Quote:
Originally posted by Milkdude99
ICQ is a piss poor example because it is a "chat program" and we are not talking about a Chat program....something you fail to see is , they provided the "means " for the "tools " they used in a illegal activity, this in itself makes them responsible, by allowing the link to the tools they need to hack Graal and gave out info on the ports which is also illegal...
|
"They" the ones who posted the tools and ports was VIPER. Not SG111.
Read that over and over... please...
Quote:
Originally posted by Milkdude99
To run a responsible journalistic site to post "freedom of speech" you must also take responsiblity for it's content to make sure what is there is first "true and accurate " and not slanderous .. for this will make them responsible in a court of law as spreading malious slander..As the same goes for a newspaper , that is why they have a legal dept to guard the paper from this kind of thing. If a paper willingly prints lets say "top secret papers " of the Goverment something that will harm the defense of that country, do you still say they have the right because of "free speech?" Of course not
|
Of course YES. The whole point of a newspaper is to give information to the public. If they can get there hands on the information, then they print it. There are no ethics in the media. Do not tell me that there are, the only place where you see ethics is on the Disney shows full of queers. In this case, it would be the countrys fault for allowing those papers to get out. The way the paper got them though was probally illegal, inless the country's management was made up of ****ing gummy bears. The news paper would get in trouble for abtaining the documents illegally but not for posting them.