Ah, but in a judicial law system traditions and precedents can be overturned in one ruling by a judge deciding that it no longer, or never did, make sense.
While the world clamours for "clarifying" legislation (which will just produced question marks over something else) we should be really praying for test cases like this.
In the end it is only a Supreme Court that can really screw up the law with a bad interpretation of legislation. Once the Supremes have ruled new legislation is required to overturn it (unless a new set of Supremes decide to revisit it). There really should be a mechanism by which lower courts can begin to treat Supreme Court rulings as simple precedents again after a certain period of time.
In the US, of course, there is one particular Supreme Court ruling that ensures that will never be considered.
Re: And another thing... SOPA vs Robin Hood vs Skynet
Fewer more considered transactions with a level of diligence attached ironically mean more stable markets.
Not true: those fewer transactions will also be large and unbalanced by lots of smaller transactions - which would be economically unviable. Fewer, larger, transactions leads to more volatility not less.
If you want to hold up the BBC as something to emulate in a "Ministry of Truth" you might want to find out how true people think there "truths" are. Googling "bbc truth" returns a link to http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ on the first page.
Note to the FBI, the DOD, and others demanding more powers to combat cyber-terrorism and cyber-warfare:
a) The ability of foreign powers to shut down power plants and, other computer based infrastructure, over the internet is not real - and, therefore, this cause of action is safe but your demands for more power are based on lies.
b) Whoops - you accidentally disabled the control system of a nuclear power plant because it was infected with a botnet.