The writer is quite humble, not taking positions on difficult issues, admitting psychological weaknesses, etc. That adds authenticity to his voice on this matter.

Here again, Wikipedia's close-mindedness is discussed.

outage report, power outage and then Level 3 suspected.

What kind of network management is reasonable when it comes to use of file sharing via campus networks? It is a good question. Should students' use be bandwidth-capped, or tier-priced? Should universities be instituting congestion-management type solutions targeting only heavy users at congested time? If the do only these, RIAA sure is going to be unhappy.

Indecency regulation in the U.S. is very vague and troubling. The fact that there is a middle-range penalties (forfeiture) may or may not be contributing to the issue. I have a mixed feeling about the effectiveness of introduction of such penalities into Japanese broadcasting regulation. And the neutrality, accuracy, and self-imposed guidelines that are important in Japanese broadcasting regulation are not that clear, either.

I can think, for example, of instituting some multi-party system of determining if a particular speech is in violation of the law. Public complaints exceeding certain amount, a body created by a broadcasting regulatory authority, and the station's quality-review board each independently makes determinations as issues arise, and if two of the three says a specific program crossed the line, then that is deemed a violation. That is a bit more stable, I guess, than single body trying to regulate speech based on some coherent and consistent approach, because the diversity and multiplicity of the involved parties will more easily respond to the complexity to the issue. But I am not sure if this is a good law if the discretionary power is handed to non governmental bodies in such a way...