[revscat]

> Obviously this is an extremely touchy subject, but I think the fact you have even one exception shows you are not grasping the problem here.

Or we are discussing two different things, which is completely my doing.

I was thinking of speech in the constitutional sense; I was not speaking of domain seizures. I completely agree that the government/corporations should not have the power to seize domains under any circumstances.

(Although eminent domain might be an interesting angle to consider, although that is another beast entirely.)

[marchdown]

grecy wrote in response to our common parent comment:

> > I was thinking of speech in the constitutional sense

> Remember, many countries don't have a constitution and don't care for yours.

For some reason I can't see a reply link under hir answer, so I'll just leave this here:

Constitution is neither the only one, nor the most effective assertion of unalienable freedoms. Since the aftermath of WW2 there have been many Charters, Conventions and Declarations of all sorts, many of them accepted ("ratified") by many countries alongside their local laws.

Perhaps the most widely known and accepted one is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...

[Timothee]

Just for future reference about "For some reason I can't see a reply link under hir answer".

I believe that the deeper a thread is, the longer it takes for a reply link to appear on a comment. This is to prevent endless flamewars, which immediate replies facilitate.

[grecy]

> I was thinking of speech in the constitutional sense

Remember, many countries don't have a constitution and don't care for yours.