There are plenty of criticisms of this law that are perfectly factual, like "Cameron doesn't have a God damn idea how the Internet works," or "No censorship scheme on the Internet has ever remained effective against the dedicated for more than a few minutes," or "Cameron has entirely failed to describe what he means by 'violent pornography' in a way that is specific enough to be legally actionable or differentiable from pornography/the Web in general." Not including any such facts in the main article is dishonest.

The problem with this thread is that it's entirely possible to read it as both my post and your reply are sarcastic, or they both aren't.

If you really require me to be explicit, I can spell it out for you:

* Each person has an individual responsibility to realize such things for their self via critical thinking.

* A reporter has no legal responsibility to uphold journalistic principals.

* A reporter should have an ethical responsibility to uphold journalistic principals.

This, to me, is the equivalent of victim-blaming:

  You walk past a dark alley and see someone being
  assaulted. You are under no legal obligation to
  help the person, therefore you do not help the
  person. The person has no right to be angry at
  you because they should have been responsible
  for *their own* safety and shouldn't rely on
  anyone else. The person being assaulted is the
  person that is *really* at fault because they
  failed to protect their own personal safety.