Quote:
Originally Posted by elcreative
Read... you are confusing TWO things... I HAVE NOT STATED THAT THESE ACTIONS ARE NOT CENSORSHIP... clear... I have stated that the action is NOT Government controlled but JUDICIAL... the Judiciary acts in line with the laws of the land (which are enacted by the actual elected government) but it can independently modify them by interpretation and establishing precedent... Oh and you've also made my point about Judiciary and Government being separate as you actually state it above...
|
I'm not exactly sure why you bothered to make your original point then, or continue to throw a fit if you're agreeing with me that it is censorship in any event. And with respect, what I said was that the judiciary was a separate branch of government, although this distinction seems irrelevant to the point anyway. I follow your point, just not why you're so insistent on making it if you agree it is a pointless distinction.
If the government enacted a law that said they could seize websites following a secret judicial process, then the fact that that process was followed to the letter would not make it any less censorship. Since you already agree with that though, I'm sure we can move on.
--------------------------
Argument Pro-Tip: The use of all-caps to highlight important passages in your argument is both helpful to and appreciated by the person that you are arguing with. The use of all caps is in no way seen as rude or childish or as suggesting that you are anything but a learned internet scholar. The more often you can use all caps, the better.