> you can't reasonably support an "open internet" in all instances. There have to be some exceptions.
Why? I am fine with the internet not blocking anything at all, even though I accept limits on free speech.
To drag the "speech" analogy further, I can shout whatever I want and I'm ok with the fact that in some cases this can bring consequences.
So if a company starts infringing trademarks, polluting search engines en masse, tricking people into buying their rubbish, phishing their details, getting credit card details etc, you'd be fine with that?
What about people who DDoS attack you? Is that fine? No need to have any recourse there?
How about those that hack DNS to dupe people into visiting their site etc
Those are all "Open Internet", but they're also not very nice.
I don't think it's as clear cut as some make it.
I don't know if SOPA gets it right or wrong, or if the current laws are sufficient, but I'm glad we have some of those laws in place to make the internet a slightly nicer place.
1) Child pornography
End list.
National security is not enough of a reason for restrictions. Copyright is not enough of a reason. Further, the assumption that corporations or governments have exclusive moral authority to determine what constitutes impermissible material is, frankly, ridiculous. Giving them the authority to make such decisions is destructive, to both freedom and economy.
2) Websites that are known for mallware, phishing, or otherwise going to mess you up.
As I said I don't know if SOPA is good/bad, but my point was that "I support an Open Internet" is a bit of a cop out.