There is a link to a site that mentions serval cases of spoofing and mis-representation in websites. A site that is an attempt to con people into mis-representing what they are seeing indeed is a candidate for "limit on freedom", or at least a lawsuit. Or do you think it might be humorous to buy a box labelled cereal and find a dead rat in it?
There is a link to a site that mentions serval cases of spoofing and mis-representation in websites. A site that is an attempt to con people into mis-representing what they are seeing indeed is a candidate for "limit on freedom", or at least a lawsuit. Or do you think it might be humorous to buy a box labelled cereal and find a dead rat in it? That's the argument the president tried to use, but he ran into a couple of problems. First, his campaign had already purchased many negative domain names (bushsucks.com) and redirected them to his campaign site. Thus, if gwbush.com was guilty, the Bush campaign was much more so. More importantly, the site was a parody, and as such, was justified in using the domain name. The Bush campaign's arguments were tossed out of court without so much as a trial.