[fennecfoxen]

> The URL blocking for the major part is ordered by courts and not the government

I can't speak to TRAI and DOT involvement, but the statement that courts are not part of the "government" is an over-technical definition centered around Parliamentary technicalities that happen to use the word, and of limited utility here. The courts are very much part of the apparatus which governs the people of a nation.

[wobbly_bush]

I see where you are coming from but the distinction is important because a lot of times these discussions are followed up by discussion about voting for certain political parties with suggestions of one political party banning/censoring more than other political parties. If one doesn't focus on the exact points of change where it's possible, complaining against the "big government" is going to be a very slow process to bring change.

[toast0]

Some group presumably passed the laws the court is enforcing? (Unless they're interpretting the constitution to require blocking DDG, I dunno). Seems like you would want to vote against those people if this is your important issue.

[young_unixer]

Why don't English speakers use the term "state" to talk about the "human community which lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimated use of physical force"? Is it because they want to avoid confusion with states as in "The United States"?

[fennecfoxen]

Not all governments are states. Cities may also have governments, for instance, as might informal associations. In this case where it is less important that the actor is a state; it is more important that they are exercising authority and power, setting and enforcing policy.

Therefore, in this case, the term "government" is a better fit than "state".

[sbmthakur]

Courts do function independently of the government. The constitution also confers enormous powers over them, so much that contempt of court is exempt from Freedom of speech.