Hacker News Reader

Comment by pyre | Hacker News Reader

The headline is highly inflammatory, though the content is mostly just the same quotes I saw elsewhere.

The idea that putting a censorship framework in place even if it's "only for IP infringement" is a slippery slope. Once the framework is in place, how long do you think it will be before there are all kinds of 'me too' additions that get attached as riders to other bills floating through Congress? All so that some Congress-critter can get re-elected and/or attempt to impose his (or her) morals on others.

View on HN

Yep, just like the Patriot Act wasn't to be used for anything but terrorism suspects, but it's being used for everything now. In 2008, 3 of 763 were terrorism related. More:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/patriot-act-provision-used-fo...

It will be the same with this.

Censorship is even more inflammatory IMO, it's not mentioned but the headline suggests it. It's a pretty cheap rhetoric if this is what he actually said, it's like saying that the U.S is like China in regards to Copyright if it's not blocked.

Huh? He's saying two things:

* The US sets an example for the world. If the US decides that it's a-ok to practice censorship, then we're implicitly giving the rest of the world permission.

* Censorship is a slippery slope, and at the bottom of that slope is China.

Are you referring to the article linked here? It doesn't mention censorship once. Which is good since this has nothing to do with censorship, that is my point and why it's a cheap rhetoric trick. And then comparing it to China, well all I can say is, does Godwin's law apply to public statements?

I think there are / have been probably places way worse than China.

All laws are an imposition of and a reflection of the morals of the law-givers.

There's a different between "thou shalt not kill" and "I don't think that you should be reading that book there citizen."

They still abstract out to the same idea: imposition of morality.

You may disagree with the rightness of that particular law, but both conform to the abstract type of 'morality'.

I think it's important to ask if laws and the justice system are meant to punish those who have broken moral codes or if they are meant to maintain and protect society.

   Where you fall on that gradient is going to effect how you view things like rehabilitation programs, issues of human sexual abberations, fidelity, drug abuse, and so forth.

Well, doesn't the idea of 'protect society' also fall into a Moral Code? :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com