Using your logic, should we also restrict websites that track campaign donations, just becuase the campaigners find it painful to their process?
I think you are misrepresenting the logic. The difference here is the difference between a common sense argument & an argument that contains clearly distinguishable definitions. The latter is the kind needed (usually) for legal matters. But a lot of the time we are just trying to find a legally acceptable definition for the common sense argument. 'Illegal if it's mostly for illegal stuff,' is not the kind of law courts would be comfortable with. But I would argue that the issue is with defining an abstract principle. Sometimes these issues are resolved with linguistically.
The Pirate Bay's Raison D'Etre is pretty much to do with illegal content. The existence of some legal reasons is a fringe issue. (You might dispute this. In that case, the argument is over this point.) Imagine your unlocked bike list. Or how about a children home alone list. Defining this in an airtight manner that would satisfy the common sense is almost impossible. Specifically defining 'mostly' (as in mostly illegal content) would create a situation where there is a threshold to be met. This shelter could be used as a shield against prosecution. Defining it in terms (eg intent) would create different problems.
But these are problems always present in legislation. That doesn't mean you give up on laws. I think that most proponents of Pirate Bay (regardless how clever the arguments) are in the medical marijuana camp. They aren't themselves convinced that Pirate Bay should be there because of possible legal uses. They are themselves convinced by believing that content should be free or that IP laws should be changed or that Government shouldn't take on itself the role of policing this realm.
The law handles ambiguity all the time. See Judge Learned Hand's negligence rule for example. He famously stated that a defendant is negligent (say, a shop owner whose customer slipped on some ice on his steps) if the cost of taking precautions is less than the product of the magnitude of the likely damage and the probability that such damage will occur. In our example of the shop owner, spreading salt on one's steps is very cheap and the expected magnitude of damages is a bit larger, so a shop owner must keep his steps free from ice.
I think I must have been unclear. That was my point. Ambiguity is presented as an insurmountable barrier here with slippery slop type arguments: 'By that logic.'
Common sense gives is a pretty clear sense of legality here. Pirate Bay = Mostly illegal content. Google = All content (mostly legal). Youtube = ambiguous but has a clear substantial & non-trivial legal component.
It may be nice to think of the law as common sense, but in most countries this is not the standard. Because 'common sense' changes, frequently and without cause.
'Common Sense' can be misleading in many situations -- medicine, law, business strategy, crime, etc. What is common sense to you about software may not be common sense to someone with no IT knowledge, and vice versa with regards to, say, how cheese is manufactured.
The law adapts, sure, but it also tries to maintain order by being resistant to quick change. The fact that most of our legal system defaults to prior case law should say something about this.
That said, I am not an attorney. I just know using common sense seems like an incredibly bad basis for determining legality.
What I was saying is not that law is common sense. What I was saying is that in many cases, law tries to reach the same conclusions as common sense by other means. IE try to mimic common sense.
I think you are misrepresenting the logic. The difference here is the difference between a common sense argument & an argument that contains clearly distinguishable definitions. The latter is the kind needed (usually) for legal matters. But a lot of the time we are just trying to find a legally acceptable definition for the common sense argument. 'Illegal if it's mostly for illegal stuff,' is not the kind of law courts would be comfortable with. But I would argue that the issue is with defining an abstract principle. Sometimes these issues are resolved with linguistically.
The Pirate Bay's Raison D'Etre is pretty much to do with illegal content. The existence of some legal reasons is a fringe issue. (You might dispute this. In that case, the argument is over this point.) Imagine your unlocked bike list. Or how about a children home alone list. Defining this in an airtight manner that would satisfy the common sense is almost impossible. Specifically defining 'mostly' (as in mostly illegal content) would create a situation where there is a threshold to be met. This shelter could be used as a shield against prosecution. Defining it in terms (eg intent) would create different problems.
But these are problems always present in legislation. That doesn't mean you give up on laws. I think that most proponents of Pirate Bay (regardless how clever the arguments) are in the medical marijuana camp. They aren't themselves convinced that Pirate Bay should be there because of possible legal uses. They are themselves convinced by believing that content should be free or that IP laws should be changed or that Government shouldn't take on itself the role of policing this realm.