>  Great, another nitpicker.
>
>  - "Hey, country X does not allow women to express their opinion on the
> internet. This is a violation of human rights!"
>  - "Since when is internet access a human right?"
>
>  - "Hey, the government is allowing the press to censor political parties.
> This is a violation of basic human rights!"
>  - "Since when is access to paper and ink a human right?"
>
>  The medium and the information are at completely different categorical
> levels. You are arguing about the medium, which is inconsequential.

Warp, where does it say anything about censorship of Women's rights or 
censoring political parties?  This directive is totally about the ISPs 
wanting to make more money by blocking traffic-heavy data like torrents, 
YouTube videos, BBC iPlayer etc.

You are usually the one going on about how things shouldn't be illegal just 
because they can be used for illegal purposes, so why the sudden 
change-around on this particular issue?

Post a reply to this message