Bush tries to turn Internet into nanny-state

arcadegame2004

Web engines plan to end ads for gambling

Google and Yahoo, probably looking to fend off potential action from federal prosecutors, separately announced Friday they were going to stop running ads for online casinos.

Prosecutors had threatened to begin taking action “against American companies that do business with Internet casinos that are based abroad.”

The prosecutors are arguing that the American companies are “aiding and abetting” offshore Internet casinos, whose operations are illegal in the United States. Prosecutors started a grand jury investigation last year, issuing subpoenas to American broadcasters, publishers and Web sites that run advertisements for online casinos.

The two companies will differ in how they stop running online casino ads. Yahoo will only stop on its American site, while Google plans to stop across all of its worldwide domains.

Lycos and MSN will also no longer be accepting these types of ads.

If people in Ireland want to either gamble online, or set up gambling-websites, that is NONE of your business Mr.Bush. I urge Yahoo to resist any attempts by Herr Bush to bully them into removing their ads on their non-US websites. Shame on Google.

I feel that there is something seriously wrong in the head with someone who considers arms-sales as safer than gambling.

Religion is clearly behind this. Or rather, religious fanaticism. How I loathe this person. But does anyone here agree with him on the Internet gambling issue? What are your views? I don't recall electing Bushg or giving him a mandate to interfere in my country's affairs.

Hobbes

I don't see anything about Bush stopping it in other countries? Where did you get that gem from? They are just banning US sponsered adverts.

It has nothing to do with religion. It is to do with US laws concerning gambling, and the offshore gambling companies avoiding tax.

US companies have to adhere to strick guidelines when dealing outside of the US. If they don't they can face jail/fine and/or have their export license revoked.

arcadegame2004

I don't see anything about Bush stopping it in other countries? Where did you get that gem from? They are just banning US sponsered adverts.

Google has banned the ads WORLDWIDE though, on non-US sites too, unlike Yahoo, and this was clearly in response to pressure from the Justice Department in the US.

The principle here is that the search-engines are being accused of "aiding and abetting" illegal-gambling. However, ALL online-gambling, according to this Government, is illegal in the US. I feel that zany, wacko religious-fanaticism is responisble for Bush's crusade against gambling. It is easy to see how the "aiding and abetting" argument could be used to try to end all online gambling indexing on search-engines altogether. He is trying to run our lives, and we didn't even elect him! (come to think of it neither did the American people!) I truly despise this dude. The EU should run to the WTO (like Antigua did recently where it won a case over the damage to its economy caused by US policy on online-gambling) if the US tries to push this as far as I fear they will.

http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39119542,00.htm

Note how the US Christian Coalition (which dominates the Republican Party) takes credit for the "Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" in 2002.

http://www.cc.org/victories.cfm

I wonder is the US entering a phase similar to that endured by Ireland when we were ruled over - effectively - by repressive religious doctrines?

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Google has banned the ads WORLDWIDE though, on non-US sites too, unlike Yahoo, and this was clearly in response to pressure from the Justice Department in the US.

As I said, US companies have strict rules on what they can do outside of the US. If anything Yahoo is more likely to get slapped by the US for leaving adverts on their pages.

In fact you probably don't realise how restrictive the US is in relation to overseas business. For example if Ireland was to impose sanctions/embargo against Israel then all US companies in Ireland or companies doing business with USA would not be allowed to comply with that law or loose their license.

Anyway, your scaremonger as normal.

They are removing the adverts which they are being paid for. Search still works fine, although I'd avoid the online gambling sites. Apart from being questionable at best in regards to being legit some of them actually install spyware crap on your machine.

Imposter

Hobbes wrote:

I don't see anything about Bush stopping it in other countries? Where did you get that gem from? They are just banning US sponsered adverts.

It has nothing to do with religion. It is to do with US laws concerning gambling, and the offshore gambling companies avoiding tax.

US companies have to adhere to strick guidelines when dealing outside of the US. If they don't they can face jail/fine and/or have their export license revoked.

There's a quote from bush in Time magazine (about 2 weeks ago iirc) that went something like, "sure the rich don't pay much tax anyway, they know how to avoid it" in response to John Kerry's idea to tax the rich more. So this is no different to the Online Casinos but you won't see these companies being barred from advertising their products and/or services. Same goes for most large corporations.

Sparks

So it's "damn you google, don't tell the rest of the world what to do - now we demand that a US company does what we tell it to do!"?

arcadegame2004

So it's "damn you google, don't tell the rest of the world what to do - now we demand that a US company does what we tell it to do!"?

