Slashdot Mirror
Political Cybersquatting Or Free Speech?
Although plenty of people have purchased politically linked domain names as a form of protest in the past, now they're being used as part of organized campaigns. In Maryland's 8th district Congressional race, Republican candidate Charles R. Floyd purchased three domain names (VanHollen2004.com/net/org) that one might think would represent Democrat incumbent Rep. Chris Van Hollen. Instead, these sites carry criticism and a bit of mockery. Floyd says Van Hollen should've registered these domain names himself, and previously used the same tactic in the primary. Is this cybersquatting, or is it a fair expression of political speech?
If it's a Democrat doing this to a Republican, then it's good. If it's a Republican doing it to a Democrat, then it's bad.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
This was recently done in the UK, when the Labour Party purchased three URL's, involving the name of the leader of the Conservative party.
This is ethically and politically acceptable. You see, the rule is, that if a left-leaning group does this, it should be tolerated because any means justifies the righteous intentions of the compassionate. (It also aptly demonstrates how much more clever they are than their lame conservative counterparts.) But since the motivations and goals of the Conservatives are nefarious, people-hating, etc. they should be held to a separate standard. One standard for the good and enlightened; another for the evil. I know it's counter-intuitive and seems irrational, but just chant it to yourself for a while...
Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley
This is the worst kind of squatting as it is deliberately being used to disinform voters. He should be jailed and fined. Trust me, that's what he'd be calling for if the situation was the opposite...