I know /. is pro-game and anti-censorship. SO AM I. That said, I'm really disappointed by the proliferation of anti-scientific misunderstandings propagated by the OP and commenters. (For instance: OP needs to RTFA. The study measures both quantity AND quality.) As a media studies scholar, I've studied the evidence, and there really is a statistically significant correlation (which DOES NOT equal an effect 100% of the time or anywhere near that often) between consuming violent media and engaging in real-world violence.

I'd say more, but these folks do a MUCH better job:

http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/articles/Huesmann/2003.Huesmann&Taylor.Case%20against%20thecase%20againstmedia%20viol.inGentile.pdf

Read this chapter, read some more of the evidence, then share your thoughts based on the actual data. Don't oppose scientific findings based on policy preferences.

Quite a revolutionary development: A US bank (Amalgamated) that manages funds for institutional investors is actually suing a corporate executive for taking the money and (allegedly) spending it in a way that enriches the family rather than the investors. Not that my piddly little checking account will matter much to them, but now I want to put it there. I mean: Actually confronting crony capitalists in an effort at genuine fiduciary responsibility? Really? What a novel idea!

Also: I didn't know these kinds of allegations could seriously be lodged at Murdoch. I mean, I know the whole part about ideological pandering and slipshod journalism; duh. But I always thought the man really wanted to run a financially sound company, too. Just when you think you can trust a guy...

Yes, those of us on this board know to look right past industry claims about the negative effects of infringement. Unfortunately, policymakers and (to a lesser extent) the press and public actually listen to the industry-funded studies that suggest otherwise. Thankfully, there's now a major study proving (with good methods) what /. readers see as obvious. As we care about copyright zealotry as a major threat to our online rights, spreading some well-founded truth on the issue is worthwhile.

Wrong dept. More like, "From the who-needs-online-freedom-when-we-have-Sen.-Lieberman dept." or the "these-are-not-the-censorship-droids-you're-looking-for dept."

Apparently it's now illegal to do things online with which Sen. Droopy Dog disagrees, but never you mind that. Our immigrations department has become a rogue IP cop, declaring themselves judge, jury, and online executioner to dozens of websites, but don't worry about that. Our Senate Judiciary Committee just unanimously voted to give the same process a slightly more legal sheen, disregarding an open letter from virtually every major figure in the history of the internet, and it's going to be tucked into an appropriations bill under the cover of night before the end of the year, but set that aside. The same committee and their House brethren are practically forcing ISPs to implement filtering, on penalty of repeal of the DMCA safe harbors, but look elsewhere.

Instead, let's talk about how little respect OTHER COUNTRIES have for press freedom. After all, none of those other countries are the freest, fairest, most just-est countries in history! That title is all ours, baby!

The implicit assumption here is that, as long as Big Brother doesn't see the content of the messages, there's nothing to worry about. Of course that's total bullocks. The AOL search data scandal of 2006 shows that one's search history alone can reveal far, far more about a person than an unwarranted government search should be able to see. Amp that up to a list of every site visit, plus everyone I email, call, or text, and this represents the government demanding the right to dig very deep into Brits' communication.

I hope Britons go ballistic in opposition to this proposal.

I love how this gets moderated as "Insightful" rather than "Funny."