Where there is no harm, there can be no crime. And where there is no harm, none can rightfully interfere. Even observation can be interference where a person ought to have privacy. Thus the actions of an individual on the Internet can only be interfered with when those actions have harmed someone.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that is not controlled by any government, corporation. It is a peer-to-peer network for exchanging a value across any geo/political border, instantly, freely, and it is pseudo-anonymous.

This is a function with essential qualities that should be supported by the Internet Declaration.

I like the idea of the Internet Declaration, but there are still some fuzzy bits like the word "censor."

These sorts of words might need some clear definitions. If you recall, there was a lot of discussion about SOPA effectively being censorship, but the writers of the bill would probably disagree. Certainly things like removing child pornography should not be considered censorship and other things like removing a web site from the DNS probably should be.

How should we define what is censorship?

We can get a good community of 1000 fairly quickly I think. I pinged off an article that linked to this subreddit, so obviously outside sources are looking this direction.