Comment by sealeck
8 months ago
This is literally just a framing issue. Note first that people generally believe in universal human rights, e.g. states shouldn't be allowed to do horrible things (e.g. genocide) just because they would be asserting their national rights.
Further the action of a single state often influences other states, as is especially true when it comes to the internet which is global by nature.
If you are comparing genocide with blocking pirating websites, I'm out
The example is there to establish the principle – once you accept that sovereignty has limitations it's then just a question of which limitations you think are legitimate and which aren't. I think censoring pirate websites kind of isn't.
It’s a slippery slope. Once you start losing rights, how low can you go? Historically, governments will go very low. A bad election (which is a real risk now in France) and there you have a facist state.
I understand, I was being a bit too punishing.
That said genocide is categorically different than blocking websites. Slippery slope is well regarded as a fallacy.
I did mention that states can choose to go to war though. It is within reasonable realm that the US may overturn the orders of a French court when operating in their country, but it is an act of war. It is something you would do to prevent genocide, but not to allow frenchies to watch sports without paying.