CodeRed should attack "dirty" sites

[Futzelman]

Instead of hitting on companies that have earned their keep, I suggest that all Hackers focus their energies on Racias Hate sites, sites that suggest violenceas a slution and child sex sites!
I can see how a denial attack is fun, but come on, if you are doing it, it may as well serve a good purpose.

Futzel

[SickPup404]

That sounds like shakey ground to me... Who would define the sites? What about free speech? Sounds like if you carry that logic out to the Nth degree that it's OK to be a vigilante...

Besides, maybe the author(s) of CodeRed ARE attacking sites they deem "dirty"...

That's it from me on this subject...

[edit - speeling erros.]

[This message has been edited by SickPup404 (edited 08-08-2001).]

[Futzelman]

I see your point, but child pornography and enticing people to kill somebody?

[GroundZero3]

Racias Hate sites, sites that suggest violenceas

Um..... Ever heard of the first admendment? Yeah even know i don't like violence or racial sites towards they do have the right to create and manage these sites.

Sorry man

JaYsin

[Futzelman]

So why can't I go to a movie and scream FIre so that everybody freaks out? The answer is because I am hurting people.
I understand the first amendment, but I also like the word Social RESPONSIBILTY, after all, there are 5 billion peope in the World and we have to think what is in the best interest of everybody...we dont live in the Wild West anymnore

[F4_Hunter]

Things like racism and violence are simlpy ideas. And when you begin to decide what ideas are good for eveyone your getting yourself into trouble.

F4

[This message has been edited by F4_Hunter (edited 08-08-2001).]

[YMK]

I agree. You can't shut something down because you don't like it. You have a right NOT to visit those sites. You don't like those sites, don't visit them. It's nobody's place to tell people what they can say or not say. It's a free country. If you want to hack the site, go ahead. Just don't expect support from the government. It might seem like a good idea at first. But once we start lowering the bar on the first ammendment, there's no telling where it will end up.

[GroundZero3]

there are 5 billion peope in the World and we have to think what is in the best interest of everybody

i don't have to do jack ****. i am my own person and my life is my life. i do think about others but you to post that i have to do something to please other people is absurd! i used to have a web site that alot of people loved and thought it was funny and many people found it offended. you think i care if those people liked my site who sent me hate mail? no.

Eventually the people creating child site will hopefully get busted and get whats coming to them. but you can not limit racial and violence sites. you don't like them then don't go!

/rant mode off

JaYsin

[samwichse]

The best quote I ever heard on the subject:

"The first amendment was created to protect the ideas we hate"

Don't know who said it though.

[Mr.Goodbytes]

Sure you have freedom of speech involved here. But this wouldn't be a law enforcement action taken against those sick sites, it would simply be others exercising their right to free speech in showing their disgust for the message those hate sites deliver. It'd be like someone taking a hose and dousing a burning cross that those losers light when they have their gatherings. So what the hackers would be doing technically wouldn't be legal, but it most certainly would be positive and helpful. As a wise man once said: Lisa, two wrongs make a right.

[socalgal]

Regarding the issue of child pornography, it IS indeed illegal and, as such, there are no "rights" to protect criminal acts of distribution on the Internet of such material under any amendment that I know of.

LAWS AND LEGISLATION - Exploited Child Unit (http://www.missingkids.com/html/ncmec_default_ec_chldporn_laws.html)

Investigators Bust the Biggest Child Pornography Ring in History (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/080801_nw_porno_ring_arrest.html)

Copyright © 2001 KABC-TV and the Associated Press. Last Updated: Aug 8, 2001.

Latest I heard is, the webmaster/owner (Thomas Reedy) has been convicted and sentenced to life in prison and his wife, Janice, to 14 years. It's been announced that the authorities will be also be going after the ±250,000 subscribers to the various sites indicted.



[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 08-09-2001).]

[NDC]

Moved to SysOpt.community