Making it difficult for people to have access to information, any information, is a bad thing. It's not about whether you can get around it, and it's not about who is behind the censorship. It's about whether it's acceptable to take any steps at all to make it harder for you to get your hands on a book. It's not.

If your credit card company contracts an irresponsible security consultant for maintaining their network security, and then your credit card information leaks all over the internet, are you going to defend the credit card company on these same lines that you are defending Wikileaks?

Lanterns need fuel, available only after several hours of traveling and paying up several middlemen and they burn toddlers and risk burning the whole house or village down.

That's not pretty cool at all. What he admitted to by offering such a compromise was that he had no way of identifying or proving who cheated. It's the same way parents deal with young children, and cops deal with student criminals: "Is there something you'd like to tell us? We know what you did, even though we won't tell you exactly what you did... but we're here to help. Just tell us what you did so we can figure out how to deal with it." Yeah, right.

Hey! That's not what schizophrenic means! You should instead have said "Does the US government appear to have dissociative identity disorder? Oh yes."