Well I feel (and I believe most do) that one country should not be put in a position to exert near total-control over what turns up in the search-engines or in advertisements therein. We didn't elect him and he should keep his interfering nose out of our affairs. Him and his fellow unsmiling Puritans with their Stone-Age view of morality!

The regulators need to step in and stop this endless consolidation that has seen Yahoo! take over Overture and Inktomi, among other examples. Competition in the search-engine industry is essential to freedom of speech and expression. Bush wasn't even elected by his own people so I'll be damned if he starts telling you and me how to run our lives.

Sparks

Thanks arcade, but google ads aren't central to how I run my life...

bonkey

This reminds me of when France took a case against Ebay (I think, or was it yahoo) for selling Nazi memorabilia within France. They wanted the company to either find a way to prevent it in France, or to stop it worldwide.

To be quite honest, I don't think Bush is doing anything wrong here, or is out of order in any way. He's asking US-based companies to obey US-based law. Nothing more, nothing less.

jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, the logical conclusion of the US Justice Dept. taking the search-engines to court for "aiding and abetting" "illegal gambling" is the possible banning of any gambling-websites even getting onto the search-engines. Would you support that?

What I do with my money is none of anyone's business but mine.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Bonkey, the logical conclusion of the US Justice Dept. taking the search-engines to court for "aiding and abetting" "illegal gambling" is the possible banning of any gambling-websites even getting onto the search-engines.

No, its not the logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that it would have that effect on American-owned and American-based search-engines.

Would you support that?

I don't need to. Its a non-event - ain't gonna happen.

Were google, yahoo, and every other US-based search-engine to start taking this stance then someone else outside those nations would set up a rival service which would fill the need if there is a demand which can yield profit.

What I do with my money is none of anyone's business but mine.

Irish law, and the law relevant to where you are spending your money begs to differ.

jc

arcadegame2004

No, its not the logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that it would have that effect on American-owned and American-based search-engines.

A pity then that nearly all the search-engines fall into that category

Irish law, and the law relevant to where you are spending your money begs to differ.

Do you not agree that provided we are not harming others in our spending choices that the State should mind its own business?

Victor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Do you not agree that provided we are not harming others in our spending choices that the State should mind its own business?

Are you saying internet poker addicts are being harmed when they sit in front of their computer all day racking up a huge credit card bill? A little flutter is one thing, but there is a point in restricting gambling.

Not necessarily that measures taken will stop it.

arcadegame2004

Are you saying internet poker addicts are being harmed when they sit in front of their computer all day racking up a huge credit card bill? A little flutter is one thing, but there is a point in restricting gambling.

But Victor, this man wants to completely stamp it out, which is surely a bit extreme, not to mention a bit strange coming from a party which says of gun-ownership rights that "you shouldn't punish the law-abiding majority for the actions of a minority". In any case, Bush's (highly questionable) mandate derives from the US, not Ireland or the rest of the world.

Regardless of people's opinions on the Internet gambling-issue per se, it is surely an invasion of our sovereignty to allow one country alone to control what we can and cannot do online.

bonkey

Do you not agree that provided we are not harming others in our spending choices that the State should mind its own business?

a) No, its an oversimplification/.

b) Unless the State keeps an eye on your spending, how can it know whether or not you're in compliance? Ergo, minding its own business would seem impossible.

c) Furthermore, if the State has made something illegal, why should it allow you access to same and keep its eyes closed and just hope that you remain a law-abiding citizen. Its like allowing shops to sell illegal drugs and just trusting that the populace won't buy them.....its counter-intuitive.

jc

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

it is surely an invasion of our sovereignty to allow one country alone to control what we can and cannot do online.

One country does not control what you can and cannot do online, unless you posit that what you are doing is all originating from - or controlled by - that country.

In that situation, then you are subject to their laws, just as you would be usign mail order if every mail-order company on the planet was situated in one country.

Your basic gripe seems to be that you are using US services and do not want them to be subject to US law, because it effects how you use them.

The simple reality is that with the internet it is nigh-on impossible to verify where someone is really connecting from. It is nigh-on-impossible to ensure that a service accessible from anywhere can obey local laws wherever it is being connected to. The imperfect but standard solution that everyone (except you, it would seem) has accepted is that first and foremost, a web-site will obey the national laws of where it is located (and where the owning company is located). No more, no less. If another nation has problems with too much information coming in, then they can seek to block it at the entrance point (i.e. the ISPs), but if there is stuff thats legal in your country, but not being allowed in others...you have no right to expect that those countries should be supplying that functionality/service/content to you.

jc

arcadegame2004

So Bonkey, presumably you agree with the right of the Chinese Government to censor pro-democracy websites then?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

So Bonkey, presumably you agree with the right of the Chinese Government to censor pro-democracy websites then?

