Personally, I have nothing against pornography. People can put up whatever they want on the Internet and it's really up to parents to protect their children.

However, I'm not sure the argument about money is a really compelling one. I think the ethical reasons of banning pornography and the possible benefits that we might be able to obtain from banning pornography is worth the money lost. The argument that we are restricting people's freedom of action and speech is a more compelling reason to question society's need to oppose pornography.

I do not think pornography teaches anything important about sex. (But feel free to prove me wrong. Lol.) For example, if I'm not wrong, pornographic scenes don't usually illustrate the use of contraceptives. Thus, I would argue that pornography would increase unwanted pregnancies. Pornography also doesn't inform people about the consequences of having sexual course or choosing your sexual partner carefully. Again, leading to more unwanted pregnancies.

http://peteashton.com/2006/10/infringing_the_bankster/

I came across this story some time back when Banksy's works were more popular. Banksy is the handle used by an anonymous graffiti artist in England. As with most graffiti artists, Banksy practices his art form on public property. His graffiti has become famous largely due to he's distinctive stencilled style and the political commentary he injects into his artworks. He has never been caught and to this day remains quasi-anonymous.

Here's his wiki for good measure, some of his pieces are really nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

The story I've linked above explains how this person was notified via a law firm about his copyright infringement on a photograph he took of a Banksy graffiti that he was trying to sell. Banksy had hired a law firm to protect the copyright of his graffiti artworks. Some of the issues surrounding this story are:

1) Graffiti is usually a form of vandalism and illegal. What kind of copyright do the artists of these works of art have?

2) Due to the illegal nature of graffiti, most graffiti artists remain anonymous to evade the law. Being anonymous, are these graffiti artists able to prove they executed the said piece of graffiti?

What if the following scenario were to come up: Banksy rides by my house in the middle of the night and decides to deface one of my garden walls with a picture of a rat in drapped with a Singapore flag. The graffiti attracts a lot of attention from the media and Mr. Mahathir comes down to my house and says he will pay me $1 million dollars if I were willing to let him remove the wall with the graffiti and install it in his house. What kind of rights would Banksy have over said transaction?

Summary: Some people may have heard of the Nigerian 419 scams that were very infamous quite a few years back. These scammers who supposedly operated out of Nigeria created elaborate stories and solicited for help through e-mails. Although the initial intention of the e-mail is to ask for help, subsequent correspondences usually result in the scammer requesting for monetary aid through wire transfer. This person, Mike, has taken it upon himself to declare war on these scammers, baiting them to believe that he would send money to them but in actual fact plays pranks on them. The pranks played range from telling silly stories and wasting the scammer's time to persuading the scammer to get tattooed in order to get the money. Question: Scams are, without a doubt, unethical and probably criminal activities. However, is the act of scamming a would-be scammer an ethical thing to do? Problem: Let's imagine a situation where the scammer and the scambaiter (the person scamming the scammer) are from the same country or even the same state, thus both parties would be subject to the same laws. If the scammer were to try and launch a scam and instead was scambaited into severe consequences (I think getting tattoed is quite severe), should the scambaiter be prosecuted by the legal system?