The point is not whether or not the Conservative Party has a case; the point is most people would not know that Canada exports Asbestos or have associated the party with the export. So now more people know and will generally think that the party supports the export otherwise why would they sue?
It is more that he is against government interference in the marketplace. I think he expressed it badly here. He is not saying he is for only one media outlet. Since there currently so many methods of transmitting information you could not achieve one world news. Mike would be against any law that allowed this as he is against laws prohibiting consolidation. At least that's what I took away from it.
Re: This version of "free" only applies for those selling advertising!
How about Costco? They give out free samples. Wrigley gum? or are those people giving out free samples on the street real pirates? You have a great argument style, anything you can't deal with you simply say is silly so you don't have to consider it.
There is not a difference. Both are a use of power and could be the subject of abuse. In the case of the US government there are rules in place to limit that power. The general consensus here is that the seizing of domains is breaking that rule. Government power can physically affect a person. So far as I am aware anonymous is only powerful in an online sense.
There are some things that are just wrong. The idea behind being unbiased seems to mean that somehow you point out advantages to wrong actions or that you present ideas that are patently absurd(Obama is not a natural born citizen)even after they are disproven.