You may say the DMCA is a bad law. I'm inclined to agree. And if you choose to violate a bad law and risk the consequences, you'll be in some heroic company. But demanding that someone else, like Digg, violate the law and risk the consequences in your place seems a bit low.
Well, it's very simple: digg has two options, either fight, or shut down.
They've empowered their users, and their users have informed them in no uncertain terms that they will not accept censorship.
That doesn't mean that they have to fight, merely that if they want their community to remain largely as it is, they cannot censor. As the saying goes, they can't "have their cake and eat it too"
