It seems to me that this is not the most well considered piece of legislation. It clearly has what could charitably be considered dual use.
i.e.; While we might be thinking of some link-bucket aggregator site in some legislatively intractable country today, it could easily be interpreted by political opportunists against any site. I.e.; Accusing Matt Drudge of the eponymomous site, or Justin Raimando of AntiWar.com or Markos Z˙niga of DailyKos to shutdown because they aggregate or provide content some original content provider might object to, such as a police beating or military protest,some utterance of corporate malfeasance or political gaffe.
So while there is a serious problem around content aggregator sites, the web is an inherently public forum and designed around the notion of sharing information.
If there is high-value information, it is presumed to be in the public fora OR behind some password/ssl protection at the least.
So much as it pains me, I find myself on the same side of an argument as Michelle Bachman although I do hope my rationale for arriving at my viewpoint is more sound than hers.
I would MUCH rather have myself on the side of having the right to show whatever I want, and have a complaint filed under existing mechanisms; because at the end of the day, if an author or private holder asked me to remove something, I almost certainly would, unless it was clearly some ideologically non-negotiable point. However this does not consider the person who operates exclusively from a malfeasant perspective.
It seems to my mind that the greater harm is done to the well meaning person who may constitute an objector to some ideological item, than harm or constraint imposed upon the malfeasant person who simply can effort in another direction.