PervetedJustice.com- Online Vigilanateeism for the 21st century

[Drogue]

No it wouldn't be OK. Maybe in your morals, not in mine. Also, certainly in the UK, freedom of speech has it's limits. Personal details is one of those. Incitment to a criminal act is another.

Even if that site has a right to free speech, I still don't think what they are doing is ok. I think what they are doing is wrong because it is ruining peoples lives who've done nothing wrong. Whether they have a right to ruin their lives or not, I think what they are doing is wrong.

I partly disagree with it because of their incitment to harassment, partly because their disclosing private and personal information, but even without those I think persecuting people who have done nothing illegal is wrong.

Basically, releasing personal information would be illegal in this country, as would incitment. IMHO, the rest of it should be classed as private since it was in an instant messenger conversation, and the comments would count as harassment, and thus it should be illegal on those counts. Then on a purely moral level, I think persecuting someone for something that is not illegal is wrong. Whether or not you could make that part illegal, the site is wrong on many other counts too.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker
[q]Wrong. They are attracted to what they THINK is a young girl, so it IS paedophilia. If you showed me a hologram of a nude hot guy, and I couldn't tell it was a hologram (I thought it was real), and I was attracted to it, I WOULD STILL BE GAY, even though it wasn't "really" a hot nude guy.

A hologram has no mind. You can't converse with it, you can't hurt it, and you can't exploit it. And bringing in homosexuality to a paedophile anaology? You better hope MrFun doesn't see that.

We are talking about an internet chat, the physical bodies of the people participating are irrelevant. But even so, where a 14 year old to have a fully matured intellect you couldn't call it pedophelia in my mind, because it voids the negative reprecusions that such a relation could otherwise have.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
THe people on it are attempting to do something very harmful and very illegal.

Then arrest them. It's not for someone to be a vigilante and persecute them for it. If it's illegal, arrest and try them, but give them due process. This site offers no fair trial, and has no authority. If they've done nothing illegal, let them go.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Drogue

Then arrest them. It's not for someone to be a vigilante and persecute them for it. If it's illegal, arrest and try them, but give them due process. This site offers no fair trial, and has no authority. If they've done nothing illegal, let them go.

They aren't persecuting them for it. They're telling other people what they have done.

[Drogue]

And providing personal details. And asking them to ring up and insult them. And adding very biased commentary, stating at times that they want to do things that have not been mentioned in the chatlog. Suddenly because they're trying to score with an underage girl everything they've said is a lie. At least that's what the comments on many of the chatlogs seem to be saying.

[Kuciwalker]

Then arrest them. It's not for someone to be a vigilante and persecute them for it. If it's illegal, arrest and try them, but give them due process. This site offers no fair trial, and has no authority. If they've done nothing illegal, let them go.

It does let them go. The repercussions are PURELY SOCIAL. That is something that can not and should not be regulated.

[Kuciwalker]

We are talking about an internet chat, the physical bodies of the people participating are irrelevant. But even so, where a 14 year old to have a fully matured intellect you couldn't call it pedophelia in my mind, because it voids the negative reprecusions that such a relation could otherwise have.

SO WHAT? It doesn't MATTER, because all the site has to say is "we had this conversation with this person". If you don't think it is paedophilia, so be it. If other people do, that's their decision.

[Kuciwalker]

A hologram has no mind. You can't converse with it, you can't hurt it, and you can't exploit it.

You missed my point. My point is that this has NOTHING to do with reality and EVERYTHING to do with what the person actually thinks.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker

You missed my point. My point is that this has NOTHING to do with reality and EVERYTHING to do with what the person actually thinks.

What? But that's my point!

These people where talking to the mind of an adult, not a 14 year old. They where not seeking out children to molest or take advantage of. They where seeking out "children" which apparently had a fully developed mind and intellect.

[MrFun]

Holograms, pedohpiles and Internet users -- OH MY!!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by skywalker
It does let them go. The repercussions are PURELY SOCIAL. That is something that can not and should not be regulated.

So libel laws are wrong. Their repurcussions are purely social too. Harassment too: malicious phone calls, hate speech, signs in public that profess hate based on race, colour, creed, sexuality, etc. Should this all be legal? I, for one, am glad it isn't. Social repurcissions are, and should be, regulated against. That is partly why we have civil cases, when someone has been insulted by someone else.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by skywalker
SO WHAT? It doesn't MATTER, because all the site has to say is "we had this conversation with this person". If you don't think it is paedophilia, so be it. If other people do, that's their decision.

Yes, that is all the site has to say. However it isn't all the site is saying. As I've repeatedly said, it goes further. When they ask people to harass these people, they go further than merely telling people that they've had that conversation. Also, they state things in the comments that go further than just posting the chatlog.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by skywalker
"Telling the world to harrass somebody": so? The world doesn't have to comply, you know. If you have a conversation with a person, you can tell other people what that conversation was.

No, they don't have to, but if someone does, then you have participated in that crime. If you tell someone to do something and they do it, then you have had a hand in that. Otherwise how do you try a commander for telling soldiers to kill people, or a mafia boss for telling his associates to kill someone. There are laws against incitement.

Originally posted by skywalker
There is no way to make this illegal without making things that are OBVIOUSLY valid exercises of freedom of expression illegal too. And if something is "wrong", to you, SO WHAT? That's subjective and not something we can argue, so shut up and stop spouting nonsense.

You've spouted all along that they have a "right" to do it. WHo says so. Are we arguing about law of philosophy. If law, then yes, a right to do so means it is legal (though I disagree win this case). If we're talking philosophy or morals, then what I think is right or wrong does matter. All laws are are what society has decided is wrong. You keep spouting the same thing, that they have a right to free speech, well guess what, free speech has limits. And no everyone believes that total free speech is a good thing.

You've used your opinion of what "should" or "shouldn't" be the law, why can you do this, but when someone who disagrees with you says that they think something else "should" or "shouldn't" be the case. Why does it matter what you think is right or wrong? It's your opinion, and your free to argue it, just as mine is my opinion and I'm free to argue it. All this argument is is stating what we think and arguing about it. I stated what I thought was wrong and argued about it. What is your problem with that?