Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
my morality is governed by the principle your rights end the second mine begin and vice versa. A solution that lives within that scope is moral, one that does not is immoral.
My morality does not change from one situation to the next. IT not about absolute freedom, it has everything to do with giving everyone equal freedoms.
what you are missing about the virtual porn example is i did not say you should get convicted for all the legal transactions just for the 1 time it was used in the illegal way.
That perfectly matches your
....
if you choose to not do a complete background check on every purchaser to see if they have any pedo characteristic are you any less responsible for the crime as a torrent tracker who doesn't do checks to see if the seeder in question is actually bought the content. when the infringement occurs both should suffer the liablity for their choice sure you can say that the second happens more often but that just means that they get convicted more times under this new rule.
|
If you
know a crime is happening, then you do not need any precautional investigation. It just happens, and the only way to prevent it, is by not allowing it. But if you say go ahead, then it
will happen more often. If a website is contributing to millions of criminal acts each day, and 90% of the activity is illegal, wouldn't it be wise to consider shutting down the website instead of going the opposite way and end up in jail?
Everyone should have equal freedoms, yes, but it makes no sense to talk about equality of something that is not a freedom. Others property is not a freedom for you to have unless they give it to you by free will, or majority decide so. Acting criminal will not change that. Only your given freedom of speech can. That is called democracy, and even
if the swedish judge was taking side, he would still represent the majority.