(For the record, I believe that only innovation will solve these problems, not suppression).
After the first day of the hearing, more than 20 amendments had been rejected, including one by Issa which would have stripped provisions targeting search engines and Internet providers. PC World reported that the 22–12 vote on the amendment could foreshadow strong support for the bill by the committee.
The Committee adjourned on the second day agreeing to continue debate early in 2012.[11][151] Smith announced a plan to remove the provision that requires Internet service providers to block access to certain foreign websites.
Oh, and the full article is available if you access it through Google. I assume that's an above-board way of reading it.
So basically no, i'm of absolutely no use to you on this.
I thought the article was pretty fair to be honest. It called out the DNS issues as being egregious and they highlighted the constitutional basis of copyright which most people forget. They also highlighted the difference between individual piracy and piracy for business as an important point (the exact sentence is "This isn't college kids swapping MP3s as in the 1990s. Rather rogue websites set up shop overseas and sell US consumers bootleg [media]"
My main criticism is they made SOPA seem a little more benign than it is. They say...
"The notion that the SOPA dragnet would catch a stray Twitter Link or Facebook post is false"
Well, I don't see how that is false. My main issue with SOPA (now that the DNS part has be taken out) is it could be used to allow media companies to shut down legitimate indie products because they resemble commercial offerings. Because the bar is set so low as far as initial proof is concerned.
Anyway, the bottom line is the article is worth reading and it isn't just "Murdoch Henchmen Towing the Line". I wish they'd let it out of the paywall so you could see that.