Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
I have in fact read the full details, and I don't think it's proper that record companies can sue ISPs to have a third-party website blocked from being accessed by the UK public. Just because a legitimate process was followed doesn't mean that censorship hasn't occurred.
How are laws that allow for blocking the public from accessing a website not censorship? Maybe you can explain the difference to me since I still can't seem to understand it from your glib response.
Here's a quote from Nick Pickles, the director of Big Brother Watch on the issue:
|
I am just going by YOUR own words... "but it certainly seems like an overreach for the government to start engaging in censorship."
YOU said GOVERNMENT censorship and I pointed out that it wasn't the government but the result of a judicial process... I DIDN'T say it wasn't censorship anywhere, I said it wasn't GOVERNMENT censorship... I don't know about your country (I did think that Canada was a democracy) but in the UK the Government and Judiciary are separate things and, in fact, can act as checks on the other's power... sorry you thought that my response was glib but I can only think that is because you didn't understand my point.
It is a major difference between government and judicial action especially in a democracy where these are separate arms of the overall body politic specifically designed to be able to act as controls on each others actions...