Wired updated their story with an important caveat

Our original report named “Rascatripas” as a forum moderator for Nuevo Laredo in Vivo. That’s now appears to be off-base. At least one local reporter says there’s “no proof” yet that the decapitated man found Wednesday was actually murdered for his online activity. And administrators for Nuevo Laredo en Vivo now say that “Rascatripas” wasn’t one of theirs. “Negative,” they tweet (thanks to Xeni Jardin for the translation, and for the tip). “He was not our partner, he is confirmed to have been a scapegoat to scare others. The person executed is not a collaborator with our site, but this was without doubt an attempt to silence the voices of Nuevo Laredo.”

Read the proposal itself, you might be somewhat comforted. I think TFA is specifically referring to section 3 where they state

we recommend that any material written by an unidentified person should be taken down by the host or service provider upon receipt of complaint, unless the author promptly responds positively to a request to identify themselves, in which case a notice of complaint should be attached. If the internet service provider believes that there are significant reasons of public interest that justify publishing the unidentified material—for example, if a whistle-blower is the source—it should have the right to apply to a judge for an exemption from the take-down procedure and secure a "leave-up" order.[170] We do not believe that the host or service provider should be liable for anonymous material provided it has complied with the above requirements...Any host or service provider who refuses to take-down anonymous material should be treated as its publisher and face the risk of libel proceedings, subject to the standard defences and our proposals relating to leave up orders. It is for the Government to make clear in the Bill any exceptional circumstances in which unidentified material should have evidential value for the purposes of defamation proceedings.

I'm not sure how I feel about the proposals themselves but they're still in the consultation phase - if you disagree, call your Member's number.

The section you're citing to reads

PROPONENTS OF FREE SPEECH HAVE LONG ARGUED THAT A SOCIETY THAT PUTS PEOPLE ON TRIAL FOR THINGS THEY HAVE WRITTEN OR SAID IS NO LONGER A TRULY DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. THE POWER OF THE WORD HAS BEEN UNDISPUTABLE; IT HAS BEEN ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY AND, IN FACT, ITS FOUNDING PREMISE WAS TO PRESERVE THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS: A “MARKET PLACE” WHERE CITIZENS COULD SORT THROUGH BELIEFS AND IDEAS WHICH BEST RESONATED WITH THEM AND DISCARD THOSE THAT DID NOT,74 THEREBY ALLOWING FOR THE CREATION OF AN EVER-EVOLVING, OPEN SOCIETY. MOREOVER, THEY CONTEND THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS RECOGNIZED AS A HUMAN RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS,75 SO IT CANNOT AND MUST NOT BE LIMITED. AND YET, PROPONENTS OF A MORE REFINED FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUE THAT THIS FREEDOM SHOULD BE TREATED NOT AS A RIGHT BUT AS A PRIVILEGE – A SPECIAL ENTITLEMENT GRANTED BY THE STATE ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS THAT CAN BE REVOKED IF IT IS EVER ABUSED OR MALTREATED. BRITISH PHILOSOPHER JOHN STUART MILL LONG ARGUED THAT “THE ONLY PURPOSE FOR WHICH POWER CAN BE RIGHTFULLY EXERCISED OVER ANY MEMBER OF A CIVILIZED COMMUNITY, AGAINST HIS WILL, IS TO PREVENT HARM FROM OTHERS.”76 HIS “HARM PRINCIPLE” WAS ARTICULATED IN AN ANALOGY BY OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR. (1841-1935), AND STILL HOLDS TRUE TODAY: “THE RIGHT TO SWING MY FIST ENDS WHERE THE OTHER MAN’S NOSE BEGINS,” OR, A PERSON’S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH ENDS WHEN IT SEVERELY INFRINGES UPON THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF ANOTHER. 74

It's not an argument one way or the other. It's merely a statement of two differing stances. The report also notes that the First Amendment has never been absolute, an important fact that a lot of people don't seem to realize. Nothing is being thrown under the bus, these are basic legal principles that exist in the law anyway.

But it is out of context. The paper uses a basic rhetorical device: some people say X, some people say Y, we say blah blah blah. It's not advocating the stated positions at all, and if the entire thing is taken as a whole it makes a compelling legal argument for the protection of the first amendment in an area that is otherwise pushing in the opposite direction. We can argue about if it's a necissary expansion of the law, I would argue that it's codifying principles that already exist throughout anyway, and we can argue about the validity of the conditions and standards applied; but what we shouldn't do is cherry pick a sentance, divorce it from the context in which is sat, and then make hyperbolic statements.

Some people think the death penalty is flawed, some people think that the death penalty is a good idea. Headline: Cappp says the death penalty is a good idea!

The First Amendment has never been absolute. Years of case law and precident demonstate this - shouting fire in a crowded theatre blah blah blah.

This report in no way seeks to undermine the rights of speech, infact they go out of their way to avoid it. What is suggested is two changes to current laws (stalking and manslaughter specifically) to faciliate prosecution of malicious internet communications. This is already a crime in every other medium.

A PERSON IS GUILTY OF STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE WHEN HE OR SHE INTENTIONALLY, AND FOR NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, ENGAGES IN A COURSE OF CONDUCT USING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DIRECTED AT A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, AND KNOWS OR REASONABLY KNOW THAT SUCH CONDUCT:
A) IS LIKELY TO CAUSE REASONABLE FEAR OF MATERIAL HARM TO THE PHYSICAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD; OR
B) CAUSES MATERIAL HARM TO THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD

This is merely updating the laws to better reflect today's means of communication - the content of said law already exists. You're not allowed to intentially cause fear in othe people, nor cause material harm. Those principles already exist in the law.

I should have used the earlier post to elaborate more on the point and apologise for that failure. The proposed changes are not about stiffling free speech, as the report if read in it's entirety makes clear, but rather about updating current laws to reflect technological realities. This is not new content nor judicial reaching, it's whats already on the books merely applied to a new medium.

Only thats not at all what's written. Read the entire report for yourself, you'll be pleasantly suprised.
The quote given is taken completely out of context, infacT the report notes on the page previous that

THE CHALLENGE LIES IN PROTECTING TEENAGERS FROM CYBERBULLYING WITHOUT TRAMPLING ON THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION ACCOMPLISHES THAT IN THE FOLLOWING WAY:

The report has some fairly decently nuanced considerations and is being damned by a single, out of context quote. Hell read onto the next page if you like

IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED. IN

HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT MY IDEOLOGICAL BUNKER!!!!!

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.