Linked by David Adams on Mon 18th Oct 2010 17:19 UTC, submitted by fran
Permalink for comment 445818
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-19
i can't even understand how this can be questioned. I take a spray and I write/draw offending content on the blind of a shop and it is the shop owner who has to affront legal consequences?
I think with websites the approach is the same: if they have enough resources to erase offending user-generated content that, furthermore, has been found by others, ok: they rather should erase it. otherwise, not only is potentially unfeasible (nice oxymoron or something here), but deeply unfair.