07-12-2003 01:03									#31
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by monkspider Reading the FAQ it sounds like someone has been kicked out of their house, one has lost his job, and three others have lost girlfriends over "busts" conducted on the site. All without any semblance of due process. The allegations leveled on the site are not things to be taken lightly.

"Due process"? Why would they need "due process"? This is freedom of assembly, pure and simple. As long as I don't break the law, I can be as mean and nasty to someone as I want - but they can be right back.

	07-12-2003 01:06									#32
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy I think its a great idea!! Its perfectly within their rights, both legally and morally, and since one is not beating the paedophile physically, it cannot be vigilantism either. Call it prudent citizenship. Since the paedophile has done nothing strictly illegal (to my knowledge, though I know this varies, but morally of course having a conversation is fine), getting the police involved, but ruining his life by legitimate means is ok by me! When one engages in a conversation on the internet, you are taking a risk that the person you are talking to isn't who they say they are. Part of that risk entails consequences such as these. If you want to **** little girls, then you should expect such consequences. I dont think its driving them underground as such. Its closing an avenue they use, and will also close the route to "evening" paedo's, young men who do it for a laugh. For such people, who are disturbingly common, such an approach should encourage a drink-drive social acceptability thing, where advertising and conseqences convince people that this is wrong. to the people that came up with this idea!

Wow, I agree COMPLETELY with elijah

I just came to this, and it is EXACTLY the same view as mine on the situation.

	07-12-2003 01:08									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay How is it not vigilantism? They're essentially doing things reserved for police task forces?

It would only be vigilantism if they convicted and sentenced a person. What you are saying is that me and my friends avoiding a person who is nasty to us is vigilantism.

quote: If he's done nothing strictly illegal, why is ruining his life legitimate?

Why isn't it? There is no law against telling the truth.

	07-12-2003 01:09									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp A British tabloid has already done a "name and shame" of paedophiles. As a result, at least one entirely innocent person had their house burnt down (they lived next door to the person named) and a Paediatrician was beaten up. Vigilate actions suck monstrously because people are too ****ing stupid to deal with them.

So the tabloid is responsible for the actions of OTHER PEOPLE? I don't think so.

	07-12-2003 01:13									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Social repercussions for actions can not and should not be regulated.

You might want to be a little more precise with that comment...

quote: So the tabloid is responsible for the actions of OTHER PEOPLE? I don't think so.

They CAN be if they're found to have incited people to act in such a manner.

btw, as I pointed out above, HARASSMENT is against the law.

	07-12-2003 01:14									#36
	Suffering from ads?

Well, actually they did get sued...

	07-12-2003 01:15									#37
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Theben They CAN be if they're found to have incited people to act in such a manner.

"Incited" is the key word here. If they are just spreading information, they cannot be said to be inciting something. Now if they say, "you should do illegal stuff to this person", then that would be illegal. Saying "this person likes children" is not.

	07-12-2003 01:18									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: This is freedom of assembly, pure and simple. As long as I don't break the law, I can be as mean and nasty to someone as I want -

Slander isn't protected speech. It would be real easy to completely demolish somebody's reputation on a site, and there would be pretty much nothing they could do about it after the damage was done.

quote: It would only be vigilantism if they convicted and sentenced a person. What you are saying is that me and my friends avoiding a person who is nasty to us is vigilantism

Uh, no. Vigilantism is anyone who conducts the roles and responsibilities of police work above the law- patrolling the streets, etc. That's effectively what the site is doing.

quote: Why isn't it? There is no law against telling the truth.

How do they know the "truth" is on their. They have a pretty flimsy basis for truth.

	07-12-2003 01:18									#39
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by skywalker quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay How is it not vigilantism? They're essentially doing things reserved for police task forces? It would only be vigilantism if they convicted and sentenced a person. What you are saying is that me and my friends avoiding a person who is nasty to us is vigilantism.

You have a strange (and erroneous) definition of "vigilantism." It doesn't mean copying police actions, it means taking matter normally reserved for law enforcement officials into one's own hands. Meting out a punishment for these actions, right or wrong, is still vigilantism.

quote: Why isn't it? There is no law against telling the truth.

What if they're not telling the truth? An unregulated site can say whatever it wants, as you point out. What if they target someone who is innocent because someone else maliciously targeted them?

	07-12-2003 01:19									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Spreading information? For what? Surely you don't think that every person who receives this information will just sit on it? What about the context?

	07-12-2003 01:39									#41
	Suffering from ads?

I have a problem with that site too. If it's not illegal, they shouldn't be naming and shaming them. Why not arrange to meet them at a hotel and have the police show up or something.

As Laz said:

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp Vigilate actions suck monstrously because people are too ****ing stupid to deal with them.

Leave the law up to the police and the legal system, not vigilantes that have a different agenda. If some politician wants to make soliciting like that illegal, then they may have a case, but what was said there was between two people and was legal. It should stay that way. If someone was interested in something kinky, that was legal, then that isn't the business of anyone else. If it's illegal, then they should be arrested for it.

