There is some commentary lately about a paper arguing that PROTECT IP is fundamentally incompatible with secure DNS. This argument is misleading in the extreme. The strategy with DNSSEC is to have root authorities digitally sign DNS records, just like with TLS. As such, it is vulnerable in the same place as TLS. Whoever controls the root servers has ultimate control over what Internet-connected computers will consider to be the truth.
Far from making PROTECT IP more difficult, a hypothetical success of DNSSEC would make it easier. With DNS as it currently works, governments must contend with what, from their perspective, are rogue DNS servers that continue to post "false" (meaning correct) addresses. Under DNSSEC, the rogue server's certificate chains will not check out. Whenever a government orders a domain name to be changed, the root servers will not just issue the new address, but presumably also cryptographically revoke the old one. It would all work as if it were the legitimate domain owner making the request instead of a government.
I don't think the technical arguments about PROTECT IP are convincing. DNS is by its nature a sitting duck. The technical argument I would make is that a global Hierarchy of Truth is not a good approach to security on the Internet. If you don't like PROTECT IP, then you shouldn't like DNSSEC nor DNS as we currently know it.
Given how things technically work right now, however, the best argument against PROTECT IP is simply that we don't want to live that way. Do we really want to live in a world where Sony or Blizzard or MGM can turn off a web site without the site owner getting to defend themselves in court? Is 20th century copyright really worth such heavy handed measures?