I can understand your sentiment. No one want their work or knowledge to be misconstrued and mininterpreted in a way other than intended. However I don't think that links being "in context" can be an appropriate standard. First because context is vague and has no definition that can be objectively applied to all situations. Determining the validity of a link based on context may also lead to repression of free speach. If I want to link to a paper because I beleive it supports the notion that Slashdot is run by a group of psychadelic (sp?) cows I should be able to do so regardless of whether or not the articles author intended it in that context. The beleif oulined above may be wrong but (at least in America) I still have a right to speak in defense of that beleif.
A context requirement for linking would likely have a cripling effect on search engines as they typically provice information about only one page at a time. In my opinion search engines make the web usable as an information source. Without them there is simply to much information to look through to find what you are looking for.
In your last sentence you remak that another site might "lead people into thing [old content] is current." This highlights one great paradoxes of the internet. Vast amounts of data are available but large portions of it are not trustworthy. When an individual shops in the internet maketplace of ideas they must be critical. While deliberatly misleading visitors to your website is reprehensible we all have a responsibility to be objective and careful when getting information from the web.
Spazmania is correct in his assessment of the situation. However, it should be noted that the ruling did not preclude a search warrant ever covering the material in question. Rather the court sought to set a standard for when such a search warrant would be valid. My reading of the case (IANAL or a Law Student) indicates that the to receive a valid warrant for these types of materials the police would have to show that the value of obtaining the evedence outweighs the possible chilling effects on free speach and that the information sought cannot be obtained by other legal means. The court found that the warrant issued in this case failed both portions of the test. Since a working meth lab was found the court decided that identifying the purchaser of the books in question (which analysis indicated had never been opened - see the Court's conclusion) did not outweigh the chilling effects on free speach. The city primarily wanted to know if one of the involved parties had purchases the books to link them to the meth lab. The court conlcluded that since all other forensic options had not been exhausted the city failed to show that the suspect in question could not be connected to lab without the purchase records from the Tattered Cover.
The Slashdot community is very diverse. There are people here who are pro gun and people who are anti gun. A blanket statement about "most Slashdotters" is almost always misleading. Despite disagreeing with your generalization, I think you have unearthed an important issue: How does a society determine which PRODUCTS are "bad"? The answer to how people can be pro-Kazaa and anti-gun lies in this question. Allow me to illustrate, in the United States explosives are highly regulated. Despite this extensive regulation there are few vocal opponents to this regulation. Why? Becuase society deems the unrestricted possesion of explosives to have little redeeming value. Since there are few opponents to these regulations there is little controversy over them. As we all know there is much controversy over guns and file sharing software. The reason for this is that there are vocal proponents both for or against these items. The contraditon that you noticed, is in my opinion, not a contradiciton at all. Instead it merely shows that different people perceive the ownership of various items to have differing value.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand your sentiment. No one want their work or knowledge to be misconstrued and mininterpreted in a way other than intended. However I don't think that links being "in context" can be an appropriate standard. First because context is vague and has no definition that can be objectively applied to all situations. Determining the validity of a link based on context may also lead to repression of free speach. If I want to link to a paper because I beleive it supports the notion that Slashdot is run by a group of psychadelic (sp?) cows I should be able to do so regardless of whether or not the articles author intended it in that context. The beleif oulined above may be wrong but (at least in America) I still have a right to speak in defense of that beleif.
A context requirement for linking would likely have a cripling effect on search engines as they typically provice information about only one page at a time. In my opinion search engines make the web usable as an information source. Without them there is simply to much information to look through to find what you are looking for.
In your last sentence you remak that another site might "lead people into thing [old content] is current." This highlights one great paradoxes of the internet. Vast amounts of data are available but large portions of it are not trustworthy. When an individual shops in the internet maketplace of ideas they must be critical. While deliberatly misleading visitors to your website is reprehensible we all have a responsibility to be objective and careful when getting information from the web.
Spazmania is correct in his assessment of the situation. However, it should be noted that the ruling did not preclude a search warrant ever covering the material in question. Rather the court sought to set a standard for when such a search warrant would be valid. My reading of the case (IANAL or a Law Student) indicates that the to receive a valid warrant for these types of materials the police would have to show that the value of obtaining the evedence outweighs the possible chilling effects on free speach and that the information sought cannot be obtained by other legal means. The court found that the warrant issued in this case failed both portions of the test. Since a working meth lab was found the court decided that identifying the purchaser of the books in question (which analysis indicated had never been opened - see the Court's conclusion) did not outweigh the chilling effects on free speach. The city primarily wanted to know if one of the involved parties had purchases the books to link them to the meth lab. The court conlcluded that since all other forensic options had not been exhausted the city failed to show that the suspect in question could not be connected to lab without the purchase records from the Tattered Cover.
The Slashdot community is very diverse. There are people here who are pro gun and people who are anti gun. A blanket statement about "most Slashdotters" is almost always misleading. Despite disagreeing with your generalization, I think you have unearthed an important issue: How does a society determine which PRODUCTS are "bad"? The answer to how people can be pro-Kazaa and anti-gun lies in this question. Allow me to illustrate, in the United States explosives are highly regulated. Despite this extensive regulation there are few vocal opponents to this regulation. Why? Becuase society deems the unrestricted possesion of explosives to have little redeeming value. Since there are few opponents to these regulations there is little controversy over them. As we all know there is much controversy over guns and file sharing software. The reason for this is that there are vocal proponents both for or against these items. The contraditon that you noticed, is in my opinion, not a contradiciton at all. Instead it merely shows that different people perceive the ownership of various items to have differing value.