Intellect or Insanity, Jonathan Klinger's Blog

0.
Israel is to attempt, again, to pass a bill that authorizes police officers to issue warrants to Internet service providers to block or restrict access to specific websites involved either in gambling, child pornography or copyright infringement. The bill itself proposes that such administrative procedures shall be clandestine and that court decisions shall be made ex-parte, where some of the court’s ruling will not be even disclosed to the owner of the website, and the court may hear and use inadmissible evidence.

In my opinion, one of the saddest things in a democracy is that powers with authority can change the rules after the game commenced. This is story with blocking of gambling sites, an experiment which began around 2010.

Fortunately, after a lot of hard work by the Israeli Internet Society, The District Court of Tel-Aviv quashed the block and ruled that the police had no authority to order Internet service providers to block access to certain sites or IP addresses (decision now on appeal, see the Hebrew original ruling at AA 45606-10-10 ISOC N. Shachar Ayalon).

However, Israel is famous for presenting bills that bypass constitutional rulings, and now wants to reassert this authority, without limitation, by presenting a new bill: The Bill for Restricting Uses for Preventing Crimes (Amendment – Restriction of Access to a Website and various revisions),2012 , (Google Translation).

1.
You can read a bit more about the bill at Oded Yaron’s article at Haaretz.com (behind a paywall). In general, the bill’s purpose is to circumvent the relevant court ruling and allow the police to block websites. In the district court ruling, the police’s authority to shut down gambling houses cannot apply to websites. However, the bill’s current wishes seem to be broader:

Had a certified police officer reasonable grounds for suspecting that the website is used to commit an offense specified in the Second Schedule [gambling, child pornography or copyright infringement - jk], and that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the website will continue to be used for committing a crime unless access is restricted, he may issue a warrant for Internet Service Providers to limit the access to that Web site; a warrant under this section may be issued even if the website also contains activity which is considered legal [or legitimate - jk] provided that the illegitimate activity is the main purpose of the website.

Now, as befits any modern legislation, justice it made but us not seen. Article 3 of the bill discusses execution of additional warrants, where everything shall be made ex-parte:

“material relating to the request to extend the validity of an administrative restriction or information based on which such request and any other material provided subject of the application process will be made to the judge only; material will be marked and returned to the police officer or authorized claimant (in this section the applicant) after examining “

But it’s not just that material will be ex-parte; in some cases, the ruling itself may be withheld from the appellant. “The court shall notify the owner or occupier and the police officer on its decisionunder this section, and it may determine that the decision, or parts of it, shall be confidential“.

2.
This means Israeli that citizens may find themselves in a situation where they are subject to a warrant which is confidential. In such case, They will not be able to challenge such an order, because the grounds for the decision will unlisted . Sounds interesting? Well, I remind you that when we discussed that Communication Metadata Law, which allows police to receive GPS data on phone and Internet subscribers and records of their phone calls, everything was made in confidential decisions (with no further judicial review on them). Therefore, do not know how the law is implemented, how these requests really served illegally, and how judicial review works.

3.
The bill itself is absurd if you understand the Internet: everybody knows that no matter what order blocking a given Web site, its validity is about as much as an order of Police fires in summer temperature does not exceed 25 degrees Celsius (or if you’re in the US, that it won’t snow on Christmas). I mean, okay, ISPs will restrict users from browsing, but that’s not actually something that works (proxy servers et all).

4.
But of course there’s the issue of the slippery slope. The original act, which is to be amended by the bill, gave a judge the authority to issue a warrant under careful review; however, the bill conveys this authority to a police officers.

5.
What about additional uses? Well, in order to pass the bill, the police began with abhorrent offenses considered: child pornography and gambling. Clearly, no one will oppose the authority to block such websites if he’s not a pedophile or a gambler. Well, not really. That’s why the phrase “Second Schedule” is used to described to offenses that are subject to this authority, in fact the bill asserts a short list of offenses, where the minister of justice can always add additional offenses. Once the bill is passed, no one can be certain that no additional offenses will enter there.

6.
The real danger here is practice: in the same week where we discovered that the military police apparently investigated a blogger which was exposed using the metadata act without respecting his journalistic immunity and confidentiality of sources, and on the same week as the non-democratic nations want to rule the internet through the ITU convention, Israel decides to publish this bill. And why? because Israel deems it ok to gamble all your money is the state lottery, but not right when you give money to foreign websites.

