Do internet providers have to take the responsibility for child pornography?

Child pornography refers to a visual record of child sexual abuse. Child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and one of the fastest growing criminal segments on the Internet.
Several organizations all over the world want internet providers to block the spread of child porn. The organizations do not want the internet providers to take over tasks of the police, but they argue that the providers are morally obliged to help the police and the judiciary in their battle against child porn.

Some internet providers have already taken measures to block child pornography, but many other providers turn down the responsibility for what their clients spread over their channels. These internet providers call blocking child porn ‘censorship’. They argue that it is against the freedom of speech. They do not consider the fight of child porn as their task. They say that by filtering you only raise up a curtain and you cannot see what happens at the neighbors anymore. It would not stop the production of child porn.

In my opinion the internet provider are indeed morally obliged to do what they can in the fight against child pornography. First of all, child pornography is not protected under any free-speech guarantees. Moreover, it is not about restricting freedom, but about protecting the dignity of children. Second, it is illegal and hideous. Real children are victimized, first by the production of the material and later each time a photograph or movie is viewed. Third, filtering porn is better than doing nothing. Each time a video or photograph of a raped child enters a living room, you risk the spread of it. The curtain prevents exposure; that is why it pays off.

http://www.euronews.net/2009/04/17/german-internet-providers-say-stop-to-child-porn/


s708724

Sanlu Milk powder sickens Chinese babies!

The number of Chinese infants sickened by a batch of tainted milk powder increases rapidly. The Chinese Health Ministry authorities announced that more than 6200 babies had fallen ill, many developing kidney stones, as a result of drinking the contaminated milk. According to the authorities, at least three babies have died and more than fifty infants are in a serious and dangerous condition. This is not the end yet, the number of victims can still climb according to the China Daily.

The producer of the milk, the Chinese dairy giant Sanlu Group, has produced milk powder which was contaminated with melamine, a chemical used for making plastics. The New Zealand dairy cooperative Fonterra holds a 43% share in Sanlu and claimed that it already knew back in August 2008 that the milk powder was tainted. However,the Chinese authorities held off on announcing a public recall. The company has been waiting for the recall process which had to move through and approved by the Chinese System. On September 11, Sanlu announced a recall of all its milk powder products made before August 6. Unfortunately, in the mean time, the milk powder has caused severe harm to many sickened babies and their families.

Due to the fact that human beings are practical in nature (Dubbink 2009), we have a choice because we judge before we act. However, human beings are led by practical discourses. In this case, the economic discourse is dominant because Sanlu did not want to damage its profit and reputation which resulted in morally wrong behaviour.

This case raises several questions. Should the Chinese government have recalled the contaminated milk earlier rather than waiting? And what is the role of Fonterra? The firm already knew the milk powder was tainted but they did not take action to stimulate and drive the Chinese government to recall the toxic powder.

Another issue which could be answered can be formulated as follows: Is it morally right that this Chinese firm compromise on the quality and safety of their products in order to maximize their profits?


s646346


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1841535,00.html

What about Ethics in companies which are ‘too big to fail’?

Schaeffler is a German family-owned company manufacturer of car-parts and believed to create synergies in the automotive market by taking over another German car-parts manufacturer, Continental, which is about three times the size of Schaeffler! This takeover would lead to one of the biggest car-parts supplier in the world.
The way Schaeffler financed this takeover was by raising enormous amounts of debt, instead of issuing bonds for example, to buy Continental shares. On the one hand the tyre business of Continental was thought as so valuable that if Schaeffler could sell it, it could pay off a significant amount of debt. The other side of the story is that this operation is so risky it could fail in many ways.
In first many investors felt the offer of Schaeffler was too low but unfortunately for Schaeffler the stock market crashed and investors were eager to sell their shares, therefore Schaeffler ended up with almost all shares of Continental.
With the steep decrease in demand in the automotive market both firms are very vulnerable and Schaeffler asked the German government for a bail-out of the ‘national champion’. Without the bailout thousands of people will lose their jobs and Continental will not survive as the two operations of both companies are not yet integrated and benefit from synergies. The German taxpayers will eventually have to bear the burden of this irresponsible takeover.
Is it Ethical for governments to bail out companies which are too big to fail? On the one hand people keep their jobs and companies are still doing business which is good for economies, but on the other hand it could encourage managers to take risk because they know they will be saved and therefore gain advantages over competitors.

ANR 37 44 27

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13278374