3 ms·
Closing a book shop or newspaper because it was funded by criminals isn’t censorship. That’s hysterical hyperbole. Anyway this isn’t really about reading websi
by simonh 5y ago
Closing a book shop or newspaper because it was funded by criminals isn’t censorship. That’s hysterical hyperbole.
Anyway this isn’t really about reading websites particularly, it’s mainly about accessing commercial internet services like search or commercial sites. It just happens that internet publishers are also businesses so they can be affected too. However there’s nothing in this targets speech and that doesn’t seem to be the intention.
- car_analogy 5y agoBut they're not closing the websites - they're preventing people in the UK from accessing them. To work with your analogy - this is like intercepting a shipment of newspapers, and blacking out any ads placed in them by criminals. Regardless of what the ads say - they're criminals, why should they be entitled to say "I'm innocent"? Sorry - why should they be entitled to printing press amplify their voice. They can just scream in their cells - their free speech isn't being curtailed. Who knows, maybe it is too dangerous to let them speak - but at least have the honesty to call it what it is - censorship.
- simonh 5y agoIt's like banning anyone in the UK ordering things from the Maffia in Italy, and it happens that one of the businesses the Maffia operates is a newspaper, so you're banned from importing it. Being a publisher isn't an end run around the rest of the law.
- car_analogy 5y ago> ordering [..] importing [..] So block financial transactions with the sanctioned entities - problem solved. Unless your real intent isn't blocking money, but speech.
- simonh 5y agoThese people profit from the operation of these sites, or many of them anyway, that’s what is being targeted. Even in the case of a publishing site advertising revenue due to page impressions is a legitimate target.
- native_samples 5y agoWhat on earth makes you think "designated individuals" are criminals? They aren't being prosecuted, they haven't been found guilty in any court of law. They've just been blacklisted by some random civil servants and politicians who want to be seen to be doing something. Not much different to the US no fly lists.
- simonh 5y agoHonestly that’s a separate issue, I don’t know about the legality of this, I’m just pointing out this is nothing to do with censorship.