I left Groklaw in part because of its blatant and ham-handed censorship.  For much the same reason I must sadly bid adieu to IPW.

Well.  This wasn't excatly ham-handed.  While it was blatant--it was blatant to an extreme in that Jeff has indicated exactly what he did and why he did it.

Certainly, one possible outcome is that people leave in droves.  (Don't know if you noticed, we haven't exactly been here in droves.)  Another is that ColonelZen or someone buys it lock, stock and barrel and it morphs into something different.

Yet another is that we circle the wagons and keep it going as best we can.  This last possibility would be far from easy, but certainly doable.

And, I don't know if you noticed or not, but Jeff in his story above practically screams for as many people as possible to start mirroring IPW.  And dont' forget that every comment here, with the exception of some very early ones, is posted subject to an CCL-attribution license.  That means that anyone wanting to mirror it and keep it going later with different rules or different responses to lawsuits is perfectly able to--in fact, if you go read some of our early comments as the site was first coming online, part of the reason for making the comments licensable that way was to make it easy for the site to survive a legal attack.  Unfortunately, where we failed was in not actively mirroring things ahead of time.

So, anyone who doesn't like the results of this can actually not just try starting their own site, but can actually start with this site and move forward from there.  (NOTE:  The very early comments were under a CCL attribution, non-commercial, I believe, though I have made statements, which I repeat here, indicating that all of mine are CCL attribution.)

I don't think there are many single-user run sites that are immune to take-down by a determined legal opponent.  Cryptome.org is the only one I can think of and by now they actually have some good legal support.