Show me where I said that.

And while you're at it, could you explain the relevance?

A nation stopping information coming in to the nation is not what you are complaining about.

You're complaining about an American company being subject to American law, because it effects you - who are outside the US - accessing information that is legal in your country.

They're almost the opposite situations.

And whether or not I agree with what the Chinese authorities have declared illegal, I agree that any nation has the right to enforce its own laws inside its own borders which is exactly what Bush is doing. He is requiring that US companies obey US law. Nothing more, nothing less.

jc

arcadegame2004

I know you didn't specifically say that in relation to China, but I am saying that that seems to be the logical implication of what you are saying about State sovereignty and the internet.

One of the points about the internet was to enhance freedom of speech and to protect it from the tentacles of state-tyranny. I feel that the consolidation of the search-engine industry has played into the hands of the religious-rednecks in the US Republican Party that want to impose their religious-outlook on the rest of the world.

I note that in the recent WTO action (a successful one but will the US care when it was taken by such a tiny country?) by Antingua, that the EU, Japan amongst others made representations supporting some of Antigua's arguments. I hope this is a portend of future EU legal action against the US at the WTO if they try to push their anti-gambling crusade further.

I mean, the EU is setting up the Galileo system to counterbalance US dominance via its GPS system (otherwise as things stand the US can switch off our mobiel communication straight away). I feel the EU needs to investigate similar solutions with respect to this matter, or else to regulate mergers/takeovers in thge search-engine industry more tightly. Google has 52.5% of the market, 21% accrues to Yahoo. There is a real danger now of the US gaining total control over what we can see and do online. Next they will probably go after the adult websites. Actually Bush officials allegedly have that in their sights too.

Republican rednecks in the US should keep their collective snouts out of our affairs. I accept, however, that they have the right to restrict access by US citizens to aspects of the internet. But they should presume to speak for the entire world's tastes on the matter of what they should or should not be allowed to do online.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I know you didn't specifically say that in relation to China, but I am saying that that seems to be the logical implication of what you are saying about State sovereignty and the internet.

You seem to be confusing the right to enforce laws with the laws being being enforced beig just and fair.

One of the points about the internet was to enhance freedom of speech and to protect it from the tentacles of state-tyranny.

By the idealists, marketers and those gullible enough to believe them....yes. Anyone who ever believed that the Internet would and should be somehow outside existing law was kidding themselves.

I feel that the consolidation of the search-engine industry has played into the hands of the religious-rednecks in the US Republican Party that want to impose their religious-outlook on the rest of the world.

But the consolidation of the search-engine industry is a direct consequence of free markets and capitalism which - being a liberal - you have been vociferously supporting in any other form where it has become an issue.

Now what you're saying is that because the market played into the government's hands...what? That the government should have prevented this in advance by interfering with the market?

I mean, the EU is setting up the Galileo system to counterbalance US dominance via its GPS system (otherwise as things stand the US can switch off our mobiel communication straight away). I feel the EU needs to investigate similar solutions with respect to this matter,

Search engines are run as business concerns. Are you now suggesting - being a liberal and all - that a state-run body should enter the fray to compete against private industry, or that it should in some other way interfere with the market???

And here was me thinking that you supported privatisation and free markets...

or else to regulate mergers/takeovers in thge search-engine industry more tightly.

Would it make you happier if the EU banned gambling too? Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that the EU shouldn't look at monopolies in terms of market share per company, but rather in terms of market-share-per-country???

Again - so much for liberalism. Interfere, interfere, interfere is all I see as your solution for...wait for it....interference!!!

Google has 52.5% of the market, 21% accrues to Yahoo. There is a real danger now of the US gaining total control over what we can see and do online.

Yet another fine example of scaremongering mathematics. Is there somewhere I can get a course in this?

Google gained 52% of the market by being - quite literally - vastly better than the opposition at what it did. It is the youngest of the established search-engines. This shows that the search-engine-using community have no product loyalty. As soon as google came out, they abandoned the previous best-of-breed options in their hordes and flocked to the new champion.

Now....if the US government starts restricting what it - and other US-based engines can do, then non-US-owned engines without these restrictions will become more popular if people actually care.