Also, as Monkspider said, it seems that a lot of the people are 18-19 year old guys trying to pick up 14 year old girls. If they actually had sex, it would be illegal, sure, but they didn't.

However I'm not defending the actions of the people caught, but that sort of thing should be private, unless a law is broken. No law was broken, and that site is vigilante justice. Leave the justice up to the police and legal system, and if youn don't like it, reform the legal system. Other peoples morals, with the exception of the law, shouldn't have any place in an encounter between two people.

	07-12-2003 01:46									#42
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by skywalker So the tabloid is responsible for the actions of OTHER PEOPLE? I don't think so.

When they reveal the spent sentances of a person, yes. The sex register is private in the UK, with good reason. Many people cannot comprehend the idea of punishment repaying the debt to society, and thus that person is then free. Sure, the police keep tabs on them, in case of reoffences, but vigilante justice is just people trying to impose their morals onto others. We have a law to keep order, and to punish those that do something against the morals set down. It is not for other citizens to decide to take the law into their own hands, and punish people for something that is not illegal. That is what that site is doing, ruining peoples lives for something that is not illegal. If the law's wrong, change it. If not, then enforce it as it is, but don't have other people enforcing laws that do not exist.

	07-12-2003 01:55									#43
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay Slander isn't protected speech. It would be real easy to completely demolish somebody's reputation on a site, and there would be pretty much nothing they could do about it after the damage was done.

Slander is illegal, yes, and if they slander then they will be sued. However, they are completely with in their rights to tell the TRUTH.

quote: Uh, no. Vigilantism is anyone who conducts the roles and responsibilities of police work above the law- patrolling the streets, etc. That's effectively what the site is doing.

If I patrol the streets and arrest people then I am a vigilante. If I patrol the streets and point at a person who I see stealing from someone else and shout "theif!", I am not.

quote: How do they know the "truth" is on their. They have a pretty flimsy basis for truth.

They are posting a transcript of a conversation. Unless they MADE UP the transcript, obviously they know that they actually held that conversation.

	07-12-2003 01:58									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov You have a strange (and erroneous) definition of "vigilantism." It doesn't mean copying police actions, it means taking matter normally reserved for law enforcement officials into one's own hands. Meting out a punishment for these actions, right or wrong, is still vigilantism.

"Meting out punishmenst": this depends on your definition of a punishment, but it still doesn't contradict what I said. The police arrest and fine and/or imprison people. What is happening here is people are getting fired. Is it vigilantism if I catch an employee using crack on the job and so I fire him?

quote: What if they're not telling the truth? An unregulated site can say whatever it wants, as you point out. What if they target someone who is innocent because someone else maliciously targeted them?

As we've said before, slander is illegal. The fact that I can potentially slander someone, however, is NOT a justification for banning my speech.

	07-12-2003 02:00									#45
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Theben Spreading information? For what? Surely you don't think that every person who receives this information will just sit on it? What about the context?

So they can predict that their words may cause people to be violent. So what? It is not MY responsibility what other people do with what I say, unless I SPECIFICALLY INCITE THEM.

	07-12-2003 02:02									#46
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Drogue I have a problem with that site too. If it's not illegal, they shouldn't be naming and shaming them. Why not arrange to meet them at a hotel and have the police show up or something.

What if someone is nasty to me, so I tell lots of people, "this guy is a mean person, don't hire him." Would you also support banning that?

quote: Leave the law up to the police and the legal system, not vigilantes that have a different agenda. If some politician wants to make soliciting like that illegal, then they may have a case, but what was said there was between two people and was legal. It should stay that way. If someone was interested in something kinky, that was legal, then that isn't the business of anyone else. If it's illegal, then they should be arrested for it. Also, as Monkspider said, it seems that a lot of the people are 18-19 year old guys trying to pick up 14 year old girls. If they actually had sex, it would be illegal, sure, but they didn't. However I'm not defending the actions of the people caught, but that sort of thing should be private, unless a law is broken. No law was broken, and that site is vigilante justice. Leave the justice up to the police and legal system, and if youn don't like it, reform the legal system. Other peoples morals, with the exception of the law, shouldn't have any place in an encounter between two people.

They AREN'T ENFORCING THE LAW! They are merely creating social repercussions, PURELY social repercussions, for certain actions, and it is not the GOVERNMENT's right to police that!

	07-12-2003 02:05									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drogue When they reveal the spent sentances of a person, yes. The sex register is private in the UK, with good reason. Many people cannot comprehend the idea of punishment repaying the debt to society, and thus that person is then free. Sure, the police keep tabs on them, in case of reoffences, but vigilante justice is just people trying to impose their morals onto others. We have a law to keep order, and to punish those that do something against the morals set down. It is not for other citizens to decide to take the law into their own hands, and punish people for something that is not illegal. That is what that site is doing, ruining peoples lives for something that is not illegal. If the law's wrong, change it. If not, then enforce it as it is, but don't have other people enforcing laws that do not exist.

