I have written nothing implying that, no.

From the very first reply, you implied that the argument that the EFF made was wrong, and that this precedent could not be used to block women's access to abortion: "It’s incredibly easy for an ISP to point out that they’re not going to block a network for a different reason by pointing out it’s… not the same reason. Banning abortion information is not the same thing as banning a harassment network that’s causing deaths."

I’ve said the EFF’s argument is bullshit because the US government cannot enforce the laws the EFF says could be used. Not that they don’t exist, but that this is an international network that heavily uses anonymity. The US government likely cannot at all, and if it can can only do expensively and slowly, too slowly to prevent deaths, ban this website.

If that's the case, how did they get Ross Ulbricht? He ran a darkweb marketplace, in theory, harder to pin down than something on the clearnet like Kiwi Farms.

The same precedent that bans Kiwi Farms at the ISP level, could be used to block women's access to safe abortion, causing deaths as well. And no, I'm not gonna take your word for it that it can be avoided in court in the future. You're just some rando on the internet with no legal expertise, unlike the EFF.

I'm all in favor in prosecuting people responsible for peoples' deaths and shutting down that website, but not by using something that could cause harm to others in the future.

"Why won't anyone engage with my fallacious bullshit?" - pqdinfo "Well, this is why" - orizuru "BLOCKED" - pqdinfo