| >> it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist > 1. Person A hits Person B. > 2. Person B hits Person A in return. > Is it ok that Person B hit Person A? More like 1. Investigative journalist investigates interesting and valid story about widely-used website. 2. Person B running the website hits investigative journalist. 3. Person B also hits me and thousands of others by nonconsentually recruiting my computer into a botnet. > I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call DDoS to a blog an “attack”. I don't think so, so it sounds like between us two, there's no consensus either way. Law enforcement and the courts are more authoritative than both of us, though, and they don't think so, either. > I think the users of the service would in general not mind taking part Hi, user of the service here. I mind, and I think most users would mind their computer being recruited into a botnet that attacks journalists to settle personal vendettas, too. |