On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:45:59 +0800, "John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gmail.com>
> Not really. See the principles in the MONGO
arbitration. Linking to
> harassment sites may be considered harassment. Don't do it.
"may be"? If we shouldn't link to
them at all (as implied by "Don't do
then shouldn't it be "is harassment"
Wikilawyering. There may be theoretical cases where it is defensible,
this is not one of them.
I'm sorry, when you said "Don't do it", I thought it referred to the
action you mentioned - "Linking to harassment sites". I suppose it would
have been clearer if you said "Linking to harassment sites with the intent
of harassing someone", but then the tautology would have become very
obvious, wouldn't it?
What I'm trying to say is, the proponents of a blanket ban on linking to
attack sites, without regard for the intentions of those linking to said
sites (and/or assuming that those who link to such a site must obviously be
acting in bad faith) are not going to get very far, because as even you
acknowledge, this sort of blanket ban is ridiculous.