View Single Post
Old 04-13-2010, 01:50 PM   #45
mr ploppy
Feral Underclass
mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
mr ploppy's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,622
Karma: 26821535
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Yorkshire, tha noz
Device: 2nd hand paperback
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
I don't mean to be impolite, but I think that a certain amount of paranoia is being exhibited here. This law is clearly NOT intended to be used to block access to sites some of whose contents merely happen not to be in the UK public domain. You know that; I know that; everybody knows that. So why try to pretend that it is? It's there for use to block access to so-called "pirate" sites. If we're going to discuss this, let's do so in a sensible manner.
It doesn't really matter what the intended purpose of a law is, it is how it is written that counts. That is why new laws are supposed to be debated properly before they are passed, so that they can't be misused in the future. The way this one is worded will make misuse very easy.

BTW, as a side note, did you know that laws intended to combat terrorism are being used to stop people from taking photographs in public, and going on legitimate demonstrations? And that local councils are using surveilance powers given to them by the anti terror laws so that they can catch people dropping litter?
mr ploppy is offline   Reply With Quote