We should abolish prisons then? It's a ridiculous argument. Abuses can happen with full backing of the courts, but I expect them to not happen.
In all the years that this system has been in place in Spain I have never seen it used for anything other than blocking websites that were in breach of the law.
Wait, what? How do you get abolishing prisons out of that?
Back to the subject, what if a law is bad, but the mere act of saying publicly that the law is bad is, in itself, breaking the law? That's where this is all heading.
It starts with prohibiting the utterance of specific words because they hurt someone's feelings, but hidden under "consumer safety" or "public order." No one speaks against it because "of course we shouldn't hurt the feelings of others with mean words."
So what? We have hate speech laws in Europe. Try saying "the holocaust never happened" or "homosexuals are vile creatures" and you will see what can happen to you. There's no free speech in Europe anyway.
The point wasn't that it was extrajudicial, she was just demonstrating that a tool instituted "for consumer protection" can, once implemented, easily be used for democratic suppression or censorship.
They didn't say it was blocked using this proposal. Just that it was expedited through website blocking infrastructure that was put in place for other purposes.
P1. Infra A exists.
P2. Infra A has been abused.
C1. If we build infra A, it can be abused.
P3. Abuse is bad.
P4. This proposal proposes that we build infra A.
P5. A proposal to build something that can be abused is bad.
C2. A proposal to build infra A is bad.
That's all fine. It's all fine, except P1 still stands even at the time we reach C2. The infrastructure already exists. So the argument sounds funny. Not unsound, but somewhat unconvincing.
It's a much better argument for the proposition that we should dismantle the infrastructure, than that we shouldn't make additional legitimate use of the infrastructure.