Those 3 legistration and/or legal actions have a huge problem that you might not know about. The amount of copyrighted material out is far bigger than you might think. Most advertising slogans are copyrighted. Most recent famous quotes are also copyrighted as well.
Some of the congress members supporting those bills and/or action have been found to have copyrighted material in their own official websites, and they didn't even know it! If you took a picture of your family in any town, most likely in the background there is at least one copyrighted advertising slogan in the picture. As the News reporters go through cities with film crews, all of them can be targeted for the same reason. Even saying, writting, or typing a quote from a movie or song could be charged as a copyright violation. Copyright violations happen continually every day just because there is so much copyrighted material out there. You and me most likely do it all the time and don't even know it!
"Copyright may apply to a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms, or "works". Specifics vary by jurisdiction, but these can include poems, theses, plays, other literary works, movies, dances, musical compositions, audio recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, software, radio and television broadcasts, and industrial designs. Graphic designs and industrial designs may have separate or overlapping laws applied to them in some jurisdictions."
That section above is a direct copy from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright. As such, it could be used legally as a Copyright violation. It will not be used that because Wikipedia will not enforce copyrights and their free encyclopdia.
The chances of a website of any type not having copyrighted material in it someplace, or linked in some way, is very, very remote. Even important official government websites have copyrighted material in them.
I would be impossible for any of those legal actions to remove all copyrighted material from the internet. As it is, I bet it could be used to target over 90% of the internet Websites. As they couldn't shut down that much of the internet without very, very badly hurting us. It would have to be used for selective enforcement.
But who is going to ones selecting the enforcement of that legal action? As there is no notice, no trial, in the way there are written, the person or organization targeted wouldn't even know they are targeted until their wbesite vanished from the internet. Selective enforcement like that is far too easy to use for censorship, and as it copyrighted material is everywhere, it could used against any type of organization that a person or group wanted to target.
All those legal actions, since they have such huge possible target for selective enforcement, would be be perfect for censorship. IT WOULD BE USED (NOT MIGHT) FOR CENSORSHIP, BECAUSE IT IS FAR EASY TO DO IT BECAUSE THE WAY THOSE LAWS ARE WRITTEN, AND MANY ORGANIZATIONS WOULD LOVE TO USE IT FOR THAT, GROUPS THAT HAVE DONE FAR WORST THINGS THAN THAT BEFORE.