I hate to disagree with you, but we already have a constitutional amendment, as well as the key text of the constitution itself. The federal government is not given the power to pass whatever legislation it wants, so long as congress votes in favor, and the president sign and the supreme court doesn't strike it down.
I know this is the perspective most people have, but the reality is the constitution strictly limits what the government can do. This specification is known as the "enumerated powers" clause of the constitution.
Much of what government does now- from the FCC to the FDA is not authorized by in the enumerated power. If it isn't authorized then it is illegal, under the document that enabled the creation of these branches of government in the first place.
I don't think there's a higher form of the word "illegal" than that.
Further, and to really put the boot behind this point, the First Amendment itself says:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This means the congress doesn't have the enumerated power, and further it is explicitly forbidden from, passing laws that allow the government to silence websites.
If a website is engaging in trademark infringement or copyright infringement, they are naturally liable in civil court. But that doesn't give the government the power to shut them down (other than them losing a civil case that takes all their funding, or whatever.)
If any of these sites have a blog, then blocking the DNS or taking other actions to restrict access to that blog is a violation of the constitution.
Further, there's Federal Law on this issue-- US Code 18-242, which makes it a crime (a felony if armed) to violate someone's constitutional rights "under color of law". Which means the government agents who enforce these "laws" are also criminals.
But the idea that a law could be illegal, and that government employees enforcing them could be criminals is just beyond the comprehension of most people. They seem to believe, unlike the framers of the constitution, that the government IS the law.
And so they continue to get away with it and continue to expand their powers.
Your comment suggests a method of defense against DNS takedowns: Governmental action forcing an ISP to block traffic to a blog is almost indisputably a violation of first amendment rights. Therefore, even sites devoted to illegal activity cannot be blocked via DNS without violating the first amendment, so long as they host a blog.
If a US citizen decided for philosophical reasons to host their blog on thepiratebay.org, I can imagine some interesting legal battles down the road.
I know this is the perspective most people have, but the reality is the constitution strictly limits what the government can do. This specification is known as the "enumerated powers" clause of the constitution.
Much of what government does now- from the FCC to the FDA is not authorized by in the enumerated power. If it isn't authorized then it is illegal, under the document that enabled the creation of these branches of government in the first place.
I don't think there's a higher form of the word "illegal" than that.
Further, and to really put the boot behind this point, the First Amendment itself says:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This means the congress doesn't have the enumerated power, and further it is explicitly forbidden from, passing laws that allow the government to silence websites.
If a website is engaging in trademark infringement or copyright infringement, they are naturally liable in civil court. But that doesn't give the government the power to shut them down (other than them losing a civil case that takes all their funding, or whatever.)
If any of these sites have a blog, then blocking the DNS or taking other actions to restrict access to that blog is a violation of the constitution.
Further, there's Federal Law on this issue-- US Code 18-242, which makes it a crime (a felony if armed) to violate someone's constitutional rights "under color of law". Which means the government agents who enforce these "laws" are also criminals.
But the idea that a law could be illegal, and that government employees enforcing them could be criminals is just beyond the comprehension of most people. They seem to believe, unlike the framers of the constitution, that the government IS the law.
And so they continue to get away with it and continue to expand their powers.