Its simple market economics. As a liberal in favour of free markets, I would have assumed that you would understand the basics of this.

Next they will probably go after the adult websites. Actually Bush officials allegedly have that in their sights too.

Again...enforcing the laws of their country on their companies.

Republican rednecks in the US should keep their collective snouts out of our affairs.

Arcade...you're suggesting that they keep their collective snouts out of theiraffairs because you won't be able to any longer access information based in their country from companies subject to their laws.

But they should presume to speak for the entire world's tastes on the matter of what they should or should not be allowed to do online.

They're not. They're saying that a US company cannot provide information that is illegal for a US company to provide. They are looking at enforcing law on the provision of service....not on what the customer is allowed to have.

You can disagree all you want, but at the end of the day your sour grapes are ultimately beacuse you feel the freedom with which the internet can ship information around the world should somehow make information providers immune to regulation by their own governments.

Simple comparison...would you object to a US-based company supplying information for child pronographers only outside the US? If not, then you fundamentally accept that the US can and should regulate the information its companies can supply based on its laws, regardless of whether that information is legal or otherwise in hte country of destination.

After that, its just a case of recognising that illegal is illegal. There is no difference in what type of illegal activity that should be enforced in the eyes of the law.

Of course...if you believe that such information should be allowed to be provided.....well....we'll just have to agree to disagree.

jc

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I know you didn't specifically say that in relation to China, but I am saying that that seems to be the logical implication of what you are saying about State sovereignty and the internet.

Thats not what he said at all, and Bonkey is correct in what he said.

You would of been better pointing out that China also forces companies that do business in it's country to adhere to its rules (eg. censorship, claiming Taiwan is not a seperate country).

All in the sake of money.

But that isn't the issue at all. It is a non-issue. You want to find your illegal porn or online gambling dens you can still use search engines. It is only the advertisements that are being removed.

One of the points about the internet was to enhance freedom of speech and to protect it from the tentacles of state-tyranny.

Where did you get that from? The internet was orginally invented to build a network that could survive an nuclear attack. Nothing about what you are spouting on about.

Advertisments are not protected by freedom of speech. Nor is illegal gambling.

I mean, the EU is setting up the Galileo system to counterbalance US [snip]

How you are able to equate a GPS system to advertising illegal gambling is beyond me.

or else to regulate mergers/takeovers in thge search-engine industry more tightly. Google has 52.5% of the market, 21% accrues to Yahoo. There is a real danger now of the US gaining total control over what we can see and do online.

No they don't. You are free to use any other search engine out there. Google gets its market share because it is one of the best search engines out there. Remember Alta-vista? That used to be the best before google.

There is nothing stopping people moving to another search engine.

And before you go on about there only being US search engines. Total bullsh!t. A 5 second search (google I might add).
http://www.theenginerooms.com/
http://www.uksprite.com/
http://www.Go4.it/
http://www.click2uk.com/
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/

A brief look at them, and they all appear be non-US search engines. There are many more if I was bothered to go looking.

Next they will probably go after the adult websites. Actually Bush officials allegedly have that in their sights too.

Onoz! Where will we get our porn from then!? Actually google search engine is better then any porn site. But again the whole point you seem to be missing is they are only enforcing the rule on US sites in relation to advertising not the search engines content.

Republican rednecks in the US should keep their collective snouts out of our affairs.

Yea way to insult people there.

Lets recap.

THE US GOVERNMENT IS ONLY STOPPING ADVERTISMENTS IN THE SEARCH SITES, NOT THE SEARCH ENGINES CONTENTS

arcadegame2004

Simple comparison...would you object to a US-based company supplying information for child pronographers only outside the US? If not, then you fundamentally accept that the US can and should regulate the information its companies can supply based on its laws, regardless of whether that information is legal or otherwise in hte country of destination.

Of couse I am NOT saying the US should not try to prevent child-porn being accessed! Please do not represent me. Those uploading child-porn to the net are the evilest scum of the earth and deserve to be locked up and have the key thrown away as far as I am concerned!

What I am defending are the harmless activities like online-gambling (in moderation of course) and adult-sites, among others.

Bonkey, you accuse me of hypocrisy by supporting free-market economics while criticising the consolidation in the search-engine industry. I see no hypocrisy. Read my Signature where I make my opposition to monopolies clear. It's just that monopolies are more common in the public-sector, where their monopoly status is often enshrined by law, e.g. ESB, Bord Gais, An Post, Aer Rianta, Bord na Mona.

