> It's a form of censorship, so it's both evil and underhanded. I disagree. There are practical limits on speech. Yelling "Fire!" in a theater, defamation, i

> It's a form of censorship, so it's both evil and underhanded. I disagree. There are practical limits on speech. Yelling "Fire!" in a theater, defamation, inciting a riot etc. Asking for a few days until a situation starts to calm down? That's evil and underhanded? Do you consider the fact that they delayed announcing the Ferguson trial verdict censorship by the justice department? You don't even have the full context of what was asked for and how. > From your perspective, it's the US government looking out for itself The US Government is looking out for the interests of the US and US citizens? Isn't that exactly what they are there for? > Consider that people were willing to riot over this information that was blocked. Do you think that they consider the blocking to be a beneficent act ... Do you remember this period of time at all? The people rioting over, for example, the Danish Mohammad cartoons demanded them to be taken down and destroyed. They viewed it is implicit US sanctioning of that material that it was available at all from The West. Of course they would have seen it as a positive step; it was what they demanded be done. What they would've disagreed with was that it was a temporary measure instead of permanent.