On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:04:04 +0800, "John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm sorry, when you said "Don't do
it", I thought it referred to the last
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?
No, "don't do it" in the sense of don't do it. Linking to harassment
sites is forgivable the first time, because poeple might not know, but
it rapidly becomes unacceptable if pressed, because even if *they*
don't see it as harassing, *others* (specifically those harassed by
the site) may well do. I can be perceived as harassment without being
intended as such.
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.
In theory, yes. In practice I am still waiting for an example which
is not obviously unacceptale. I am also pointing out that the fact of
ED being the only site named in that ArbCom case absolutely does not
mean it's the only site covered, per the prinicples I quoted above.
Some people seem to think only ED is covered, I would say they are
wrong.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG