I guess the problem, Seth, is that that opinion--"well, don't block at the source via law and don't use filters at the destination either"--is really far out on the libertarian fringe... so the ACLU

Unfortunately, we're the extremists here if we'll let neither the government nor those who control network access interfere with the transmitted content.

(Or am I misunderstanding--the statement in the paragraph above *is* your position, right?)

(Argh, didn't read over that. And I'm not sure why there are not paragraph breaks. Retry:)

I guess the problem, Seth, is that the view that says, "don't block at the source via law and don't use filters at the destination either" is really far out on the libertarian fringe... so the ACLU struck the balance in favour of censorship at the destination.

Unfortunately, we're the extremists here if we'll let neither the government nor those who control network access interfere with the transmitted content.

(Or am I misunderstanding--the statement in the paragraph above *is* your position, right?)

Firas: I think you're missing a nuance. Really, read the legal analysis I note. It's NOT a question of being an "extremist". It's an issue of the implications of one's position. The ACLU has backed itself into a corner of arguing that censorware both does and does not work, as has been noted not just by me, but by the Supreme Court arguments and opinions. Now, they can do that, they're lawyers :-). But I can also point out it makes no sense.

Then there's the implications for *me* :-(.