My question still remains. Who wouldn't take JacktheRipper.com or AlCapone.com? And tell me how there is a difference.
History vs. the here and now.
Give folks time to grieve, heal, mourn. That is what
seems to be the proper thing to do.
However, I understand that those who are detached from this emotionally and personally have no qualms regarding cashing in on this.
Is it morally wrong?
If I to go around selling T-shirst "Cho Missed Me", is that morally acceptable?
What do you think would happen to me should I go to VT campus and set up a booth hawking my shirts.
What would be different from this concept of cashing in, being opportunistic and capitalistic than regging domains and promoting and cashing in on the tragedy?
The internet makes it impersonal, detachable, without face, without regard, without respect, without morals. The internet has no conscious. It simply exists for what it is.
That's the difference. There is not a soul on this planet that would go to that campus at this very moment and physically set up a booth promoting their site for all to visit and profit from.
There is not a person alive that would walk through the crowd at Virginia Tech holding up and waving shirts "JUMP or DIE" in the air like a carnival atmosphere.
We're commenting on one domain name of many, one person of many. This particular person is in Texas. No personal attachment, distance, the domain name simply exists on the internet. "ISMAILAX" t-shirts and bumper stickers being handed out in the crowd of Virginia Tech students and supporters.
Rather than ask what is morally acceptable, let's ask what is morally unacceptable? None of us has the balls to go to that campus right now and preach to them what is morally acceptable or hand out t-shirts as such. None of us have the balls to physically look these people in the face and tell them to get over it, theres nothing you can do, been there, done that, got the shirt.
But sitting at a computer screen half around the planet if it was India, or Korea, or Spain where it was regged, many are saying it is no different than the media promoting the tragedy. Wow, there's a huge difference.
Lets pretend the internet exists on August 1, 1966 and it is the day of the University of Texas tower sniper and he has just killed 14 people and wounded 31 and he himself was killed by the police. The night before, he killed his wife and mother. Doubtful this resident in Texas would have the balls or even the fortitude or would have come out of shock quick enough to register a domain name. It would be someone in Virginia. And who was this shooter? How many web sites are devoted to him and generating money?
Everyone is correct...if not him, then someone else. It is perhaps in a twisted way "morally" acceptable by todays standards to rush to register. I guess society defines and re-defines what is acceptable by todays standards and some of those standards appear to be being defined and re-defined in this very thread.
Regarding domains, anything goes. We have no personal attachment to it. We can impact and effect the story line, the emotions, and the lives of those involved without making personal contact. So I guess there is an entirely different standard and characterization defining morals when it comes to the internet. That moral seems to be, "I hope no one beats me to it".
