> I don’t agree that choosing to host a website without limiting the audience is innocent. "Innocent"? That's a strange word to choose. Who cares what's "innoc

> I don’t agree that choosing to host a website without limiting the audience is innocent. "Innocent"? That's a strange word to choose. Who cares what's "innocent"? > It’s a choice, and has been the default for a long time, but it means one has chosen to speak outside the borders of their own country and that comes with rules, like them or not. ... or it means one has chosen to speak inside the borders of their country, and people outside those borders have chosen to import that speech. Web sites don't lob speech at you willy-nilly. The bottom line is that that standard is impractical to implement, illiberal in its effects, and just generally a bad idea. For that matter, it's also at odds with most of the ways the world treats trade in physical goods.