Strictly legal but ethically not. Credibility in the dust. But when the dust settles, people like these will just carry on.
But good thing that this is brought to public attention. It helps support the case for the proponents of better regulation of internet content to prevent abuse.
Total liberty is anarchy. Too much control is an infringement of personal freedoms but total freedom is open to so many abuses by unscrupulous people - many examples: pedophiles, scammers/thieves, predators, misrepresentations (or outward lies) about governments and countries, defamation of persons, etc. etc.
Regulation of internet content is where I disagree with some of my American pals, specifically the IT experts, who advocate continued freedom of the internet to prevent human rights abuses. They have very strong valid arguments for their views but there is the other side that is equally compelling.
IMHO a balance needs to be struck between the 2 compelling rationales and the legislators ought to get their act together. And by this, I mean coming together across borders - because the internet is across borders. It's been a few years and they still haven't got it together. MY, more or less, follows UK's example because of its historical links. The US is quite (ie. very) different.
/Btw, there's a common misunderstanding of the word "quite" - it doesn't mean "sort of" or "just a bit" different .. it means
1 : wholly , completely
2 : to an extreme : positively —often used as an intensifier with a
3 : to a considerable extent : rather http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quite
//End of English lesson for the day.
*****************************************
Don't want no drama,
No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama
Strictly legal but ethically not. Credibility in the dust. But when the dust settles, people like these will just carry on.
But good thing that this is brought to public attention. It helps support the case for the proponents of better regulation of internet content to prevent abuse.
Total liberty is anarchy. Too much control is an infringement of personal freedoms but total freedom is open to so many abuses by unscrupulous people - many examples: pedophiles, scammers/thieves, predators, misrepresentations (or outward lies) about governments and countries, defamation of persons, etc. etc.
Regulation of internet content is where I disagree with some of my American pals, specifically the IT experts, who advocate continued freedom of the internet to prevent human rights abuses. They have very strong valid arguments for their views but there is the other side that is equally compelling.
IMHO a balance needs to be struck between the 2 compelling rationales and the legislators ought to get their act together. And by this, I mean coming together across borders - because the internet is across borders. It's been a few years and they still haven't got it together. MY, more or less, follows UK's example because of its historical links. The US is quite (ie. very) different.
/Btw, there's a common misunderstanding of the word "quite" - it doesn't mean "sort of" or "just a bit" different .. it means
1 : wholly , completely
2 : to an extreme : positively —often used as an intensifier with a
3 : to a considerable extent : rather
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quite
//End of English lesson for the day.
*****************************************
Don't want no drama,
No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama