PervetedJustice.com- Online Vigilanateeism for the 21st century

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Theben]

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...

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.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Well, actually they did get sued...

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Jac de Molay]

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.

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.

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.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by skywalker

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.

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?

[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?

[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.

As Laz said:

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.

[Drogue]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

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.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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?

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.