- <i>"Every blocking order must go through a U.S. court, requiring clear evidence, due process, and judicial oversight to ensure fair enforcement and prevent censorship. Courts must first verify that any site-blocking order does not interfere with access to lawful material before issuing an order."</i><p>I don't see how these could be feasible in practice. Two days ago there was a political advocacy piece about copyright on HN [0], and people in the discussion thread asked for a mirror because their country censored it. Broader point being, either you have to relax these professed legal protections beyond recognition, or you have an ineffective law.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902385">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902385</a> (<i>"Copyright reform is necessary for national security (annas-archive.org)"</i>)<p>(This is neither here nor there, but it's remarkable the Congressperson who wrote this internet-blocking bill is the same one who once named a bill after Aaron Swartz).
Anyone know how this would work? Are they going to block at the IP address level or the DNS level? What are possible workarounds?<p>This is obviously going to be used for more than copyrights, like silencing any support for Palestine.
It is apparently aimed at large-scale, foreign-run piracy sites, and there's a detailed court process.<p>Translation; it's an ISP Section 230 ( and how's that working, with everyone bitching either about censorship or illegal threats, hate and porn in profusion right here in River City?) for the music/film/sports industry.<p>Due to the complexity, small producers be damned. And other fallout, but big money rules.<p>Wilhoit's Law:<p>> Frank Wilhoit: “ …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”<p>It's good to be rich. They buy the laws.