[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Beingist

See, this is precisely why the law has been written intentionally vague--so no one notices the effect on due process.

What I've bolded above is precisely where due process is under threat. What makes a site "questionable?"
Note that this is all before the fact. Nothing, no infringement has yet been proven by anyone.
Defend what actions? What laws have they broken? Why should they have to defend themselves at all, if they're not charged with a crime?
If legal fees don't bankrupt them, you mean. Moreover, this makes having to go to court just defend being in business to begin with. Moreover still, this doesn't consider hosting sites that must protect their interests by denying hosting what they consider suspect sites. "Sorry, we think you're suspect, so we're shutting down your site." Where's the due process in that?

This isn't about the Attorney General, this is about the government encouraging people to rat on others, shutting down sites at will, and the gradual erosion of due process of law.
There are already intellectual, copyright, and trademark laws on the books. Currently, if anyone is believed to be violating a copyright law, the copyright holder can exercise his right to file suit against that entity. That's called due process. If that is currently in effect, why, then, this law? Ask yourself what is the real need for it?

So if the Attorney General has the power you say it has why haven't they done anything against torrent sites. Lets take this from the realm of theoretical into the an actual case. Paramount Pictures produces the movie Iron Man. The movie shows up on the pirate bay and people start downloading it. Paramount Pictures goes to the attorney general and says people are infringe on their copyright. What recourse does that attorney general currently have to help remedy the situation.