0.
Around two days ago, Israeli ISPs began to block access to certain websites from Israel. The list of the websites is considered confidential, and included, by media reports two websites related to gambling. The issue in matter began around two months ago, when the Israeli police, alongside the tax authorities arrested 28 suspects who were suspected in collaborating with two websites: Stan James and Victor Chandler. Following a brief period of time, the police approached the Israeli ISPs in request to block access to those sites claiming it has the authority to do so by clause 229 to the Israeli Penal Code. Though they had not had a court order, the commander of the police district interpreted his authority enacted in the act, which is defined as “The Chief of a police district may order the closing down of a place where prohibited gaming, raffles or gambling is taking place” as such which governs also the realm of IP addresses and Internet Service Providers. However, up to this moment no ISP has challenged this authority in court.

1.
First, to the question of whether the police actually has jurisdiction according to clause 229 (and see Adv Ori Goldman‘s opinion on the matter); In two cases the courts heard cases which are similar, though none had to face clause 229. The first was the Carlton Case (CR 90861/07 Michael Gary Carlton v. Israeli Police, Dr. Omer Tene‘s explanation on Carlton) where the Israeli police requested to detain a foreign national who was involved in the operation of the Victor Chandler website (blocked now). Carlton stated that as the website does not operate from Israel, the Israeli law does not apply to acts performed outside of Israel by non-Israelites. The court denied the claim, and asserted that Carlton’s acts were illegal as “In light of the fact, that the appellant has the ability to identify the place of the end-user, prior to registering to the website, the appellant and his company’s blind-sight is material. It is expressed by the fact that while they are aware that gambling is prohibited in Israel, and by greed, knowing that the Israeli public is profitable to the company, they do not act in order to block access to Israel“. The other case is related to blocking a file sharing website by request of the record companies (OCR 3485/08 NMC v. Eli Amar. However, the Amar decision was not a reasoned one, but a brief consensual decision.

2.
As a general rule, the Israeli courts ruled that actions which are available to Israelites are under their jurisdiction and the Israeli criminal law may be applied on any activities. However, where the authority under clause 229 applies remain unanswered by Israeli courts, as the supreme court has yet to rule on the interpretation of the matter, without relation to the Internet, and lower courts ruled regarding the clause without actual discussion on the cases, and approved warrants as a matter of habit without discussing constitutional right. In one rare case, the court observed the infringement of constitutional rights (AA (Jer)1666/09 Salima Kazam v. Israeli Police) and explained that the court is too extensive: The police chief has a rare authority to issue, based on administrative ex-parte evidence, a closing warrant which is permanent and constitutional human rights, both a person’s right for freedom of employment according to Basic Law of Freedom of Employment and his right for property according to clause 2 to the Basic Law of Human Dignity and Freedom. This is performed in the same place where the court, even after convicting a person in possession or managing a place of unlawful gaming according to clause 228 to the penal act, may only fine or incarcerate the person“. The court emphasized the personal manner of the warrant, and human rights, even after rejecting the request to quash it. However, in another case, the court ruled that “the warrant is to close a place, it goes with the place and is applied on the place without regards to who operates his business in such place. changes in the identity of the person who operates the place do not affect it … a warrant could be issued even without personal names, where you do not know who operates the place. The warrant has in rem applicability” (AA (Haifa) 538/02 Romach Trade Co. v. Zevulun Police).

3.
However, in one case the district court interpreted the rationale behind 229, where it ruled, interpreting the Supereme Court’s ruling in RCA9140/99 Romano v. State that “The rationale behind the law’s foundations … is not detached from the law’s purpose, which is to rule out social plagues who endanger a person and society” (OCR (Tel-Aviv) 32354/03 Gilian Trade and Marketing v. Israeli Police). The purpose in issuing a 229 warrant was made to assist in preventing the negative impacts of gambling on society, such as criminal activities; the rule is, that the police may act only to enforce the law and not deter or punish (ACD 2316/95 Ganimat v. State, C (Krayot) 15336-01-10 State v. Amiaz); you cannot punish the proprietors of the place, its users and others from legitimate uses in the same way you cannot arrest a person as a penalty.

