Now you are citing overseas censorship where the government is shutting down sites which is exactly why I don't want our government to get involved in the net. Right now in the United States have almost unlimnited freedom on the net. As easily as the Obama Administreation is offended I am quite sure they would love to have the ability to meddle with the net.

http://news.cnet.com/ISP-censorship-..._3-203398.html

now the question is was this a terrorist website?

check out EFF's list of government internet filtering which is exactly why I do not support our government meddling with the net in any way. it not the ISPs you need to fear but the governments.

from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne...United_Kingdom

The United Kingdom is in ONI's watchlist and is not on RSF's internet enemy list. British Telecommunications ISP passes internet traffic through a service called Cleanfeed which uses data provided by the Internet Watch Foundation to identify pages believed to contain indecent photographs of children.[82][83] When such a page is found, the system creates a 'URL not found page' error rather than deliver the actual page or a warning page. Other ISPs use different systems such as WebMinder

heres the US entry

The United States of America is in ONI's nominal category and is not on RSF's internet enemy list.

Although some content is illegal and can be taken down, e.g. child pornography, there is no nationwide filtering of (foreign) content. This would be considered a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, especially since no filter is perfect and some overblocking would occur.

In 1996 the United States enacted the Communications Decency Act, which severely restricted online speech that could potentially be seen by a minor – which, it was argued, was most of online speech. Free speech advocates, however, managed to have most of the act overturned by the courts. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes the discussion and dissemination of technology that could be used to circumvent copyright protection mechanisms, and makes it easier to act against alleged copyright infringement on the Internet. Many school districts in the United States frequently censor material deemed inappropriate for the school setting. In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) which requires schools and public libraries receiving federal funding to install internet filters or blocking software.[84] Congress is also considering legislation to require schools, some businesses and libraries to block access to social networking websites, The Deleting Online Predators Act. Opponents of Internet censorship argue that the free speech provisions of the First Amendment bars the government from any law or regulation that censors the Internet.[85]

A 4 January 2007 restraining order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein forbade a large number of activists in the psychiatric survivors movement from posting links on their websites to ostensibly leaked documents which purportedly show that Eli Lilly and Company intentionally withheld information as to the lethal side-effects of Zyprexa. The Electronic Frontier Foundation appealed this as prior restraint on the right to link to and post documents, saying that citizen-journalists should have the same First Amendment rights as major media outlets.[86] It was later held that the judgement was unenforcable, though First Amendment claims were rejected.[87]

The Department of Defense filters certain IP addresses. The US military's filtering policy is laid out in a report to congress entitled Department of Defense Personnel Access to the Internet.
[edit] Portal censorship

Major portals occasionally exclude web sites that they would ordinarily include. This renders a site invisible to people who do not know where to find it. When a major portal does this, it has a similar effect as censorship. Sometimes this exclusion is done to satisfy a legal or other requirement, other times it is purely at the discretion of the portal.
[edit] Examples

* Google.de and Google.fr remove Neo-Nazi and other listings in compliance with German and French law.[88]

[edit] Major web portal official statements on site removal
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion.

* Google:[89] "Google may temporarily or permanently remove sites from its index and search results if it believes it is obligated to do so by law, if the sites do not meet Google's quality guidelines, or for other reasons, such as if the sites detract from users' ability to locate relevant information."
* Yahoo!:[90] Yahoo!’s terms of service state that they reserve the right to “pre-screen, refuse or remove” any content that they feel violates the terms of service or deem distasteful, however removing information is never obligatory. Yahoo! also does not reserve the right to pre-screen any information.

__________________
Global warming alarmists are watermelons - green on the outside, red (socialist) on the inside

global warming , is there anything it cannot do ? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

peer reviewed studies and graphs of the Medieval Warming periods can be found at http://www.co2science.org/