Reviewing the Oxford Dictionary of English, censorship does not require that the censor is governmental.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 09:41:20AM -0500, John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP > wrote: > > See, now this is actually censorship. > > No, it's not. > > It's odious, stupid, and pointless, but it's not censorship because > NetSol is a corporation, not a government. Their customers have > freely chosen to enter into contracts stipulating whatever one-sided > terms-of-service NetSol has this week and to thereby subject themselves > to the inconsistent, bungled enforcement of same. (I'm sure NetSol's > landsharks have already made certain that this action is consistent with > those contractual provisions. IANAL, but the excerpts I've seen boil > down to "we can do whatever we want whenever we want and no, we don't > have to inform you or explain it to you or give you your money back.") > > Astute followup traffic on IP suggests that NetSol has more of a problem > with websites about movies than with websites that actually advocate > killing people. I'll suggest that anyone using NetSol for domain > registration, DNS, or hosting is clueless. > > ---Rsk > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. >
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
