If you provide the children with too safe an environment, they will be useless when they are later released into normal life.

That's just the cost of doing business. Even if one state actually believes they can fine a company in a completely different part of the world, this will not make a dent. It's a token, at most, and not a very good one.

There's nothing stopping anyone from passing a law to overturn that.

This would only cause a parliamentary standstill, as nobody would vote for anything for fear of later reprisals. I do, however, think that immediately after a law is passed, it should instantly go to judicial review where it is open to challenges from anyone. If a single case can show that the law is unconstitutional, it must be struck down. The problem is one of meta-modelling though, according to which other laws is this law made unconstitutional? What happens if this is an amendment to the constitution?

Indeed, but what's to prevent yet another law being passed that takes those freedoms away again? Laws are never final (nor should they be). The system is both flawed and wonderful for the same reason. Thus, the only solution is to ensure that you are ruled by/vote for people with similar ethics and morals as yourself (or that you want to have governing you).

Even the constitution can be amended. For a prime example of fixing your previous fuck-ups in the constitution, see amendments 18 (making booze illegal) and 21 (making it legal again).

The problem with legislation is that, even if you defeat one, it can simply be reintroduced again and again until it is passed. There is no provision for forbidding anything to ever become a law (for a reason, otherwise we'd never be able to undo bad decisions). I hate ACTA as much as the next guy, and I really don't want to see it in use, but if the politicians have decided that some form of law like this will be in place, there's no stemming the tide simply by expressing our displeasure for it. Do you honestly think that politicians listen to the people who elect them? That's not how it works. We listen to the politicians, and elect the one we believe best represents our interests. It's (almost) always a one-way street.

Hahaha, that's awesome and incredibly accurate! =)

All I see is "wahh, waah, we want to be a monopoly!" I hear that doesn't get people attention from the government at all.

Wasn't the enforcement of this law put on hold due to some irregularities with the company collecting the data to base these things on?

Do you have any numbers to support this claim?

Touché =)

There will always be people unhappy about something. It's their right to be. I don't think we have to be worried about people complaining about this until it's actually acted upon. It's not like we can prevent people from asking others to censor stuff. That would be censorship in itself.

The article lists the most *challenged* books. Challenging a book doesn't result in it being censored. The title of the article is incredibly misleading.

So, what, he expects to load gigabytes of resources like sounds and textues and video in realtime from the internet? If he doesn't, and he expects that to reside on disk in some HTML5 based storage, how is that not installation? What a fucking idiot...