This conversation reminds me just how often we tend to "make the perfect the enemy of the good". Just because a proposed measure cannot completely resolve an issue or is only safely used black and white cases, which are unambiguous, does not mean it is not useful to implement it. Our entire approach to medicine is based on incrementally beneficial adaptations and on balancing potential harm with potential harm reduction. 

So, no, expecting search engines not to promote illegal download sites to the top of the list is not a perfect solution, and yes, it does carry with it the potential for the chilling of legitimate sites. However, to pretend that it's not possible to determine which sites are which in every case without serious investigation is a bit silly. And to permit the most egregious violators to continue reaping the benefit of search engine algorithms because we are afraid that some innocents will get caught in the net is also a bit extreme. We are not, after all, talking about implementing the death penalty.

In a perfect world, I would support complete freedom of expression on philosophical and moral grounds alone. But as the world is far from ideal, I prefer to take a more pragmatic view. And while I don't have the greatest of trust for the ethics of private entities when it comes to restrictions of rights, I also don't trust governments either. Neither should hold the monopoly of such restrictive power, and I think the potential harm is best reduced by dispersing that power among a large variety of different entities (both private and governmental) rather than refusing to do anything at all. But I realize there are plenty of other ways to look a things, and no one has, as yet, enough data to come up with the definitive answer.

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.