There's a new bill being pushed hard in the halls of Congress. It's called the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), and it already has the support of dozens of very large and influential mega-corporations. In essence, the bill gives broad new powers to the US Attorney General and Department of Justice to stomp out websites, especially foreign ones, that pose a threat to US copyright holders. Sounds like a great plan, right? Well there's Hertz, and there's not exactly.

This bill, which amends existing copyright law, on the surface actually seems like an OK piece of legislation. There's some legitimate concerns from manufacturers like 1-800-PetMeds over the possibilities of counterfeit medicines being transported from God knows what types of bogus websites. And Chanel also has a warranted gripe about knockoffs being transported and sold into the United States. Consumers should share this concern too - the last thing a caring pet owner want to do is feed their pet bullocks medicines or wear a pair of false Chanel sunglasses that don't provide the superior UV protection of the real deal.

But that's just about where the legitimacy of this bill ends, and the threat to free speech begins.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution grants freedom of the press and freedom of speech to all citizens. That helps sites like Slyck.com tell ACS:Law to get stuffed when they threaten us with frivolous litigation. It also allows US citizens to view just about any website they so choose - perhaps foreign websites like The Pirate Bay or isoHunt. Regardless of the legal status, US citizens have the right to view these site and read their content. After all, both sites have extensive blogs and forums where communities of individuals communicate and share ideas - the very foundation of free speech.

What if the MPAA or other right holder doesn't like these sites? If this bill becomes law, there's a very real possibility their domains may be blocked from US citizens.

The problem with the bill is that it leave the take down procedure so ambiguous that we find it hard to determine what websites could or could not be held accountable. Let's take a look at some of the bill's language, especially the portion that defines what an infringing site is:

"...primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer...without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays..."