3 comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html
even though the Pirate Bay file-sharing website has no links with the political party.
ReplyDeleteNot entirely true. According to wikipedia, 'A former board member of the Pirate Party was Mikael Viborg, who is also known as the legal advisor of the popular BitTorrent tracker, The Pirate Bay.'
A cynic might suggest, given that it's possible voters were also influenced by the shock discovery, after the trial, of the judge's 'pro-copyright' links and the fact that there has been ongoing controversy, accusations of corruption and kowtowing to the US and so on, that the appeal process has been played out with more than the defendants' interests in mind.
the judge in the case was clearly biased. this is what you get when you violate basic human rights. the swedish people did the right thing voting for the pirate party and voicing their unhappiness!
ReplyDeleteLast Anonymous: Could you please substantiate on what grounds you base your allegation that the judge was biased?
ReplyDeleteI agree with CS Clark: the whole appeal was designed not so much with the actual legal case, as with this election campaign in mind.