4.
Therefore, the requested conclusion is that when both gambling and non-gambling occur in a segregated manner, the legal activity cannot be closed down (AA 236/04 The 7th Heaven v. Israeli Police, where other courts ruled, strangely, that 229 is punitive or deterring, AA 1709/09 Amar Razam v. Jerusalem Chief of Police) and the gambling itself the police has to stop, where the collaborators have to be arrested. This conclusion arises from the same constitutional rights, including freedom of employment and right for property and dignity. The police’s authority could not be used to deter and cannot be directed towards activity which is not gambling. The police has to perform its acts in a responsible manner for the public. From here, we address the issue.

5.
First, the police did not act in accordance to its authority under 229: the warrant was not personal and was not addressed to the proprietor of the place, but solely to who provided access to it; a warrant to block websites served to an ISP is like providing the bus company a warrant to remove a bus station next to a gambling house. The ISP is not the proprietor, not the operator and is not the required party. As far as the police has claims against a website, it should address its operators even if they are outside of Israel and initiate criminal proceedings. If the police still believes that the Carlton decision is in force, then they are are free to act with accordance to it.

6.
Second, the warrant’s breath. The warrant, granted against the websites and IP addresses [See Hebrew Warrant] requested to block the website in full, even the parts not related to gambling. For example, if a person plays without waging a bet, solely in thePlay for Fun part of the website, then he is affected by the warrant without need. In such case, the warrant is not narrowly tailored in the means needed and affects constitutional rights. Moreover, providing a warrant against an IP address and a domain is considered equal to closing a shopping mall because one kiosk sells raffle tickets. In contrast to the Amar Razam decision, these are two distinct different groups of users, different communities and uses, and no need to block the play for fun.

7.
This means that we already began the slippery slope (which our ministry of communication rejected): some of the websites blocked are not gambling sites, but only facilitate funds; one case. of KeshCard.com, at least until proven otherwise, is a website for financial services and not gambling. The websites allows payment, amongst other things, for gambling, but is a financial service similar to others and is not different from credit cards; therefore, there is no reason to block it.

8.
Finally, it is quite difficult not to discuss the websites blocked. Though the police know about hundreds of sites, the two families blocked relate to a regulated market in Israel: sports booking. The Israeli Council for Sports Betting regulates and operates the market heavily, and the proximity to the World-Cup, where the Council’s earning skyrocketed, is strange. Moreover, the proximity to the Israeli Anti-Trust Authority’s decision to consider pressing charges against The Pais, Israel’s second licensed gambling operation, after suspicion arose that it entered into a restraining agreement where the Israeli Association for the Soldier which is licensed to act as well, where ISA shall not engage in raffles, against a material donation from The Pais. Moreover, The Pais offered more money to be provided to the country for more gambling rights, and even to pay salaries in local municipalities, and has previously offered to assist the police financially in the struggle against unlawful gambling.

9.
In conclusion, it is quite obvious the censorship could not stand; in order to drop it, a person using KeshCard or plays VC with “Play for fun” (meaning a person who was hurt by the warrant) shall appeal against the censorship to a court. The ISPs forgot what is the public interest they are meant to protect, and the ministry of communication, who’s authority was run over in one police warrant, does nothing.

[Material Comment: I am writing this without the consent or knowledge of any of my clients, and it does not reflect my opinion or any legal review I provided them]

[Originally in Hebrew]

The US Supreme court decision in 08-769 United States v. Stevens 559 U.S. ___ (2010) (via Balkinization) may shed light on additional issues regarding free speech. Stevens, was more than any other thing, a decision which ruled that 18 USC 48, a clause that ordered that anyone who knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty, if done for commercial gain, may face five years imprisonment if the work does not have “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value”. Stevens was an owner of a website that published and sold movies of dog fights, which were filmed where and when dog fights were legal (f.e japan) and sold them throughout the United States. When indicted, Stevens claimed that 18 USC 48 was not narrowly tailored and should be void.

The Supreme court accepted Stevens’ request, and explained, in part, that where animal cruelty may be defined differently in different jurisdictions, it causes the law to prohibit publishing or displaying legal activity, such as hunting, and “A depiction of entirely lawful conduct runs afoul of the ban if that depiction later finds its way into another State where the same conduct is unlawful” and “Those seeking to comply with the law thus face a bewildering maze of regulations from at least 56 separate jurisdictions“.

