Requiring search engines to remove links to an entire website altogether due to an infringing page would raise free speech concerns regarding lawful content hosted elsewhere on the site.

The latest version of the bill is still vague on defining "rogue" sites and, like the older version, still gives the government the power to require search engines to remove sites deemed unlawful.

The legislation would allow the Justice Department and content owners to seek court orders requiring search engines to block results associated with piracy.

No provision in the PROTECT IP Act will require websites, Internet service providers, search engines, ad networks, payment processors, or any other party to monitor their networks.

In any event, the redirector was only shortening the time it would take to mount a simple Google search, which leads us to wonder what the next logical step in this progression will be: requiring search engines to stop returning results for seized domain names?

"which leads us to wonder what the next logical step in this progression will be: requiring search engines to stop returning results for seized domain names?"

Other opponents state that requiring search engines to delete domain names violates the First Amendment and could begin a worldwide arms race of unprecedented Internet censorship.

After all, the add-on only made it easier to do a simple Google search, and we wondered "what the next logical step in this progression will be: requiring search engines to stop returning results for seized domain names?"

SOPA would require search engines, payment processors, ISPs, and ad networks to block access to "rogue websites" on a judge's order.

Sopa would also require search engines to remove suspect foreign sites from their results.