Yeah, my grandfather was also given a death sentence under the rule of the law, because of his political ideas. That was Spain. Laws can be immoral. Breaking immoral laws is a duty of everyone. Now these immoral laws are applied to Catalans who want to vote, but next it can be you.

Women wouldn't be voting if they never broke the law first.

Giving a Tax amnesty to very rich tax dodgers (as the current Spanish government has done recently) has been ruled to be against the Rule of The Law and the Spanish Constitution, yes? Who is going to jail for this? No one.

The constitution only matters when it matters to some.

That’s not an option, the rules of the European Convention on Human Rights – which protect this - stand above the spanish constitution.

I expect this will go further up to the European Court of Human Rights, and, like in previous cases where for example German law (and constitutional changes) conflicted with these protections, the European Convention on Human Rights will be ruled to stand above any national law or constitution.

No one here is discussing whether the referendum is legal or not, but you keep bringing this subject up. I am not Catalan or even Spanish, so I don't care a bit for it.

What's being argued here is that seizing the .cat TLD when a page registered in it was hosting "unlawful" content consists in pure and simple censorship. It would be similar to the US government taking control of the .com TLD because some website hosted on a .com domain is selling drugs. This is censorship.

To quote the article (which apparently you didn't read) again:

> Whether it's allegations of sedition or any other form of unlawful or controversial speech, domain name intermediaries should not be held responsible for the content of websites that utilize their domains. If such content is unlawful, a court order directed to the publisher or host of that content is the appropriate way for authorities to deal with that illegality, rather than the blanket removal of entire domains from the Internet.