Moreover, the court addresses the issue of the exemption, which allows the publication for serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value, and explained that “Most of what we say to one another lacks “religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value” (let alone serious value), but it is still sheltered from government regulation” and that “The Government’s attempt to narrow the statutory ban, however, requires an unrealistically broad reading of the exceptions clause“.

Calling such clause invalid by the court, more than any other thing, may shed light on Israel’s attempted Censorship Bill, drafted by Parliament Member Amnon Cohen during the 2006 term. Cohen offered that all ISPs shall be mandated to block all websites that may be inappropriate to minors, including “displaying sexual relations with violence, torture, degrading nature, humiliation or abuse”, “displaying sex with a minor or a person pretending to be a minor”, or “displaying a man, or any of his organs, as a sexual object”, all when “the content in the said sites lack, distinctly, artistic, scientific, journalistic, educational or instructional value“.

The similarity between the clauses is not coincidental, The Ministry of Communication’s attempt was to legislate the act in accordance with the Israel’s supreme court decision in re Playboy (HCJ 5432/03 Shin v. The Council for Cable and Satellite Broadcast). However, the Court’s ruling that such clause, even when exempting publications with social values, is not tailored to fit the constitutional funnel, may allow us some more hope when others try to engage in censoring the Israeli web.

Whilst I, as an Israeli citizen and national, cannot discuss what is known throughout the globe as the Israel’s censorship scandal, I can at least say that we can learn that Israel is not alone. Israeli courts, apparently, issued a gag order against reporting on a case relating to security measures, but that’s all I might have been allowed to state had the gag order was available to my hand.

However, Israel learned from it’s greatest friend: The United States was quite militant in fighting Wikileaks, a website dedicated to unveil corruption and unjustice, which was already involved in discovering money laundering schemes and (was taken off the web in a court order on Julius Bael v. Wilileaks). There was a reason why the US wanted Wikileaks off the web, as it is now known that Wikileaks published a video showing the US military forces in Iraq killing journalists (Available here).

But there are a few more similarities between the US and Israel. Israel also, as detailed in Uri Blau’s report from November 2008, was killing wanted Hamas militants instead of arresting them, against the supreme court’s decision and in contradiction to the law. However, the Israeli generals who disobeyed the Israeli law will never be brought to justice.

Jeff Ooi, a Malaysian Blogger was elected to parliament after he succeeded to raise sufficient funds for his campaign through his blog. While being elected after a 12 day campaign is one of the greatest successes, in a scale that any class president has to work harder to be elected, one should compare his ability to raise funds to Barack Obama‘s success in generating internet donations, which was deemed Revolutional. If Obama was a revolution, what Ooi did was actually a Coup.

The problem began a day later, when the Malaysian government decided to censor political blogs as those were a real and eminent danger to its reign and they distort the traditional media of control. The requirement to censor the media is not different from the fact that YouTube and WordPress are the first Platforms to get blocked every time: what offers cheap and available speech is the first mean to be blocked as it goes against the apparatus deployed by the current regime.
Photo: Jeff Ooi, cc-by Joi.

During the last few days, Israel is facing a different apparatus of censorship: Miki Rosenthal, who produced The Shakshuka System alongside Ilan Abudi is trying to find a place to screen his film. The film tells the tale of the Ofer Brothers which bought a considerable amount of privatised assets from the government in funny prices and asks how was this done, as well as explains everything. However, lawsuit threats, even against the potential cinemas and even TV Channels that asserted interest just shows the absurd: the attempt to dictate political speech with lawsuits as we already learned, will lead only to one thing.

While Reznor’s speech is artistic and cultural, Rosenthal’s film is important for many reasons. Even if everything said is not correct, and Rosenthal acted out of malice to hurt the Ofer Brothers, Rosenthal is willing to take responsibility. The Commercial interest around is what prevents the TV channels from screening it. De Facto, Censorship is deployed by private entities.

Apparatuses and their operators will do almost anything to prevent Consumers (which are not even “Customers” anymore) from going to different businesses and business models. NBC attempted to the best of its ability to make viewing the Olympic games through the web impossible and that people will stay to watch it over TV (even though on paper the numbers seem quite impressing). Alongside these actions, it (ab)used copyright in order to prevent others from watching the Olympics through video sharing sites. And still, dinosaurs limit technology (and the inherent use) because of money.

