[dm8]

Interesting. Unfortunately, its even more harmful than DMCA. Resolving copyright violations is really easy. However, if I praise Richard Dawnkins in my blog and some religious retard finds that offensive then it should be taken down because it can be deemed as "blasphemous". Who will decide what is good and what is offensive? It will lead to extremely messy situation.

[timwiseman]

"Resolving copyright violations is really easy"

I think may be slightly off here. Some cases of copyright violation are quite blatent, but many others become tricky.

Music companies have been known to file DMCA complaints over content that their own PR-branches filed for publicity. Other times there is the question of derivative work and whether it is fair use, authorized, or in violation. For that matter, when talking about older works, something can be under copyright in one country but in the public domain in another, depending on their copyright term.

In contast, with the question of what is offensive, it matters greatly on who you ask. All but the most banal and obvious facts will likely offend someone.

[dm8]

I should have mentioned, compared to resolving whether content is religiously offensive or not copyright violations are easier to deal with. And with digital signatures it can be detected by algorithms too. But your point is valid too.