"Ruining someone's life": so WHAT?! THIS IS ALL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. If me and my friend's decide to exclude someone from everything we do, and it ruins that person's life, well, sucks for him, but THAT IS OUR RIGHT.

	07-12-2003 02:05									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

I do agree that this will deter paedphiles. If they go to the police, instead of publishing their detail, as well as make a nationwide campaign telling that there is someone walking around the web, and catching paedophiles, the effect would be immense in the regard that it would probably diminish online molesters by hundreds of percents.

	07-12-2003 02:13									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

You can't diminish anything with more than a hundred percent.

	07-12-2003 02:15									#50
	Remove this text

It's that CtP recycling plant error.

Bah. I deserve redicule for that stupid error. I won't edit it.

What I meant is by an order of magnitude, or two.

	07-12-2003 02:17									#51
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Sorry Azazel, couldn't help it. I know what you meant.

	07-12-2003 02:20									#52
	Remove this text

Sky: No-one is claiming the site's illegal. We're claiming it's morally reprehensible and that the people doing it are idiots. Can you defend their actions instead of just saying they have a right to do them?

	07-12-2003 02:27									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by skywalker What if someone is nasty to me, so I tell lots of people, "this guy is a mean person, don't hire him." Would you also support banning that?

If you publish his phone number, address, picture and tell people to call him and insult him, yes it should be banned. That's their private details. Telling someone such and such is a nasty person is fine. Posting their personal details with requests to harass them is not.

quote: Originally posted by skywalker They AREN'T ENFORCING THE LAW! They are merely creating social repercussions, PURELY social repercussions, for certain actions, and it is not the GOVERNMENT's right to police that!

They are enforcing their morals, not a law. That's my point. If they were enforcing a law it would be better. But their doing worse, their punishing people for something that isn't illegal.

There site states that wanting to sleep with young people is wrong. However it's not illegal. Neither is trying to. What is illegal is actually doing it. IMHO, those chatlogs should be private unless the person is breaking a law.

quote: Originally posted by skywalker "Ruining someone's life": so WHAT?! THIS IS ALL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. If me and my friend's decide to exclude someone from everything we do, and it ruins that person's life, well, sucks for him, but THAT IS OUR RIGHT.

If your friends decide to beat him up, or harass him, that is illegal. That is what this site is set up to do. It asks people to ring their numbers and harass them. If it provided the chatlogs, without anything else, it would be more acceptable, but with the consdierable bias and the incitement of harassment (sure, they ask people not to attack them, but ask people to phone and insult them).

IMHO, a private conversation with someone is private, and should remain so without the consent of both parties. Moreover, this site is obviously trying to name and shame people for something that is legal. I think what goes on in a bedroom between people is no business of anyone else unless it is illegal. What those people are doing is not illegal.

Also, with the considerable bias that site uses, it could easily face a defamation or libel suit.

	07-12-2003 02:28									#54
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Buck Birdseed Sky: No-one is claiming the site's illegal. We're claiming it's morally reprehensible and that the people doing it are idiots. Can you defend their actions instead of just saying they have a right to do them?

Therein is the point. Duh, sky.

	07-12-2003 02:37									#55
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I think it's a good idea AS LONG AS the people running the site GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to verify the identity of the person they are going after

Like somebody mentined, I could totally see somebody who had a grudge against someone else impersonating them in an attempt to get them in trouble

	07-12-2003 02:39									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Therein is the point. Duh, sky.

You are complaining about what they are doing, and saying that they are doing something that they aren't. I'm defending them.

	07-12-2003 02:39									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I'm not just a somebody!

	07-12-2003 02:42									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by skywalker You are complaining about what they are doing,

One aspect of it, yes. Was that ever an issue?

quote: and saying that they are doing something that they aren't. I'm defending them.

When did I accuse them of doing something they weren't doing? Not I, sir.

	07-12-2003 03:02									#59
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Some of you really are naive about the pure intentions of people. It makes a person feel good to think that these evil people are being harrassed but you don't see the collaterial damage that these website operaters cause. They aren't answerable to anyone, they do as they please and that in of itself is a bad thing. That is the problem with people who take the law into their own hands. The "im going to save the world complex" usually causes more harm than good. Is it worth destroying and innocent life to embarass a few? No one here is defending pedophiles, but I'm just as afraid of people with agendas as I am pedophiles praying on children.

	07-12-2003 03:03									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: When did I accuse them of doing something they weren't doing? Not I, sir.

The whole vigilantism thing.

quote: Some of you really are naive about the pure inentions of people. It makes a person feel good to think that these evil people are being harrassed but you don't see the collaterial damage that these website operaters cause. They aren't answerable to anyone, they do as they please and that in of itself is a bad thing. That is the problem with people who take the law into their own hands. The "im going to save the world complex" usually causes more harm than good. Is it worth destroying and innocent life to embarass a few? No one here is defending pedophiles, but I'm just as afraid of people with agendas as I am pedophiles praying on children.

Well, as there is nothing we can do about it socially or legally, why bother?