But is the right way to make a change through the internet is to censor the media? We all know that when the government limits access to information, it will be found on the net, and we all know that the Shakshuka System has the right demand already: there’s a Facebook Group, a website and public screening all over the country. But is Rosenthal’s ability to carry the viewers out of the passive TV to the active web will affect other independent producers?

Maybe we can see Guy and Neta Dimet as a test case, their documentary, “Lost in Tel-Aviv” tells the story of how they tried to sell their internet based wepisodes to big companies. But maybe Seth MacFarlane is right, and you need to create a web-based show and sell adspace. While it’s irrelevant who is actually right, we’re in dire need to stand with Miki Rosenthal in his struggle for free speech, and there’s still much to learn as to how we can change the Israeli Media, if not the whole media.

“So? You’ve won” I was told today when the minister of telecommunications, Ariel Atias, notified that he will submit a “Softer” version of the Israeli Censorship act. The problem began when I explained that this is another spin after a “Soft” version was submitted a year ago, and no one thought it was soft (If you can read Hebrew, I suggest you read the interview that Doron Fishler had with me at Nana while I was driving back from Jerusalem).

It’s crucial to understand that in spite of the minister’s claims that no filtering will be made by default, the bill does determine that if you do not answer your ISP’s question whether you wish to filter content or not, you will not be able to access the internet (with one exemption, which is sort of a small victory, regarding existing customers, they will not be filtered).

The question of biometric identification remained open. The minister is still authorised to determine the means who will identify a person as an adult. As long as a person will have to identify itself against its ISP, there is a hatch to allow access to Israel’s establishment of a biometric database (which is currently in establishment) and allow the ISPs to access it by defining them as “Public”.

Moreover, the whole thing around User Generated Content (which Atias avoided) did not get the right attention.Most likely, Atias acknowledges that ISP based filtering (meaning, all of Israel’s traffic will be filtered) has some negative results and that the “Public committee” he established will have to set criterias to filter user generated content, including Israel’s most popular websites.

And maybe the worst problem was that the ISPs did not arrive to today’s discussion while the bill may incur heavy expenses on them. Maybe they know that this fight has to move on to the supreme court. The Parliament members just don’t listen. They just make it hard (and still use the “Protect The Children” dialect while they know that no one will be protected under this bill)

Maybe we were wrong when we intervened in the original bill and started a riot. Maybe the right move was to allow the bill to pass with all the biometric identification, with the central apparatus, with shaming lists, that way the supreme court would have seen it as obvious and we wouldn’t have to explain to him how bad this bill is. Now, with the new version of the bill and all the spins around it, it’s a hard job to explain the unconstitutionality of this bill, but it remains unconstitutional.

The deputy mayor of Or-Yehuda, Adv. Uzi Aharon, organised and arranged the Or-Yehuda burning of the New Testament in protest of missionaries distributing it. The deputy mayor is a member of a political ultraorthodox party, Shas, which proposes the anti-democratic Israeli Internet Censorship Bill (more); the bill offers us a new perspective on the legitimate discourse, as it attempts to force Shas’ opinions on the general public.

Meaning, the same political party which does not believe the expressing a different religious opinion is a legitimate act is the one trying to determine for us what content should we consume and operate the black-lists of internet websites.

This is not a political spin, nor is it something populistic act, it is a brief example for what is considered  illegitimate for our own minister of Telecommunication, Ariel Atias, is attempting, like the Hamas in Gaza, to fence our legitimate discourse.

The same political group behind the Or-Yehuda book burning is the group who wishes to censor the internet.

It is crucial to remember that the Or-Yehuda book burning is just the begining and that the minister of telecommunication is alreading attempting to block the expression of religious groups who have different points of view and had set up rotten deals like allowing billboards on the highways as long as they do not publish obsecne materials. The acts of a party who wishes to narrow the legitimate expression in Israel is a matter for our history books.

(also in Hebrew)

Does this article on Slashdot mark an end to my worries? According to a new bill submitted by Chris Smith, U.S Based corporations would be subjected to criminal liability should they censor Internet content and limit freedom of speech (arstechnica article). The new bill requires U.S Corporations to adhere to a new kind of policy, both in regards to Privacy Policies and to Content-Filtering and requires search engines to submit to the U.S Government their “black lists” per country (which, as other critics may say, limits the Search Engines from free business).

