[porfirium]

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.

[sverige]

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."

[porfirium]

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.

[peeters]

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.