Do you know any details about the "wholesale piracy" portion of the claim? Is it just a matter of setting a dangerous precedent (who defines "wholesale", etc) or is there a more concrete counterpoint in the bill?
About the "wholesale piracy" bit: that's also wrong. The bill would apply to an "an Internet site, or a portion thereof" ... "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of" piracy. (Sec 103.a.1.A-B) Links on bit.ly (for example) that pointed to illegal downloads would fall into that category. The phrase "portion of" is not compatible with Cotton's "wholesale" description.
For me, the worst part is that the bill targets sites "facilitating the commission of criminal violations," (Sec 102.a.2) related to copyright law, rather than actually committing the criminal violations. If this were in the realm of guns rather than copyright, it would make every gun magazine publisher a criminal. In general, speech about crime is different than crime itself, especially when the activity at hand can be criminal or noncriminal in different circumstances.
Regarding the "facilitating" part, notice it is just one of three items in a definition. ALL of these items have to be satisfied. Let's not spread FUD here.
Yes, you are correct. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.