Charles Matthews wrote:
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Criminal sanctions takes it a step higher of course, but it's a tool open to us and I think we should consider using it when we can and when it's appropriate. You're probably right that this isn't exactly the right case - but I still think it's quite shocking and damaging to our reputation to hear a fairly mainstream British magazine bragging about vandalism in this way.
Sadly, once a judge or jury member has understood that our complaining about vandalism is equivalent to complaining about someone driving off in your car when you left it unlocked and with keys in the ignition and with a sign on the bonnet saying "you can drive this car right now", our tally of successful civil actions may be low, and criminal actions can be forgotten.
See http://www.buzzle.com/articles/121121.html
The common sense of the situation is that we have to make our model of open editing work, rather than relying on the legal system to cover its deficiencies.
To be sure, anyone has the right to prosecute a losing case in the courts, and to make a laughing stock of himself. Advocating and proclaiming for a legal solution to a problem is a common tactic among incompetents who have never seen the inside of a courtroom. It is often associated with a lack of legal standing in the matter.
Ec