4 ms·
US Court Orders Every ISP in the United States to Block Illegal Streaming Sites
- cft 5y agoTo merely have the machinery and precedent in place for the American ISPs to block any site is a very dangerous, Orwellian precedent. The decision is unlikely to be appealed because the defendant is a foreign company. This https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Polk_Failla https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Polk_Failla judge just did a lot of damage to American internet
- FridayoLeary 5y agoI don’t see why the judge should be blamed for enforcing the law as he understands it.
- AdrianB1 5y agoFor the understanding part? Misunderstanding the law, if true, can be a very good reason.
- cft 5y agoI am curious which law prescribes mandating the ISPs to block websites in the United States? Since it's the first time in 30 years since the first websites, it must be a new statue?
- eek2121 5y agoFor starters, those that aren't a party to the lawsuit cannot be commanded to follow the words of the court. He should know this. EDIT: Oh, and this ruling runs afoul of free speech.
- namlem 5y agoThe judge should be blamed for misunderstanding the law.
- hedora 5y agoIf we did that, then we’d have to fire a large percentage of Trump’s appointees, but they have lifetime appointments. I guess that means they’re legally above blame?
- throwmeariver1 5y agoJust stop trying to force Orwell into everything it’s cringe and most people like you don’t understand what it means.
- cft 5y ago>most people like you don’t understand what it means. Your comment is against HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
- throwmeariver1 5y agoYou still don’t know what Orwell tried to convey to his readers… next time get the hard cover and read the intro and stop trying to convey that you are an expert on everything makes you look like a fool… in all your comments.
- cft 5y agoThis is also against the same HN guidelines. Not the right venue for ad-hominem attacks with zero information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31156073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31156073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31134308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31134308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31057599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31057599 etc
- throwmeariver1 5y ago
- gamblor956 5y agoMuch ado about nothing. As "every ISP" in the U.S. was not a party to this lawsuit, they generally cannot be bound by this court order. Third party injunctions are very heavily frowned upon in the U.S., and it is the extremely rare situation where another court would uphold this order against any of the ISPs that were not defendants to the underlying lawsuit.
- sonicggg 5y agoAre US courts not aware of VPNs?
- pgn674 5y agoIf this stands and is enforced, will this be the first time ever in the US that an ISP providing internet access to home subscribers is forced by the government to block something?