MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - High Court orders British ISPs to block "The Pirate Bay"

ProfCrash · 05-03-2012, 01:44 PM

Actually, there are people who rather dislike the police preventing people from entering their street unless they are residence because they feel that it is an infringement on peoples right to come and go as they please. The police are doing it in order to deter crime in areas that have seen an increase in crime but not everyone who lives on that street is a criminal or planning on engaging in a crime. There simply is a higher likelihood based on current trends.

And it has not ruled illegal, I don't think it has ever gone to court even though it is unpopular.

My point? There are times that the legal system is engaged because there is enough evidence of a criminal trend that it is deemed to be in the benfit of the public to make it harder for criminal activity to occur or to catch the folks who are engaged in criminal activity.

I don't think anyone has ever said that road blocks to identify drunk drivers are illegal or unjust. I don't know that they have ever been challenged in court.

I do know that the major television stations and radio stations, the ones using public air waves, have far more stringent limitations on what they can show and not show during certain hours of the day then cable channels because the air waves are public. The government limits speech in this case to benefit people. ie young kids should not be watching porn on CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX or the like because we deem that to be bad and those stations are using public airwaves but Playboy can show porn when it wants.

So there are precedents (sp) for public owned goods (roads, airwaves) being restricted in order to benefit the public. In the case of the roads, there is a precedent for restricting the use in order to arrest the few people who are engaged in criminal activities while inconviencing everyone who is not, ie those of us not drunk, not on drugs, wearing our seatbelts, and driving with insurance.

Nevermind that free speech means that speech comes without consequences. You are free to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre when there is no fire and you will find yourself in jail for doing so because your speech created a dangerous situation. You are free to post what you want on the internet and then be charged with a crime, witness the idiots who posted about stealing a penguin and returning him before the theft was discovered. They still ended up paying a fine because they used their free speech to post on it. Or the people who have been arrested for inciting a riot even when they did not participate in the London riots because they posted on Twitter and Facebook encouranging others to do so or told people where to go.

As my high school rights and responsibility teacher said "Your rights end where my nose begins." You are not allowed to use your rights in such a manner that they hinder my rights. Clearly the UK Courts have determined that The Pirate Bay infringes on the rights of the copyright holders and others who are being screwed out of the money they are owed for selling their goods by The Pirate Bay. You might not agree with the decision but I don't buy the censorship argument for one second.

05-03-2012, 01:44 PM	#135
ProfCrash Tea Enthusiast Posts: 8,554 Karma: 75384937 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Somewhere in the USA Device: Kindle1, Kindle DX Graphite, K3 3G, IPad 3, PW2	Actually, there are people who rather dislike the police preventing people from entering their street unless they are residence because they feel that it is an infringement on peoples right to come and go as they please. The police are doing it in order to deter crime in areas that have seen an increase in crime but not everyone who lives on that street is a criminal or planning on engaging in a crime. There simply is a higher likelihood based on current trends. And it has not ruled illegal, I don't think it has ever gone to court even though it is unpopular. My point? There are times that the legal system is engaged because there is enough evidence of a criminal trend that it is deemed to be in the benfit of the public to make it harder for criminal activity to occur or to catch the folks who are engaged in criminal activity. I don't think anyone has ever said that road blocks to identify drunk drivers are illegal or unjust. I don't know that they have ever been challenged in court. I do know that the major television stations and radio stations, the ones using public air waves, have far more stringent limitations on what they can show and not show during certain hours of the day then cable channels because the air waves are public. The government limits speech in this case to benefit people. ie young kids should not be watching porn on CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX or the like because we deem that to be bad and those stations are using public airwaves but Playboy can show porn when it wants. So there are precedents (sp) for public owned goods (roads, airwaves) being restricted in order to benefit the public. In the case of the roads, there is a precedent for restricting the use in order to arrest the few people who are engaged in criminal activities while inconviencing everyone who is not, ie those of us not drunk, not on drugs, wearing our seatbelts, and driving with insurance. Nevermind that free speech means that speech comes without consequences. You are free to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre when there is no fire and you will find yourself in jail for doing so because your speech created a dangerous situation. You are free to post what you want on the internet and then be charged with a crime, witness the idiots who posted about stealing a penguin and returning him before the theft was discovered. They still ended up paying a fine because they used their free speech to post on it. Or the people who have been arrested for inciting a riot even when they did not participate in the London riots because they posted on Twitter and Facebook encouranging others to do so or told people where to go. As my high school rights and responsibility teacher said "Your rights end where my nose begins." You are not allowed to use your rights in such a manner that they hinder my rights. Clearly the UK Courts have determined that The Pirate Bay infringes on the rights of the copyright holders and others who are being screwed out of the money they are owed for selling their goods by The Pirate Bay. You might not agree with the decision but I don't buy the censorship argument for one second.