I couldn't find anything in the bill text that seemed to exempt anyone, except for immunity under specific circumstances (like voluntarily trying to take down i

I couldn't find anything in the bill text that seemed to exempt anyone, except for immunity under specific circumstances (like voluntarily trying to take down infringing sites). I don't think that's what this is about. But the article seems to mention it being part of an amendment, maybe they're referring to Lofgren's amendment 051? "Zoe Lofgren has an amendment that says a DNS operator should have no obligation to block a website if doing so would impair the security or integrity of the domain name system or the operator's system or network. I'm sure opponents will say this makes the blocking toothless, but what they're really saying is they don't care if censoring websites they don't like harms the security of the internet." [1] However, as per this [2], that amendment failed. [1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111215/01322617096/tons-amendments-proposed-sopa.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111215/01322617096/tons-a... [2] http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/12152011Lofgren%20Amdt8%20-%20FAILED.pdf http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/12152011Lofgren%20Am... edit: switched links edit2: No, here's where that comes in, from Smith's amendment: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/Summary%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/Summary%2... I'm not very familiar with the technology behind the Internet, so the terminology is confusing to me. Could someone explain if the exemption comes from the DNS Protections section or the Subdomains and Portions of Sites Section?