Nicky

The claim I was answering in this case was that they would have the power to shut a website down based on mere accusation. Not suspicion, not preliminary evidence, not probable cause, but mere accusation. As for the process, it involves a court order authorizing any kind of action. Last time I checked, US judges don't even get out of bed based merely on accusations, let alone issue court orders. So far, out of the arguments made against this bill, the only one I failed to dismiss as either based on false claims or fallacious is that it is ambiguous on what kind of liability companies wou

Only if there is an emotional attachment. I place no value on whether my washing machine will still work after I die or not. But that's because, lovely as it is, I have no feelings for it. I do care if my loved ones will live and be happy. It would be impossible to value someone (or something) you love only up to an arbitrary point in time (and I say arbitrary, because the time of your death has no significant bearing on who your loved one is - it would be possible to stop loving them if they change enough). That's because when you love someone, you value them for who they are, not just for

What do you mean "mere accusation"? Are you saying I could shut down any website on the Internet, merely by accusing them of piracy? Because that sounds like something out of a superhero movie. I don't think it would work though. Pretty sure I couldn't just e-mail an accusation to the DHS, and have CNN.com shut down. I'm pretty sure they would first check if my accusation is valid or not.

That's nice. I'm sure in future appeals to donors, they will add "denying service to customers, in an attempt to make a political statement" to the list of reasons why I should give them money.