4 ms·
As long as a court order is required, then this seems to me to be more of a freedom-protecting measure than a freedom-destroying one. Freedom is not about the a
by fchollet 14y ago
As long as a court order is required, then this seems to me to be more of a freedom-protecting measure than a freedom-destroying one. Freedom is not about the absence of enforcement, it is about having reasonably just laws, and processes that ensure the law will be enforced reasonably justly.
- lloeki 14y agoActively blocking websites requires some infrastructure to be in place, and the underlying fear is that this infrastructure gets abused at some point, whether by introduction of new laws or unintentionally through bribery or incompetence. The previous french President Sarkozy was actively looking at putting much more than child pornography in such blocking systems, in very vague and worrisome wordings of which a translation could be "along with any illegal or order-troubling website". Also, the worry is that the risk and cost of such an infrastructure is too high, especially considering the target has already moved and such blocks are completely inefficient. Ironically, just at the time when European MPs decided that any form of censorship is bad and net neutrality matters, council turns around. PS: When submitting the link I tried to be as neutral as possible within the 80 chars limit, precisely to spur constructive discussion.