[ApK]

Originally Posted by teh603

The thing was, SOPA wasn't pointed at bad car parts or unsafe medications; it was pointed at shutting down user-generated content on websites. There's a huge difference between the two.

Indeed, but ONE of those differences is that with digital IP, the damage done is potentially instantaneous and proportionate with the amount of time the materials says visible, and there is a legitimate need to quickly curtail that potential damage on the behalf of the rightful IP owner.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I support due process. I support being able to put on a defense before being punished. I reject the idea of censorship first, a court battle later, if you can afford one. If you want a prior restraint you can at least allow the accused parties the chance to object before a judge before a take down is issued.

Realize I'm not supporting SOPA/PIPA, just commenting on your blanket objection.
I believe in due process and the presumption innocence, too, but if you're beating up someone on the street, I don't expect the cop to have to round up a court order before he makes you stop. Even if it does turn out that the guy you were beating was an RIAA lawyer who totally deserved it.
As for anti-SLAPP legislation, that's great, but as above, it's a matter of determining who's rights are best served and what damage is prevented by making you stop doing something, or allowing you to continue it while the legal issues are sorted. What one party sees as a SLAPP, the other party might see as an honest and necessarily action to protect their interests.

Are you not familiar with anti-slapp legislation?

I am. Now. Thanks to Wikipedia.