Accused Web sites would have only five days to assert their innocence. And the payment providers and ad networks could not be sued by sites that were wrongly cut off, so their easiest course of action might be to just comply with copyright owners’ requests. If copyright owners could starve a Web site of money simply by telling a payment processor that the site was infringing on intellectual property, the bill could stymie legitimate speech.

The purpose of the legislation is to stop business flowing to foreign rogue Web sites like the Pirate Bay in Sweden. But these provisions could affect domestic Web sites that are already covered by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That act has safe harbors protecting sites, like YouTube, that may unknowingly host pirated content, as long as they take it down when notified.

Another provision would allow the attorney general to sue foreign sites that “facilitate” piracy, and to demand that domestic search engines stop linking to them and that Internet service providers redirect traffic. Experts have said this measure could be easily overcome by users and warn that it could undermine an industrywide effort to reduce hacking. Legislators should also think hard about the message it would send to autocratic regimes like China’s, which routinely block political Web sites.

The House bill is right to focus on payment systems and ad networks to cut off the money to rogue Web sites. But like its Senate companion, the “Protect IP” bill, it has serious problems that must be fixed.

The bill should be made to stipulate clearly that all of its provisions are aimed only at rogue Web sites overseas. Foreign sites must be granted the same safe harbor immunity — and the bill must not open the door to punishments for domestic sites that abide by the 1998 digital copyright law. And rather than encouraging credit card companies and advertising networks to pre-emptively cut off business to Web sites accused of wrongdoing, a court order should be required before they take action.