Censorship with qualifiers is good, yes. Society recognizes through the law that sometimes speech has to be restricted no matter how horrifying that concept is to you or I. The important thing is to ensure that governments censor only so much speech as is absolutely necissary, and not a syllable more.

Consider that restraining orders are government sanctioned, and enforced censorship. As are all the laws related to slander and libel. Pretty much all the fraud laws too. And anything related to trade secrets. Or laws protecting privacy. So on and so forth. My point is that there are types of speech that society has recognized as necessitating some degree of restriction. What those kinds of speech are is up for debate, as is our right. That those kinds of speech exist at all is also worth discussing. But jumping to hyperbole short-circuits that conversation, and that undermines fundamental aspects of democracy as an expression of informed decision.

Which is somewhat my point. What provisions? None have been proposed. None. What we have here is a comment made in a speech. Not a policy paper. Not a proposal. A comment.

That comment has in turn lead to claims of fascism, censorship et al. How can we expect rational debate and careful consideration of complicated issues if we all jump to extreme reactions even at the slighest provocation. In this specific case those claims are, as yet, unwarranted. By all means freak out when there's a law being proposed - exercise your considerable civil liberties to their utmost - but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.

The Chinese seem to be enjoying the fine tradition of internet hyperbole moreso than usual. The PM did not in fact suggest there was any plan to shut off social media whatsoever. What he did say was

Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.

We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.

The report can be found here. They dont provide details about how they monitor the click-through but you raise a great point.

My last 5 searches didnt' end in going to a website - all the info was put right there on the google searchpage. Checked the weather, the address of a local business, definition of a word, spelling of a word, and looked at a few *images*. Never left google for any of that.

The report itself can be found here(pdf). If you look on page 2 you'll see that they claim 29% are over the age of 50 - a demographic that dwarfs the 18% under 18.

I would however take the numbers with a grain, or truckload, of salt. The report nicely avoids explaining it's methodology and likely uses a broad definition of games (Farmville and minesweeper anyone?) and gamers (usually based on the age of the person doing the buying). Moreover it's an industry study which has an interest in projecting the idea of a mature audiance given certain legislative and legal challenges on the horizon.

Moreover, the translation suggests his statement was made with significant caveats. TFA's third paragraph suggests that info funded by public sources is public...unless it's not in the best interests of the state, or is defined as classified – the example given is of treasury and economic research. The guy is talking about creating a category of free information, not making everything publically available as the summary claims. Seems it’s about moving Poland towards the position already occupied by the rest of the EU, not barrelling past it.

If I’m reading the translation wrong, and to be fair it’s a little hard on the eyes as it stands, I’d appreciate Polish speakers pointing it out.

Obtaining justice in their own system is likely to be really, really hard. I don't know for certain but I would imagine that in Egyptian Law the telecom companies would be able to successfully argue that they were merely following governmental orders, and the government will claim some kind of perogative to act - probably grounded in some kind of martial law rights. The problem is that the law as it stood both reflected and enable a specifically ordered power structure - the law would give deference to the government in many areas.

So you're stuck with the hope that the law would be adapted, a process that takes a lot of time and negotiation, and protections for civil society added. Problem - a lot of states forbid ex post facto prosecution. Egypt is a signatory to the Arab Charter on Human Rights which specifically states that

o crime and no penalty can be established without a prior provision of the law. In all circumstances, the law most favorable to the defendant shall be applied.

. So the only option is likely to be appeals to international courts. Using the courts as they stand in Egypt is likely to be futile at present, and in the future they'll be unable to claim for injuries suffered prior to the adoption of new laws. It's a difficult situation to be in.

Moreover, there's a lot of reasons to make an international case here - and most of them are rooted in good ol' money and politics.

As provided by TFA, the Alien’s Action for Tort is the relevent statute and states

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.

There's some decent caselaw and precedent if anyone's intersted - Wiki has a little summary that shouldn't take too long to browse through. Long story short, it's certainly possible but there are some pretty high barriers to use (see specifically the ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum [pdf]). It's a lot easier if its person on person, moreso if one of those is physically in the US, but it extends to corporations and non-residents as well.

I wonder if this is some kind of regional effect, or perhaps a little hyperbole designed to keep things interesting. The most recent numbers I could find note that in the UK

"Viewers watched an average of three hours and 45 minutes of television a day in 2009, 3% more than in 2004, according to research published today by the media regulator Ofcom"

If there was some generational effect going on (the article does note that the elderly watch more than the average) it would be somewhat mitigated by the Economist's finding that

"In December 2009, Nielsen estimated that 34% of internet users had the television on while surfing the net. But when tuning in for a programme, television-watchers used the internet only about 3% of the time"

US numbers show a similar trend -

"the average American watches approximately 153 hours of TV every month at home, a 1.2% increase from last year"

Those who are interested should check out the American Time Use Survey - it has some rather interesting content (for instance: 15 to 19 read for an average of 5 minutes per weekend day while spending 1.0 hour playing games or using a computer for leisure. )
Taking the two pieces together it would seem we're watching more TV in general, and when we're online we have the TV on anyway. Hardly seems worth pounding the drums of the apocalypse over.

The court's ruling itself can be found here. It's a little wonky linguistically and the frames are messy, but scroll down and you'll find some really interesting details. For your question it seems the court considered two factors - was it a computerised device (which the translation makes difficult to establish...seemingly could be read either way) and second, was there an intrusion which exposed personal data. Since the latter didn't occur it doesn't matter if the former is true.

As for other details, the case involves a guy posting a threat - on 4chan - to commit a school shooting and apparantly hacked the Wifi as a little camo'.

Personally I think it's a fantastic idea, clearly indicative of a government that loves and cares for its people.

Cappp...translate this into Farsi when you get a chance please.

Found it. Seems the French are tougher than their British neighbours. According to the government memo I found the following:

Articles 131-37 to 131-39 of the Penal Code define ten types of penalty specific to legal entities:8 fine, dissolution (for the most serious offences9), prohibition to exercise certain activities for a certain period (especially for the offences of torture and barbarity10), placement under judicial supervision, closure of the establishment for a given period, disqualification from public tenders, prohibition to make a public appeal for funds, prohibition to draw unauthorised cheques or to use payment cards, and confiscation of the thing used or intended for commission of the offence or of the proceeds of the offence.

I'm assuming the French law is similar to the UK one in that the outcome is pretty much financial with a dash of policy change. Corporate Manslaughter in the UK is governed by the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which notes that:

A court before which an organisation is convicted of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide may make an order (a “remedial order”) requiring the organisation to take specified steps to remedy—

(a)the breach mentioned in section 1(1) (“the relevant breach”);
(b)any matter that appears to the court to have resulted from the relevant breach and to have been a cause of the death;
(c)any deficiency, as regards health and safety matters, in the organisation's policies, systems or practices of which the relevant breach appears to the court to be an indication.

There is however no personal responsibility assigned i.e. the employees aren't found guilty of aiding or abetting.

Sections 1 and 2 of Article 3 wherein the Supreme Court is established and it's jurisdiction defined. That court has, in turn, interpreted the constitution and found that children are treated differently under the law. Consider for example Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District where the court "allow[ed] schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." It is a murky legal area that reflects a complicated judical question about fundamental fairness.