Even Adam Smith, of whom I am a fan, made it clear that he was opposed to cartels and monopolies, e.g. he said something along the lines that "persons of businesses seldom meet except as a conspiracy against the public or the raise prices". I believe generally that the State should not interfere in the fre-market, but in extreme examples, such as to ensure competition, there are exceptions to this rule.

The question of whether US laws are fair is not just a matter for the US. The WTO ruling in the case taken by Antigua against the US rules indicates that they are in violation of world-trade rules, so Antigua can impose sanctions. Now I doubt somehow that the prospect of a trade-war with a nation of 68,000 will particularly frighten Mr.Bush, so I strongly urge the EU to replicate Antigua's step. That will make Redneck Bush situp and listen!

THE US GOVERNMENT IS ONLY STOPPING ADVERTISMENTS IN THE SEARCH SITES, NOT THE SEARCH ENGINES CONTENTS

Yet.

Hobbes

Yet.

Which is the whole basis of your arguments. "They aren't doing it yet, but they could do". It is hardly debatable. The Republicans could make democrats out to be terrorists and round them up into camps.. But they haven't done it YET. Does that me we should stop republicans before they can get to this? :rolleyes:

Even if we were to believe your "yet" as fact, you can just move to another search engine.

dahamsta

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Google has banned the ads WORLDWIDE though, on non-US sites too, unlike Yahoo, and this was clearly in response to pressure from the Justice Department in the US.

Another gem from arcadegame2004. Again, I'd love to hear the logic as to why this is "clearly" the case, but given your history I won't be holding my breath. Here's /my/ conclusions though, feel free to refute them...

It's my experience that Google does what it damn well pleases in this regard, and given Google's recent IPO - which puts them in a FAR more powerful position than Yahoo! - the natural conclusion to draw is that /Google/ decided to take this route, either for legal, or (much) more likely, technical reasons.

adam

arcadegame2004

Another gem from arcadegame2004. Again, I'd love to hear the logic as to why this is "clearly" the case, but given your history I won't be holding my breath. Here's /my/ conclusions though, feel free to refute them...

Why? All the articles on the web about Google and Yahoo's decision (including the fact that Yahoo has only removed ads from their American websites) refer to it being due to pressure from the US Justice Dept. which is planning legal action against them for "aiding and abetting" online gambling. It is easy to see how next they could be forced to de-list entire gambling websites from their search-engines on the same grounds , i.e. you are aiding and abetting by allowing them to be indexed etc.

Which is the whole basis of your arguments. "They aren't doing it yet, but they could do". It is hardly debatable. The Republicans could make democrats out to be terrorists and round them up into camps.. But they haven't done it YET. Does that me we should stop republicans before they can get to this?

But the basis (aiding and abetting etc.) for the planned prosecutions by the Federal authorities in the US seems an accusation that would very likely apply even to search-engine indexing too and that's why my warning is far more valid that the far-fetched predictions you are comparing my warnings to.

Hobbes

Federal authorities in the US seems an accusation that would very likely apply even to search-engine indexing too and that's why my warning is far more valid that the far-fetched predictions you are comparing my warnings to.

and what proof do you have to back this up? or is this just speculation?

I had a look at the what the case is about.

The suit accuses Google, Yahoo!, Overture, Ask Jeeves, Terra Lycos, CNET Networks and others of accepting payment for producing ads and links for illegal gambling web sites, based on search terms such as “illegal gambling”, “internet gambling” and “California gambling”.

In addition, says the suit: “each of the defendants either expressly uses, or has access to, geo-tracking software which permits defendants to be able to target illegal gambling advertisements to particular locations such as California.”

The suit seeks an injunction against the ads, restitution and accounting for all illegal gambling proceeds received.

At no point does it mention the search engines contents.

dahamsta

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Why? All the articles on the web about Google and Yahoo's decision (including the fact that Yahoo has only removed ads from their American websites) refer to it being due to pressure from the US Justice Dept.

And you think that Google would bow to pressure to remove the ads across their sites before Yahoo! would? Google, the darling of the stock exchange, the company that up to now /had/ to bow to pressure because of SEC rules, but now can do what it damn well pleases? Google, that takes webpages out of it's indexes based on pathetically weak DMCA requests and asks questions later? That does this sort of thing voluntarily, every day of the week?

I get my eight year old to repeat this little ditty every time he says something silly: "Think, then speak; think, then speak; think, then speak." You might want to try it out.

adam

lucernarian

Could anyone tell me why George Bush is taking this action? Advertisements for online gambling may not be good for society but is Bush doing it for that reason?

