PervetedJustice.com- Online Vigilanateeism for the 21st century

[Kuciwalker]

But it's not a natural consequence of freedom of speech. If anything, it's an abuse.

By "natural consequence", I mean that the right to do this follows naturally from the right to freedom of speech (that is, it is covered by the right to freedom of speech). And how is it "abuse"?

There's a 'feminazi' website that snaps photos of people going into porn shops and posts their faceshot and license plate on the web accusing them of being rapists. Are you all OK with that, too?

Yes. That's their right. I think they're morons, but it's their right.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Slander? I was under the impression that truth was the ultimate defense in cases like that.

Do they tell the employers that the guy flirted with a 40year old man who was pretending to be 14 years old, or do they tell them he's a child molester?

[Kuciwalker]

IIRC libel is only illegal if you talk about a famous person (I forget what the Supreme Court case was). Anyway, the fact that people can lie doesn't justify removing their freedom of speech.

[Kuciwalker]

Also, the deathblow to the arguments here: how would you word that law that forbade this site, without having it also forbid other, (in you minds) legitimate uses of freedom of speech?

[General Ludd]

I'm not really talking about legality, I'm just saying that I think what they're doing is despeicable. I couldn't really care less what the law says about it.

And there's nothing I hate more then agruging about legal mumbo-jumbo, so i ain't gonna.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Osweld
Do they tell the employers that the guy flirted with a 40year old man who was pretending to be 14 years old, or do they tell them he's a child molester?

To follow with the example you set up earlier, the likely tell the employers that they were planning on meeting a 14 year old girl for sex. Which is true.

[Kuciwalker]

So it's "despicable". That's a PURELY subjective argument, and based totally on your own morality. Which means it isn't really an arguable topic in the first place.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel

Really? You think wrecking the lives of that many people, but possibly having more underage sex, creates more happiness than it destroys?

I fail to follow you.

I was merely asking why you think the utilitarian thing to do is to wreck these peoples lives, because they want to have consensual sex with an underage girl. In some cases it may be, but overall, I think it causes a loss of utility.

Originally posted by skywalker
The simple fact is that it is not vigilantism, it is not punishment, and it is a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE of freedom of speech.

They are losing out because of it, and that is the intention of the site. That is punishment. The site aims to punish these people for what they have done, even though it isn't illegal.

Originally posted by skywalker
Well, if I'm free to say what I want (excluding libel, which is a special case), then I am free to tell people "this guy said such and such to me and so I think he's a pedophile". The people who own the site are exercising their freedom of speech.

Yes, but his personal information is private unless he gives consent. Also, there are limits on free speech. Incitement, hate speech, libel and defamation for example. With posting just the chatlogs you may be right. However with the commentary and personal details it is beyond what is legal in this country.

[Whaleboy]

I'm not really talking about legality, I'm just saying that I think what they're doing is despeicable. I couldn't really care less what the law says about it.

So, you disagree with it, ergo, that site must be shut down?

To follow with the example you set up earlier, the likely tell the employers that they were planning on meeting a 14 year old girl for sex. Which is true.

God I feel like a natural born conservative!

[Kuciwalker]

They are losing out because of it, and that is the intention of the site. That is punishment. The site aims to punish these people for what they have done, even though it isn't illegal.

You are using a completely different definition of "punishment", it seems. Very well. Would you also be opposed to my friends and I excluding someone from our group because we didn't like that person? Do you think that should be illegal, too? Because that is what this is.

Yes, but his personal information is private unless he gives consent. Also, there are limits on free speech. Incitement, hate speech, libel and defamation for example. With posting just the chatlogs you may be right. However with the commentary and personal details it is beyond what is legal in this country.

If the person TELLS the other person the personal details in a non-personal setting, then they are public! Elijah has been saying this over and over, but you don't seem to get it.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
To follow with the example you set up earlier, the likely tell the employers that they were planning on meeting a 14 year old girl for sex. Which is true.

No, it's not, actually. They where planning on meeting an adult who was pretending to be a 14 year old girl.

The people who are doing this look for people. I don't care what you say, no one would contact them if they didn't advertise themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if their bio reads "14 year old, looking for older man" They lead the guys on, they flirt with them, they encourage them, and they assure them that an age difference does not matter and that they like to be with older men. And this is all being done in deception by an adult, so that he can get this persons phone number and address, and then proceed to stalk and harrass him.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


So, you disagree with it, ergo, that site must be shut down?

I said I wasn't talking abotu legality, ergo, I don't think it should be shut down.


I'm just saying that I think it's wrong - I'm giving my opinion on the matter, imagine that!

[Kuciwalker]

No, it's not, actually. They where planning on meeting an adult who was pretending to be a 14 year old girl.

Wrong. The person was planning to meet a 14-year-old girl. If a guy in the Air Force recieves intel that some building had Hussein in it, but it really had Michael Jackson, he would still be planning to bomb Hussein.

[General Ludd]

EDIT - Whoops, replied instead of edited.

[Whaleboy]

but overall, I think it causes a loss of utility

According to what version of utility (and upon what basis that version is set), and how it determines that loss?

They are losing out because of it, and that is the intention of the site. That is punishment. The site aims to punish these people for what they have done, even though it isn't illegal.

This is getting boring. Please define punishment.

Yes, but his personal information is private unless he gives consent.

If it is in a private conversation, and not copyrighted, one participant is free to use that info to his ends. That is both the law, and philosophically sound imo.