Google should reroute any relevant links through Bing (and others) and see how long it takes them to get sued by the mad frogs. I'd like to see France cope with pissing off both Google and Microsoft...
How can "Twitter (or other company) employees should not recommend using the DMCA for (anti-)harrassment purposes, especially without warning the complainer their personal details will be forwarded" be biased?
I don't care if it's gamergate, bernie babes vs trumpettes, or someone slagging Cincinatti parents. That really isn't relevant to the carefully put main point of the story.
Foreign governments deciding they don't want to allow a potential rapist and rape-enabler is NOT censorship. It is protecting OUR citizens from a self-proclaimed psychopath. Or terrorist, by some of the US-sponsored definitions floating around.
So far everyone is missing an important link to copyright - when does an element become small enough not to be protected any more? Given the elaborate nature of the original ceremony, and the limitations of who is able to actually participate in it (and where), it would be extremely hard to try to 'copyright' a tiny derivative of it that is a 'simple' body movement. Kind of like trying to limit anyone using the character 'shin'.