> But ideas aren't crimes in the US That's a distinction without a difference. Whether "macrosoft.com" is considered an idea or brand impersonation is in the e

> But ideas aren't crimes in the US That's a distinction without a difference. Whether "macrosoft.com" is considered an idea or brand impersonation is in the eye of the beholder . And of course something not being allowed doesn't mean it doesn't happen in plain sight without repercutions. On the practicality of it, getting a take down court order for brand or copyright violation seems straightforward, and civil forfeiture can apply to domains [0] as well, so vaguely sticking a potential associated crime to a domain owner is enough for an agency to take down a domain, whatever it is. I think that's totally US's choice to have these laws and apply them their way. I also sympathize with the rest of the world planning to get out of that influence and their own tradeoffs. > It's implicit in our method of government that we trust the civic deliberation process with our lives. I feel you're looking at from the political lens only. A lot of "ideas" are not political and asking for civil debate everytime one of these gets a wide audience would be an issue. A suicide inducing site could be such. And it doesn't need to be intentional nor straight illegal. If looking at it hundreds of kids took out their lives every single day, you'd shut it down and start asking questions later. [0] https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/ice-domain-name-seizures-threaten-due-process-and https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/ice-domain-name-...