I was accused of not reading an article in the most patronizing way imaginable, while in fact you’d have had to be a complete moron to think that I’d have said what I said had I not.

Am I feeling personally attacked? Yes. But I’m also feeling like there’s a real attempt to derail the conversation. Look at the parent post, which posts a nonsense assertion essentially pretending I wrote something entirely different to what I wrote, and that the EFF didn’t write what it did.

Right now, people are being killed, and the response by the EFF is “Huh duh, the US government should just use its existing laws to prosecute the people responsible” when actually the US government doesn’t even know who is responsible, would be operating out of its jurisdiction in many cases (such as what’s going on Ireland) and there’s no simple way to get that information that doesn’t involve a giant draconian piece of legislation being passed by governments around the world to ensure that when sites like this are created, it’s easy to find the people who use them in a short space of time and shut them down.

And the response to this is “Well, sure, but ISPs shouldn’t bother to do anything about life and death situations, even when they can.” And then people here are posting drivel about how if a private entity bans one website in a life or death situation, this suddenly opens some kind of gate which means the State of Texas can pass laws to ban other things.

Completely ignoring that (1) that gate, were it to exist, has been open since the 1990s, the anti-spammers and protectors of Usenet and so on, opened it and (2) the gate doesn’t exist anyway, Texas can pass any law it wants as long as it doesn’t violate the first amendment. And, well, Texas can probably ignore the first amendment anyway because SCOTUS.

This isn’t about being emotional, it’s about the fact that the EFF’s viewpoint is… shit. It’s indefensible.