Although this article has to do with obvious political censorship, are there any times where censorship might be justifiable in the "neutral and open" internet?
Would you want a site that promotes pedophilia and teaches predators how to lure away children because it is labeled "for informational purposes only"? Would you want a web site that tells angst ridden teens how to acquire guns, make explosives, secure schools, and systematically kill everyone inside? How about a chat forum for criminals - a place where people could get together and conspire to commit crimes. Maybe plan to blow up a building, rob a bank, kill someone. Heck, how about eHit - the eBay for those looking to get someone bumped off.
Now I know so many people will say "but those are sites promoting illegal activities". This is a valid point, none of us would say that illegal activities should be allowed in a neutral net.
Yet, by that logic, the "for informational purposes" sites would be allowed to remain due to a loophole. (This is akin to Pirate Bay's loophole where they are only providing information and it is up to the user to decide to commit the crime, which so many here are okay with.)
Also, who's laws apply when deciding what is "illegal"? US law? Chinese law? Swedish law? Iranian law? The internet is a global network, why should one nation's view of law and propriety dominate a global system?
I've presented a counter argument to the "no censorship ever" on the net - so my question to those who comment is this:
Is there every a set of circumstances where censorship on the internet is justified or ethical? If so, where is that line drawn? If not, how do you reconcile a nation's right to sovereignty (and thus ability to define laws) with this completely open and unregulated information distribution system?