On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:45:59 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
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
it")
then shouldn't it be "is harassment" instead?
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 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?
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.
Johnleemk