3 ms·
That's not a reason to censor it at the state level.
by sunaookami 14d ago
That's not a reason to censor it at the state level.
- cluckindan 14d agoWhy not?
- mitxela 14d agoWhy is it? You don't get to censor important sources of information and then literally just cite "why not?" as the reason.
- ctenb 14d agoThe linked wiki page lists the reasons. You can't just say these are not good reasons without saying why
- mitxela 14d agoWhich one of them justifies the government putting you in prison for accessing the information?
- iamnothere 14d ago“Protecting democracy” or something Orwellian like that
- mitxela 14d agoarchive.is protects democracy and that's why it must be illegal to access?
- iamnothere 13d agoI mean that’s probably what they believe, the idea is to shape favored outcomes by denying their voters access to information.
- MC995 13d agoUnironically, yes.
- trashb 13d agoCensorship is bad, also it is always slippery slope. Additionally it is against Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN. And Article 20 of the Spanish Constitution.
- gpm 13d ago> including the site using editors' and readers' computers to run a denial-of-service attack This seems like sufficient justification not only to censor it at a state level, but to criminally prosecute any individual who visits the site after finding out about it - and thus knowingly joins in DDOS attacks.