Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > out that what is being censored is actually not something that can legally
> > be censored, chances are high that they will make a ruckus about it. (This
> > has actually happened.)

> Sure. Another way to censor folks is to just not resolve the domain name, at 
> which point you don't even find out the stuff is there, because it doesn't 
> wind up in google, etc.

  The problem with that is that it's unconstitutional (at least here).
The government has no right to stop people from sending or receiving legal
information. Doing so would be a clear violation of the constitution.
Censoring an entire domain name will usually cause this to happen (unless
the domain name is extremely specific and contains only illegal material).

> The problem with making it secret is that someone has to stumble on it, make 
> the ruckus, get the censorship reversed, and then repeat for each improperly 
> censored site.

  Well, the authority who added the legal site to the list should be held
responsible for breaking the law. Guess if that has happened here. And yes,
completely legal sites have ended up in the censorship list. In one instance
there was actually somewhat of an international controversy because a
website dedicated to the memory of a deceased princess of Thailand ended up
in the Finnish censorship list. Guess if there were any legal consequences
to the authority who made the mistake. (I'll give you a hint: No.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message