Could you please read the whole article before commenting?
It’s incredibly easy for an ISP to point out that they’re not going to block a network for a different reason by pointing out it’s… not the same reason.
No offense, but don’t pursue a law degree, that’s not how things work in the real world.
The EFF has a long history of fighting these sorts of things in court, they have enough experienced people to know what they are talking about.
A state has enough leverage to push around an ISP to comply, and the ISP gains nothing in opposing.
The EFF deserves to be roundly condemned for this, especially as it has no obvious alternative.
There is. People can be prosecuted individually. This has happened in the past without ISPs blocking whole websites.
The position is intellectually dishonest unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people.
No offense, but keep your patronizing “Anyone who disagrees with me could only have just heard of this article I just skimmed, and not been discussing it in depth for the last week” bullshit out of my replies.
So, the EFF has 33 years of experience fighting in courts on matters of digital rights, and somehow you feel like you know both the current law and the legal consequences of court precedents better than them?
Based on how composed you’ve been in this comment section, I’m going to assume the EFF has been around longer than you have.
They are feeling personally attacked, by the content of the discussion, so they’re acting out. That’s completely understandable at a human level.
The reason we have these discourses is so we can hammer out our ideals, and see them implemented in different ways.
So let’s use other examples, so that people aren’t as emotionally invested in the particular discourse.
Telecommunication providers, at least in the United States, are given safe harbor from the content they deliver, so long as they don’t editorialize (select what’s allowed). If something’s illegal that’s up to the legal system to enforce. And if there’s a court order websites can be taken off, routes can be blackhold, links can be seized.
The United States government, and their politicians, have a long history of not cutting off the communication even of their enemies. We still maintained phone connections to the USSR during the entire Cold war. The internet was not shut off in Iraq during the Iraqi wars. Iran despite sanctions is still online. US certainly could bully many of the world’s interconnects to completely drop these countries. But they don’t. For a variety of reasons, but I think the most fundamental is you have to demonstrate that you believe in your free communication principles if you want everyone to mimic them. A secondary but still important reason, is to see what your enemies are saying. That’s actionable intelligence!
Could you please read the whole article before commenting?
No offense, but don’t pursue a law degree, that’s not how things work in the real world. The EFF has a long history of fighting these sorts of things in court, they have enough experienced people to know what they are talking about.
A state has enough leverage to push around an ISP to comply, and the ISP gains nothing in opposing.
There is. People can be prosecuted individually. This has happened in the past without ISPs blocking whole websites.
Speaking of fallacies…
deleted by creator
So, the EFF has 33 years of experience fighting in courts on matters of digital rights, and somehow you feel like you know both the current law and the legal consequences of court precedents better than them?
Based on how composed you’ve been in this comment section, I’m going to assume the EFF has been around longer than you have.
They are feeling personally attacked, by the content of the discussion, so they’re acting out. That’s completely understandable at a human level.
The reason we have these discourses is so we can hammer out our ideals, and see them implemented in different ways.
So let’s use other examples, so that people aren’t as emotionally invested in the particular discourse.
Telecommunication providers, at least in the United States, are given safe harbor from the content they deliver, so long as they don’t editorialize (select what’s allowed). If something’s illegal that’s up to the legal system to enforce. And if there’s a court order websites can be taken off, routes can be blackhold, links can be seized.
The United States government, and their politicians, have a long history of not cutting off the communication even of their enemies. We still maintained phone connections to the USSR during the entire Cold war. The internet was not shut off in Iraq during the Iraqi wars. Iran despite sanctions is still online. US certainly could bully many of the world’s interconnects to completely drop these countries. But they don’t. For a variety of reasons, but I think the most fundamental is you have to demonstrate that you believe in your free communication principles if you want everyone to mimic them. A secondary but still important reason, is to see what your enemies are saying. That’s actionable intelligence!