Count me among the heretics for a moment, then.
My issue isn't so much with the concept of a bill of rights for the internet… But why or how this becomes necessary in place of THE Bill of Rights.
The bill of rights is not a system of rights granted to citizens, it is a set of limitations upon the government's power. You don't have the right to free speech, the government does not have the right to prosecute you for free speech (within certain accepted constraints of libel, sedition, fraud).
I admit I have yet to fully review the proposal, but I am generally resistant to the advancement of new legislation as most of it is simply a vehicle for something else in this day and age.
That is my homework for the day, to review and contemplate it. But that is why I can see a number of people resisting the idea. We have been fooled by a lot of "good idea" and "nice sentiment" legislation over the years when simply enforcing the statues we have would have fixed the problems the feel-good legislation was meant to fix.