Oh come on, you're just being disingenous now. "First they came for the pedophiles" "First they came for the muderers"
Today's society is to worried about offending someone to acknowledge the fact that YES there are univseral rights and universal wrongs. That is not to say that there isn't a difference between premeditated murder and self defense but it is perfectly acceptable to say that Premeditated Murder is ALWAYS wrong, even if for some reason it isn't illegal. In this case spamming is ALWAYS wrong. Again you need to allow for definitions. Asking to receive announcements from Dell and then having Dell follow you is on thing. But having someone autofollow you with 800 different PC resellers becasue you posted a tweet saying "look at the great deal #Dell has today" is WRONG. Emotional and personal beliefs SHOULD have a place in legal context and largely do in our society (read up on Jury nullification if you're interested) As another extreme example: Datamining Myspace (if it's possible I've never worked with it) for 12 year olds names and addresses etc... COULD have a purposeful use in advertising but if your $12 product is being used by 99% of people to find children to attack then your product is WRONG and needs to come off the market. On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Charles<charles.r.dil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I love how in this discussion people keep trying to bring emotion and > personal beliefs into a legal context. > > So he made a tool for spammers. What does that have to do with > anything? > > "First they came for the Spammers and I didn’t speak up, because I > wasn’t a Spammer." > *SNIP*
