Darrell Hair with Inzamam-ul Haq during the Oval Test match. (Reuters)

Nothing makes the blogger blood boil like a ban. Or even the prospect of it. Pakistan skipper Inzamam-ul-Haq’s fate hangs in the balance for crossing the boundary line — and not coming back for a while — while protesting the “ball tampering verdict” by Darrell Hair at the Oval, prompting fans across the globe to pad up for him on the Net.

In a post titled “ICC: The White Commonwealth” at (http://www.cricket.mailliw.com) Will writes: “Whatever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’? If you assume the International Cricket Council to be the court, or the judge, then Pakistan is the party being tried. But without evidence, surely this incident should not have progressed to its current state so quickly? Pakistan hasn’t so much been tried as convicted...”

Thyaga (http://thyaga-susmita.blogspot.com), in the same vein, observes: “I think Hair’s decision reflects more of a policeman attitude rather than of a judge.”

Aditya Nataraja (http://mysorean.blogspot.com) also has a bone to pick with the ICC. “I pity those spectators who spent money to watch a cricket match… (but) were shown a diplomatic and political match. After two hours of waiting, there was an announcement saying it was the end of play… What a pity!”

From the playing fields to the drawing rooms. The online argument against moral policing by government — watch this on TV, not that — is just as cogent.

“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it” — Uncommon Common Man (http://worldofindia.blogspot.com) uses this Mark Twain epigram to begin his post against the bar on adult content on cable television. He, however, concedes that “regulation of television content is a reality in most countries… In the US, for instance, broadcast stations are prohibited from airing adult content from 6 am to 10 pm.” But then, “consumers have a choice of getting adult content by subscribing to several pay channels, which are freely available”.

The government move has stirred Ergo’s (http://ergosum.wordpress.com) passion deep enough for him to question the Constitution’s “attempts to codify an unlimited number of rules of behaviour in an infinite number of concrete situations”. “India is a primitive tribalistic society that’s being dragged out kicking and screaming into the light of modern civilisation and it does not know how to deal with the bright lights. So, very often it shuts its eyes in desperate attempts to remain in the darkness that it is so comfortable in. (Sigh) I have got to get out of this place as soon as possible,” is his gloomy conclusion.