However, during the last few months, I’ve been heading the blogger coalition against censorship, trying to block Amnon Cohen‘s prop 892 (also, also). However, this bill may not mean an end to my worries, the proposed bill is to censor adult content: gambling, violence and nudity, these three are absent from the U.S definition of censorship; as their interest in Internet Freedom is limited not to free speech, but to democratic speech.
Img CC-BY-SA-NC MateOptMd

Whilst according to sec 203 of the bill, search engines cannot limit keywords (or have to explain why such keywords were blocked), section 204 only requests hosting services (defined also as: a company which “makes such data available via the Internet.”, i.e Cisco and such) and to provide URLs which were blocked from availability; the only requirement is that Israel shall be deemed as an Internet Restricting Country according to the bill, which requires the U.S President to declare it as such.

Moreover, once the U.S President decides to declare Israel as a Internet Restricting Country, U.S Corporations may not assist our service providers implementing the “Big Brother” act (see more); This means that most of our problems, as nationals seeking internet freedom, are dependent on such a statement by the Honorable Prez. However, since there is quite a wide discretion for his implementation of the act, we are in deep shit:

A foreign country shall be designated as an Internet-restricting country if the President determines that the government of the country is directly or indirectly responsible for a systematic pattern of substantial restrictions on Internet freedom during the preceding 1-year period.

This means that as long as the U.S needs Israel to monitor Middle East “Democracy”, we will be the only Middle Eastern Country with both Internet Access and Internet Restriction…

0.

By the order of the court, the formal Defendants 2-3, the Israeli ISPs, have blocked access to the Defendant’s website, Ynet, following it’s publication of slandering content claiming that Plaintiff engaged in sexual activity with a herd of sick sheep. The Publication, made by an anonymous commenter, was taken down. However, according to the plaintiff, a man with great reputation, the system’s internal architecture enables comments including slander, and therefore, until blocked, it must be shut down.

1.
This how a redundant article may appear in one of the Israeli News Sites in a year or so, after they do not go out against wrongfully decided court decisions such as OCR 3485/08 NM v. Eli Amar. The Decision, given two weeks ago and published today on Ynet determines that Israeli Internet Service Providers shall block access to a website enabling users to engage in file-sharing, since it, allegedly, provides likes to torrents. (See also, C 167/07 NMC v. Amar)

2.
This is not the only decision with exists in the current era. New Sound Interactive, requested that Israeli ISPs block access to PaNet, a website which allegedly infringes its copyright. These requests came to Israel after a busy month in fighting world censorship. First of all, a Danish court ordered a Danish ISP to block access to the popular file-sharing site The Pirate Bay (what only increased its traffic); Later on, access was blocked from WikiLeaks when a temporary injunction was given against the domain registrar, which was only remove following intervention from the EFF and ACLU.

3.
And what is so problematic with the Court’s decision? first of all, it has no legal grounds (the decision itself was given like in the Wikileaks case, with the Defendant’s consent). Not the Israeli Copyright Order nor the civil torts act or the Copyright Act acknowledge an Injunction blocking Users from accessing a website in this level, as the users are not a party to the process nor is the ISP a hosting provider. The ISP is simply granting access to a website which only provides links for users to use in file sharing programs. The Users themselves chose to infringe copyright. (and until today no court decision was given claiming links to files stored elsewhere deem as liability for copyright infringement).

4.
The real problem is the problem cause. If until now we faced chosen censorship which enables voluntary censorship (meaning that we may chose to prevent blocking), this blocking is involuntary and absolute. Copyright infringing sites are first, of course, as their plaintiffs have financial interests here.

5.
[Unfortunately] there is no organisation claiming to block child pornography sites in the name of child protection nor is there any extreme Jewish group calling to block nazi websites. The real reason file sharing sites were first is the major financial gain from censoring it. Today it’s file sharing, tomorrow? all the internet ports of a file sharing websites.These are, unfortunately the great problems of the web
: Child pornography, gambling and copyright infringement. What do they have in common? we all know. The same people whose name would be hurt will seek injunctive relief later on, and slowly all the websites will be taken down Censorship may be obsolete, as there is no need for internet without free speech.

6.
This is a fight for our freedom. This is my war.

(Originally published in Hebrew) (Please Digg this story)