White House Pressuring Registrars To Block Sites

An anonymous reader writes "While the Senate is still debating a bill that would force registrars and ISPs to block access to sites deemed 'infringing,' it appears that the White House's IP Czar is already holding meetings with ISPs, registrars and payment processors to start voluntarily blocking access to sites it doesn't like. Initially, they're focused on online pharmacies, but does anyone think it will only be limited to such sites? ICANN apparently has refused to attend the meetings, pointing out that they're 'inappropriate.' Doesn't it seem wrong for the US government to be pushing private companies to censor the Internet without due process?"

Comments

Re:Change we can believe in

[scot4875]

Nice talking points, but you failed to present a single piece of evidence to support your 'argument,' if you can call it that.

--Jeremy

Re:Change we can believe in

[whisper_jeff]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I find, as soon as someone pulls out this tired cliche, I completely ignore anything else they have to say....

Re:Change we can believe in

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. And because Europe's politics are further left than ours, they MUST be better. Give me a break. There's a reason the USA exists, and it's because a bunch of people living here had big problems with European politics.

You are right about parties not caring about voters however. Having a[n informal] ruling class sucks.

Re:Change we can believe in

[jimrthy]

We've had a socialist government in this country for a long time now. People need to realize that, accept it, and decide whether we want to do something about it. Denying it just lets the problem get worse and makes it less likely we'll be able to fix it.

Re:Change we can believe in

[ElectricTurtle]

Yes, and the Bible also says the Earth doesn't move and the Sun goes around it. If 'He' wanted that corrected wouldn't 'He' have done that by now? The Bible is bullshit. However, it remains that Jesus Christ himself according to the Bible commanded his followers to buy swords. I'm sure that if the scene had taken place in the present era it would have been guns. It's simply a matter of what could be bought to serve the function of self-defense (which was obviously Christ's intention as he got all mad when his disciples preemptively attacked somebody with the aforementioned swords).