Disagree. I think Cotton clearly won the debate. His "The law only affects foreign companies involved in wholesale piracy" talking point is persuasive and was never refuted.
(a) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a "foreign infringing site" if—
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States
The term foreign used in this case is quite misleading.
"A foreign infringing site is a FOREIGN SITE for which it is true that (1)... (2)... (3)..."
FOREIGN SITE is defined in section 101 as "an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site".
DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE = "an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address". It is open to interpretation whether a site with a US and non-US domain is a domestic site.
Exactly. There is a lot in this bill which is open for interpretation.
The issue should be framed as not just blocking access to foreign sites, but as blocking Americans from talking about them.
To me, that made him a clear loser.