[katz]

I have a few problems with this. Their attempt to block wikileaks is so that no one can see the URLs they blocked. This is a bit of nonsense - no one can argue for the websites - so in effect they can block everything they want.

If they have a judge that decides which URLs are blocked maybe it would be right.

> The news comes after web forum Whirlpool was threatened with the fine for posting a hyperlink to a blacklisted anti-abortion website.

Hmmm... Why? Can they at least give a reason why a site was banned (except promoting a dissenting view)?

[electromagnetic]

Because if Whirlpool had refused they'd have been fined $11,000 a day, probably from the day the notice was sent out... probably in the slowest mail service imaginable so that by the time Whirlpool got the notice the government would consider them owing like $77,000 and an extra $11,000 for every day that passes between them refusing to take down the link and them getting taken to court.

It's a money making scam. There's no sense in a fine being levied per day for hosting a link other than to extract money.

Edit: It's like getting a speeding ticket, but instead of being charged for how fast over the legal limit you were going, they charge you for every meter you cover whilst speeding. Or being charged for drunk driving, but they charge you per 0.01% over, so for the same crime you get charged a ridiculous amount if you're so drunk you only managed to turn the key before passing out (which in most places being behind the wheel of a running vehicle and drunk, even if the vehicle isn't in motion, counts as drunk driving) but someone who's only 0.03% over the legal limit and is capable enough to drive, but drunk enough to be a danger is given a slap on the wrist.

This kind of system is just whole heartedly moronic. It's like a dentist charging, not for pulling a single tooth out but how many milligrams the tooth weighed. It's complete quackery.