I also don't believe the the the industry is giving orders and the ICE folks just blindly take websites down. But I still think that taking the sites down before a trial is unwarranted (in the extreme, with expletives added).
The government seizing anything, from anyone, for any purpose, is bad. The only way they should be allowed to proceed with this bad act, is to prove that it will prevent worse acts if the item(s) weren't seized. In some cases, possession of the thing to be seized and the circumstances are enough to justify the seizure. The Navy seizing said boat full of cocaine as is transits the Caribbean towards Florida for instance.
A website that might provide access to infringing (but legal to consume/listen to/watch) material is so far from that boat in magnitude. Seizing it before a trial has been held to actually establish guilt? What wrong(s) did the seizure prevent? Isn't the damage to the 1st and 4th Amendments a much greater wrong than the possible infringement? Then add to these circumstances the clear connection to the "wronged" industry. It adds up poorly if you like your civil rights.
Being caught with a boat full of dope != Having a website which might aid someone in finding infringing material. To use the same yardstick, and say that there should be more seizures is a failure to understand the scale and scope of this issue. I don't believe you can make an argument that your 1st amendment rights are being violated because your boat full of dope got seized. However, in the case of a website, that issue is a lot less clear cut.
Does the DEA let the beer industry tell them that a particular white powdery substance is cocaine? Do they make announcements of big drug busts on the steps of the Anhueser-Busch headquarters? I think not.
You're allowing some fairly large leaps of faith by bureaucrats. Those same bureaucrats don't have a clear cut authority, and are taking advice from less than objective observers. If that's not enough to wait until the trial is done before you begin to seize anything, you are failing to understand the concept of rule of law. The rule of law is to keep the big guy with the stick from beating the little guy with no stick, just because he can.
I bought one mostly to have an e-reader that has color. I have a ton of technical reading material in PDF's that just isn't good on the Kindle or Nook. I also expect to use it for other uses, there are already a couple really nice games, etc. I thought I might try the Wall Street Journal, or maybe some other newspaper product. I already deleted the WSJ app after having it installed for ten minutes. They want $3.99 a week for access, when I can get it delivered to my house and get online access for $2.69 a week. Someone has has no clue, therefore will not get my money. I still have the USA Today and New York Times free apps installed.