I cant see how Arcadegame2004 is being a hypocrite as he is stating his usual free market opinions: Let companies show whatever advertisements they want on the internet.

originally posted by dahamsta
It's my experience that Google does what it damn well pleases in this regard, and given Google's recent IPO - which puts them in a FAR more powerful position than Yahoo! - the natural conclusion to draw is that /Google/ decided to take this route, either for legal, or (much) more likely, technical reasons.

This "natural conclusion" is based on your experience so you cannot state this conclusion as the obvious one to draw. Also, the above point is simply your opinion and what you feel about google, not a given fact.

Hobbes

dahamsta wrote:

Google, that takes webpages out of it's indexes based on pathetically weak DMCA requests and asks questions later? That does this sort of thing voluntarily, every day of the week?

Do you have links to cases of this? The only incident I can find is operation clambake and those pages were put back in. All other incidents I could find only related to placed adverts in google (which google would be liable for).

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Google and Yahoo, probably looking to fend off potential action from federal prosecutors, separately announced Friday they were going to stop running ads for online casinos.

You realise that "Friday" was last April don't you? That (uncredited and undated) snippet came from a NY Times article of April 5, presumably via C¦Net.

Five months later, the gambling world and search engines are a little more concerned about the lawsuit filed by Michael Voight and Mario Cisneros in a San Francisco court 28 days ago. Now that's a lot more interesting as they can't be accused with no factual basis of doing it because of religious fanaticism - they're doing it because of money.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Of couse I am NOT saying the US should not try to prevent child-porn being accessed! Please do not represent me.

I was neither trying to represent nor misrepresent you. I was asking a question, hoping this would be the answer you gave.

Now...

The legal age of consent in the US is 16 I believe. If the legal age of consent in a country happens to be lower than that, then that country can legally allow sites to show people below that age in pornography.

Your argument, that a US-based company is being restricted from letting you find what is legal for you is no different. For google to host information on these legal-where-they-are pornography sites (should they exist) would be classed as child pornography in the US.

You are clearly vehemently opposed to this, but as soon as its something thats legal for you, but illegal in the US......you're vehemently opposed to the government getting involved in such intervention.

Now, I'd accept that you didn't fully think through what I was asking you about in terms of what we were discussing...which isn't unreasonable because I didn't make it obvious.

So let me ask you the question again, restating it more clearly :

Should google enable people to find information on what is technically child pornography in the US, even if the content is legal where the information is being served from?

Now...given the difficulties in accurately finding the location of a client (what with anonymizers, global corporate networks, etc.)....should google be allowed to serve any information which is legal in its country of origin , illegal in the US, and of unknown legality in the indeterminable country of destination???

If you're answer isn't yes, then you're now seeing my side of why what you thought was happening was a non-issue.

Those uploading child-porn to the net are the evilest scum of the earth and deserve to be locked up and have the key thrown away as far as I am concerned!

Even if what they do is legal where they live? You know there are quite probably those who take the same attitude about gambling....

What I am defending are the harmless activities like online-gambling (in moderation of course) and adult-sites, among others.

No, you're defending stuff that is legal in its point of origin, and which happens to be legal (or you feel it should be) where you live, and are ignoring the implications of the more general situation.

I believe generally that the State should not interfere in the fre-market, but in extreme examples, such as to ensure competition, there are exceptions to this rule.

Dear oh dear. If the free market has gravitated naturally to a monopoly, it could be because a monopoly is the natural and best state for that particular market. You've already accepted this in points I've raised before regarding (for example) power distribution networks, where there is no real advantage to the consumers to have more than one in a region.

So I would suggest that before condemning any monopoly, you should have to be able to explain why a lack of competition is a bad thing. Given that there's nothing to stop you using other search engines, nor anything to stop other search engine companies from gaining massive market share by being preferable (just as google did, crippling yahoo and all but slaughtering altavista), I would say that if the market reaches a monopolostic state at any given point in time, the only issue that would arise is if said monopoly used its influence to unduly prevent other competition from entering the market - something which there are already bodies to act on.

The question of whether US laws are fair is not just a matter for the US.

Show me where what the Bush administration is doing is against the WTO agreements, rather than complaining that it might or should be, and I'll concede the point. In the meantime, I stand by what I said - a nation is obliged to enforce its laws within its borders and that is exactly what the Bush administration is doing.

By the way...the more you continue with the "redneck" comments, the more it makes your case look like its a case of complaining about what you don't like, rather than against something that is genuinely wrong.

jc