It's not the sites that are being blocked, it's the people.

The sites are still there, fully connected to the internet, and there are dozens of ways to access them.

It's the people who's digital movements are being restricted, in a way that is virtually analogous to the restrictions totalitarian regimes impose on the freedoms of their citizens to access information and leave the country.

We are becoming the virtual prisoners of a regime not formed by politburos or generals, but judges with a total and complete disregard for the very foundation of the legal system they are supposed to serve.

Because let it be abundantly clear: as a citizen of a free and democratic country, I have every right to visit the Pirate Bay, read their blog or browse the thousands of torrents they have to offer. Nothing about this is illegal, in fact, my right to do this is supposed to be protected. It is part of the very foundation of our society that these rights are protected. Blood has been spilled to protect them, and these courts are spitting on the graves of those who have laid down their lives for our freedom.

There cannot be a functioning democracy if the courts can restrict the freedoms of millions without while the government looks the other way.

(http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/...)

16 & 18.

> BT also requests the inclusion in the order of the following provision: "In the event that [BT] forms the reasonable view that for operational reasons relating either to the stability of its system or the functioning of the Cleanfeed system in respect of the IWF watch list it needs to shut down either Cleanfeed itself or the addition to the Cleanfeed system of IP addresses pursuant to [this order] on a temporary basis, [BT] shall not be in breach of this order by such shutting down provided that it applies to the Court as soon as is reasonably practicable but at any rate within 72 hours of such shutting down with an explanation as to why such action was necessary and the duration thereof."

> Instead, I will provide that BT will not be in breach of the order if it temporarily suspends the operation of either Cleanfeed or the addition of IP addresses or URLs with the written consent of the Studios or their agents. If such consent is not forthcoming, BT will have permission to apply to the court on notice. In cases of urgency, an application may be made on short (and informal) notice. For the avoidance of doubt, in cases of real urgency, BT will be entitled to apply to the court without seeking the Studios' consent first.

It would be interesting to see a media company that loses revenue due to wrongly being included in a list of blocked sites taking legal action against the entity that blocked them. I suspect the daily ad-revenues of a website like radiotimes.co.uk are sufficiently large to make it worth them pushing for a settlement, whilst effectively blocking a genuine streaming website has essentially zero impact on the Premier League's revenues. Making misdirected blocking expensive is probably the most effective way of undermining censorship efforts.

ISPs tend to block content suggested by the IWF quickly, because it's in their best interests to do so. The IWF has a tight focus. Their clear about only wanting to keep the blocking they do separate from other forms of blocking - preventing children seeing adult content, for example. (http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/366-iwf-response-t...)

> We welcome the Prime Minister making the clear distinction between the fight against online child sexual abuse content and efforts to prevent legal material being viewed by those who are underage. It is critical that these debates are kept separate.

So it seems that the court blocks are only about forcing ISPs to block the Pirate Bay or Kickass Torrents and the various proxies used to evade those blocks.

The article supports this:

> Once a judge has decided that a website deserves to be blocked under Section 97A of the Copyright Act, each ISP is sent a court order describing the actions they must take to block the website. It specifies the kind of blocking to be undertaken. The court order contains other important information, including the name of the organisation responsible for mistakes and changes to the lists of clone sites to be blocked.