<sarcasm>RIGHTS rights RIGHTS rights RIGHTS rights RIGHTS rights</sarcasm>
**** me but if I'm not sick of people dribbling about their 'rights'.
By default no one has any rights to anything at all unless explicitly stated in their constitution or law.
Freedom of speach is probably the worst offender, I hate how people keep trying to apply their own beliefs or countries laws upon others. In Australia as an example, much unlike the US constitution there is nothing in ours that explicitly states we have a right here to freedom of speach, we generally assume so and I hear the general public ranting about it here all the time, but I wonder if they are aware there is nothing legally that would prevent our Government if they should so choose to outlaw freedom of speach all together.
The problem with natural law s|k is that it still requires some body of power to uphold it, which in most cases are the majority, but can sometimes also be who has the biggest guns. Strip away this body of power though and you essentially have anarchy, which to be honest I feel is humandkinds more natural inclination than any form of universal social contract.
Anyway, to comment on the original post, I see no problem in what Yahoo has done, they are a business like any other of course they will be inclined to protect their assets. They operated within the countries laws & traditions so quite frankly get over it. We can try to make examples of these companies but I'm positive Google or anyone else would have done the same. Those that think there is any sort of privacy on the internet should get off now, they clearly don't know how it works.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by skiddy
I'm not a real patriot though, I'm Australian
|
In the words of the late Pauleen Hanson - "Please explain?"