the policy of this committee to dismiss the views of those we are going to regulate. Impugning the motives of the critics instead of the substance is a mistake.” [102]
House cybersecurity subcommittee chairman Dan Lungren told Politico's Morning Tech that he had "very serious concerns" about SOPA's impact on DNSSEC, adding "we don't have enough information, and if this is a serious problem as was suggested by some of the technical experts that got in touch with me, we have to address it. I can't afford to let that go by without dealing with it."[103]
"The significant potential harms of this bill are reflected by the extraordinary coalition arrayed against it. Concerns about SOPA have been raised by Tea Partiers, progressives, computer scientists, human rights advocates, venture capitalists, law professors, independent musicians, and many more. Unfortunately, these voices were not heard at today's hearing," said Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, who had wanted to testify but was not invited. [12]
"This is just another case of Congress doing the bidding of powerful lobbyists—in this case, Hollywood and the music industry, among others. It would be downright mundane if the legislation weren't so draconian and the rhetoric surrounding it weren't so transparently pandering", said a Fortune editorial
The bottom line is this went over the head, and she said that my call might give Sen Bennet pause.