[DanBC]

> I may see an interesting reference with a link to a page which will just not work. Firstly, people will not know if it is because the page in fact ceased to exist or the server is down or it has been blocked and by whom exactly and where?

A site that has been blocked will return a fucking huge spalsh page saying it has been blocked, with instructions for removing the block. The customer does not have to unblock each individual site. They call, once, and have the filter removed. It's removed for all sites (except those already on the IWS lists - and they've been blocked for years.)

> perhaps because of some trivial filter 'mistake'. Are you going to get redress?

I've already said it's a bad idea. The difference between me and you is that I'm basing my arguments on fact and I'm not spouting hyperbole based on inaccuracies.

[SagelyGuru]

It may sound like spouting hyperbolae based on inaccuracies to you but to many it is a genuine concern. You avoided answering my questions about the delivery of your 'fucking huge splash page' being in any way a protected right, so it is less of a fact and more of an act of faith on your part. The very existence of the IWS lists already denies that right by precedent.

What I have been trying to say, perhaps clumsily, is that accepting the precedent of censorship on the basis of something offending someone seems like a very bad idea to me. Anyone can, and will, claim to be offended by almost anything, especially if it offers them an easy opportunity of hampering a competitor. The polititians too are only human, after all, and get easily offended by effective criticism.

I am glad you said somewhere that you think it is a bad idea because all I can see coming from you is that it is just fine because it can be turned off.